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!

Interesting perspectives

coachn

Coach John S. Nagy
Premium Member
...Either way, I think we agree the primary work of Freemasonry is not learning ritual, but using it as a tool (and anything else honest) for self improvement.
I'll default back to description, not prescription here.

The primary work of Freemasonry is to make more members (and I call these members "Freemasons"). This has been its goal since day one when the PGL came into being and franchised out its version of plays. To do this it must train members to act so they can recreate plays that give paying patrons what they believe they are paying for.

Although Freemasonic organizations have all sorts of rules, guidelines, traditions and principles that they espouse ad nausea, they have no actual program for self-improvement, much less any quality control system that enforces improvement sans moral watchdogs that are trained more by their own religious upbringing than missing organizational programs. In truth, The society only has programs that enforce systems that make more members.

The self-improvement outlines hidden within Freemasonry's rituals and lectures, and that are espoused by it each time a paying patron received a ritual, are not recognized as self-improvement outlines, not understood as self-improvement outlines, and are not applied as self-improvement outlines.

Furthermore, if a sane soul took a look at the guidelines, restrictions, and rules that applied to stonecraft masonic apprentices to move them to fellow craft and compared them to what freemasonic apprentices are required to do to move from apprenticeship to fellow craft, it would be clear to the comparator that the two processed would not have near next to any similarities whatsoever, even when the operative/speculative claims were applied.

Let's be clear:
  1. Masonry (Stonecraft) cultivated maturity in apprentices and trained them in a trade that allowed them to Travel, Work, Earn, Support and Contribute Masterfully.
  2. Freemasonry (Acting; Role-Playing) cultivates memorization, reenactment and playing parts.
I do not see that we agree that "the primary work of Freemasonry is not learning ritual, but using it as a tool (and anything else honest) for self improvement...". If anything, what you describe to be Freemasonry's primary work is more akin to what stonecraft masonry did for those who apprenticed themselves to that trade.

Freemasonry talks a great game. But when you are action sensitive, and do not get hypnotized by its sweet words, it is clear that it does not support the self-improvement to which it alludes.

IMO
 
  • Like
Reactions: GKA

Ripcord22A

Site Benefactor
I'll default back to description, not prescription here.

The primary work of Freemasonry is to make more members (and I call these members "Freemasons"). This has been its goal since day one when the PGL came into being and franchised out its version of plays. To do this it must train members to act so they can recreate plays that give paying patrons what they believe they are paying for.

Although Freemasonic organizations have all sorts of rules, guidelines, traditions and principles that they espouse ad nausea, they have no actual program for self-improvement, much less any quality control system that enforces improvement sans moral watchdogs that are trained more by their own religious upbringing than missing organizational programs. In truth, The society only has programs that enforce systems that make more members.

The self-improvement outlines hidden within Freemasonry's rituals and lectures, and that are espoused by it each time a paying patron received a ritual, are not recognized as self-improvement outlines, not understood as self-improvement outlines, and are not applied as self-improvement outlines.

Furthermore, if a sane soul took a look at the guidelines, restrictions, and rules that applied to stonecraft masonic apprentices to move them to fellow craft and compared them to what freemasonic apprentices are required to do to move from apprenticeship to fellow craft, it would be clear to the comparator that the two processed would not have near next to any similarities whatsoever, even when the operative/speculative claims were applied.

Let's be clear:
  1. Masonry (Stonecraft) cultivated maturity in apprentices and trained them in a trade that allowed them to Travel, Work, Earn, Support and Contribute Masterfully.
  2. Freemasonry (Acting; Role-Playing) cultivates memorization, reenactment and playing parts.
I do not see that we agree that "the primary work of Freemasonry is not learning ritual, but using it as a tool (and anything else honest) for self improvement...". If anything, what you describe to be Freemasonry's primary work is more akin to what stonecraft masonry did for those who apprenticed themselves to that trade.

Freemasonry talks a great game. But when you are action sensitive, and do not get hypnotized by its sweet words, it is clear that it does not support the self-improvement to which it alludes.

IMO
I have a question for you coach....why are you still a Freemason? And also couldnt the same thing be said about anything that says it teaches anything? If its not studied, applied and practiced by the student the student wont learn anything.

Sent from my LG-H918 using My Freemasonry mobile app
 

coachn

Coach John S. Nagy
Premium Member
I have a question for you coach....why are you still a Freemason?
Great question!
  1. I enjoy role-playing with my close circle of friends. It's a lot of fun practicing and putting on plays for paying patrons who might stick around to do the same.
  2. I enjoy examining the claims of the organization and its members and contrasting these claims with actual practices. It's more entertaining that reality tv and a rich resource upon which to write and teach those who have a passion to learn, even from folly.
  3. I like toward what the organization's misunderstood roadmaps point and I actually follow them. This even though mine is a solitary journey that I share with a select few. I'm on a path that is less traveled by most and like what it is doing for me as I find more and more things to work upon.
  4. I enjoy helping those members make sense of the nonsense. There's a huge reward for all involved when a member passionately rips his chains away from the Freemasonic wall to seek more than the shadows upon its walls. Most of the time it is a self-inflicted painful experience. I try to ease that pain by letting them know that they are not alone in what they have awoken to.
  5. [edit] I'm a perpetual member (all dues are paid up for life and beyond) and the powers that be have not thrown me out, yet. :D
Sure I could do this within other organizations. But I don't. It would be more of the same.

And also couldnt the same thing be said about anything that says it teaches anything?
Yes. Freemasonry is no different than any other organization that ask its members to play roles and profess things that are unfounded and unsupported.
If its not studied, applied and practiced by the student the student wont learn anything.
Agreed. However, Freemasonry differs in this respect: It has no large-scale widely-practiced educational self-improvement programs based upon what it professes other than those instructional programs that focus upon supporting the organization, its maintenance and its propagation.
 
Last edited:

GKA

Premium Member
I see strong parallels between what coachn stated and my own reasons for remaining a Freemason, I love the history, even that which is questionable, I find it difficult to believe that people, in general, need allagory to be moral. True, many today are not and it is clearly evident, but you cannot teach morality in the basic sense, you either have morals or you don't and you act accordingly
 

Warrior1256

Site Benefactor
I see strong parallels between what coachn stated and my own reasons for remaining a Freemason, I love the history, even that which is questionable, I find it difficult to believe that people, in general, need allagory to be moral. True, many today are not and it is clearly evident, but you cannot teach morality in the basic sense, you either have morals or you don't and you act accordingly
I like this. Goes toward the "Making Good Men Better" theme IMHO.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GKA

Ripcord22A

Site Benefactor
"a peculiar system of morality, veiled in allegory and illustrated by symbols"

Why is it necessary to veil morality in allegory? Would it not be simpler just to tell the brethren what the morality is?

Is there something peculiar concealed by the allegory - that the brethren are not to be told?
The brain retains things better when it must figure it out

Sent from my LG-H918 using My Freemasonry mobile app
 

Elexir

Registered User
That might well be the case if it is never explained openly.

Still, Masonry is full of moralistic injunctions about how to treat brethren and others. So what sort of morality is veiled? Is it a morality that would attract the attention of the Holy Inquisition?

Considering that freemasonry as well know it today apeard in a country that was not Catholic I doubt they had any fear from the inquistion.

Does freemasonry bother the church?
Yes and no, some of the problems are related to geo-political conflicts between freemasons and the church. Another problem is that freemasonry in most rituals dont teach the superiority of the Christian god.
 

coachn

Coach John S. Nagy
Premium Member
Just James said:
"a peculiar system of morality, veiled in allegory and illustrated by symbols"...Why is it necessary to veil morality in allegory?
You have done here what so many others do. You assume what "morality" means in this statement and hence you think “morals” are being “veiled”. They are not.
Just James said:
Would it not be simpler just to tell the brethren what the morality is?
Sure. Morality (a.k.a. "Morality Play") is "a kind of drama with personified abstract qualities as the main characters and presenting a lesson about good conduct and character, popular in the 15th and early 16th centuries".

Not knowing this one would assume, just as you have, that this statement is talking about "morals" and not "plays". It is an ingenious statement that misleads the majority due to language and cultural ignorance.
Just James said:
Is there something peculiar concealed by the allegory - that the brethren are not to be told?
Yes. But not to what you continually allude. Once again, you do what so many others do. You assume what "peculiar" means in this statement and hence you believe "something odd or unusual" is being concealed. Nothing odd or unusual is being concealed. However, if one takes the time to educate one’s self, everything intentional is being revealed!

BTW - Peculiar: belonging exclusively to; private property

ORIGIN: late Middle English (in the sense 'particular, special'): from Latin peculiaris 'of private property,' from peculium from pecu, 'cattle' (cattle being private property)
 

Elexir

Registered User
You have done here what so many others do. You assume what "morality" means in this statement and hence you think “morals” are being “veiled”. They are not.

Sure. Morality (a.k.a. "Morality Play") is "a kind of drama with personified abstract qualities as the main characters and presenting a lesson about good conduct and character, popular in the 15th and early 16th centuries".

Not knowing this one would assume, just as you have, that this statement is talking about "morals" and not "plays". It is an ingenious statement that misleads the majority due to language and cultural ignorance.

Yes. But not to what you continually allude. Once again, you do what so many others do. You assume what "peculiar" means in this statement and hence you believe "something odd or unusual" is being concealed. Nothing odd or unusual is being concealed. However, if one takes the time to educate one’s self, everything intentional is being revealed!

BTW - Peculiar: belonging exclusively to; private property

ORIGIN: late Middle English (in the sense 'particular, special'): from Latin peculiaris 'of private property,' from peculium from pecu, 'cattle' (cattle being private property)

Somwhow Im reminded of how old stories (atleast here in Europe) where partly used to teach children life lesson.
 

Luigi Visentin

Registered User
In Italy we say that Freemasonry "teach a method". A Mason should learn it and particularly should learn its application in its life inside and outside the Lodge. The strange thing is that more you try to apply it and more you realize that you do not know it well and the only way to find a remedy to this is to improve your knowledge about it and to apply it as much as possible. Masonic meetings should help you in this effort, but this is true till a certain point because, in my experience, for the Masonic method is valid what Louis Armstrong said about jazz: "Man, if you have to ask what jazz is, you’ll never know".

Unfortunately, there are many Brothers that learn rituals and symbols well, but that are like players that play jazz songs but they are not doing any jazz at all. At the end, they play simply a game were the targets are to advance in Masonic career believing that this means that they have become "better". I do not believe this. Like jazz, even if you know it, you can play it well or bad, but who plays really jazz, will always try and exercise to play it better, independently from the level reached. I think that it is the same of the "Masonic method". I have seen Apprentices that were really "Masters" and Masters, also with high degrees in the Rites which were not Masons at all. I prefer to try to learn something from the first rather than from the latter.
 

coachn

Coach John S. Nagy
Premium Member
Just James said:
It is certainly difficult to know when one is assuming.
I disagree. It's fairly easy to know when someone is making an assumption when it takes them down flights of fancy that have nothing to do with what is put forth and they clearly do not know it.
Just James said:
I find it interesting that Mackey knows the above statement as a science of morality.
Mackey played to an audience. He was no less an actor than most other members of his time.
Just James said:
I wonder if we use system as a veiling of science - to avoid having to explain what is a science of morality.
Freemasonry points to the science. It is not the science.
Just James said:
If Mackey is correct that it is a science, then perhaps you are correct that the term morality is also a veiling.
"If" assumes much. You once again misunderstand. The term "morality" used within this context is not veiled. It is simply misunderstood by uninformed readers.
Just James said:
Perhaps morality is only the entry price to the Masonic science.
Stage productions all. The price of admission is joining. But all that you'll get from joining as it relates to the subject at hand is a map to find the science; not the science itself.
 
Top