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"

dfreybur

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.

Asking a Buddhist or Taoist or Confucian - well outside our buildings and after being friends for years - tends to lead to an interesting discussion about "exist". The Dharma Padha doesn't mention deity.

Asking a polytheist - well outside our buildings and after being friends for years - tends to lead to an interesting discussion about "supreme". Among Neo-Hellenics it can be easy. Zeus is supreme, all finished. Among Asatru it can be a struggle. Is Odin in charge or just one member of the council? And what about the king function of Tyr? I puzzled over this question for about a year before I asked for a petition.

But going even further, the "belief" part is fun. Before Christianity no religion ever seems to have demanded belief. Both belief and disbelief were common and at peace. Look up cultural Jew, ethnic Hindu, small boat Buddhist and so on. Yet the term insurance Christian gets used as an insult. Our requirement for belief definitely shows our Christian roots. we are universal in accepting members of every religion we have ever heard of as well as all of them we have never heard of. Yet we insist on belief even though most religions in the world are about practice not about belief. Christian missionaries tend to bash other religions that many of their members don't believe, yet belief isn't a requirement in religions outside of the Abrahamic family or members of the family older than Christianity.

On an obligation not being binding on an atheist, that's openly nonsense. But our founders believed (or at least asserted) it so it's a part of our cute antique charm. In fact, having such a glaring deviation from fact be a part of our degrees helps show how our entire system is veiled in allegory. Sure enough we even state in our lectures that Masonry is a system veiled in allegory!

An allegory is a fictional story that teaches a truth. The fictional part is that an obligation is not binding on an atheist. The truth part is that being men of faith who actively chose to join an order of men of faith is one of the features that binds us together so effectively.
 

Keith C

Registered User
I find it interesting the discussion of the Obligation. Do other Jurisdictions, outside of Pennsylvania, refer to what is sworn as simply an "Obligation?"

Here all of what is sworn by Candidates in Initiation, Passing and Raising, by Officers at Installation and at Visitors at Examination are termed an "Oath and Obligation." All the promises to do or not do specific things and how to behave are the "Obligation" but they are ALWAYS followed on by an "Oath" namely "So Help Me G-d..." The Obligation is what you personally agree to on your own. The Oath binds that promise to G-d. One can certainly swear an Obligation with no reference to Deity, but it is the Oath that is essential to have all bound to the same entity and thus on the Level. At least here in PA!
 

hanzosbm

Premium Member
I find it interesting the discussion of the Obligation. Do other Jurisdictions, outside of Pennsylvania, refer to what is sworn as simply an "Obligation?"

Here all of what is sworn by Candidates in Initiation, Passing and Raising, by Officers at Installation and at Visitors at Examination are termed an "Oath and Obligation." All the promises to do or not do specific things and how to behave are the "Obligation" but they are ALWAYS followed on by an "Oath" namely "So Help Me G-d..." The Obligation is what you personally agree to on your own. The Oath binds that promise to G-d. One can certainly swear an Obligation with no reference to Deity, but it is the Oath that is essential to have all bound to the same entity and thus on the Level. At least here in PA!
I've been a member of jurisdictions that refer to it as the oath and obligation, my current jurisdiction very intentionally refers to it solely as an obligation. The verbiage in question is identical between the two and I agree with your definitions. I have my opinions regarding the reasoning, but prudence would dictate that I keep those opinions to myself, or at the least, off of a public forum.
 

Bloke

Premium Member
Asking a Buddhist or Taoist or Confucian - well outside our buildings and after being friends for years - tends to lead to an interesting discussion about "exist". The Dharma Padha doesn't mention deity.

Asking a polytheist - well outside our buildings and after being friends for years - tends to lead to an interesting discussion about "supreme". Among Neo-Hellenics it can be easy. Zeus is supreme, all finished. Among Asatru it can be a struggle. Is Odin in charge or just one member of the council? And what about the king function of Tyr? I puzzled over this question for about a year before I asked for a petition.

But going even further, the "belief" part is fun. Before Christianity no religion ever seems to have demanded belief. Both belief and disbelief were common and at peace. Look up cultural Jew, ethnic Hindu, small boat Buddhist and so on. Yet the term insurance Christian gets used as an insult. Our requirement for belief definitely shows our Christian roots. we are universal in accepting members of every religion we have ever heard of as well as all of them we have never heard of. Yet we insist on belief even though most religions in the world are about practice not about belief. Christian missionaries tend to bash other religions that many of their members don't believe, yet belief isn't a requirement in religions outside of the Abrahamic family or members of the family older than Christianity.

On an obligation not being binding on an atheist, that's openly nonsense. But our founders believed (or at least asserted) it so it's a part of our cute antique charm. In fact, having such a glaring deviation from fact be a part of our degrees helps show how our entire system is veiled in allegory. Sure enough we even state in our lectures that Masonry is a system veiled in allegory!

An allegory is a fictional story that teaches a truth. The fictional part is that an obligation is not binding on an atheist. The truth part is that being men of faith who actively chose to join an order of men of faith is one of the features that binds us together so effectively.
Nice one Doug. "Belief" is an interesting word - I always say Freemasonry has no religious qualifications but only a qualification of faith. When it comes to the Supreme Being, we only "believe" because we have "faith" - where that faith comes from is multitude but still not really logical; that is the nature of faith - we are believing in something which cannot be proved, even if we claim to have seen it ourselves..
 

Bloke

Premium Member
I find it interesting the discussion of the Obligation. Do other Jurisdictions, outside of Pennsylvania, refer to what is sworn as simply an "Obligation?"

Here all of what is sworn by Candidates in Initiation, Passing and Raising, by Officers at Installation and at Visitors at Examination are termed an "Oath and Obligation." All the promises to do or not do specific things and how to behave are the "Obligation" but they are ALWAYS followed on by an "Oath" namely "So Help Me G-d..." The Obligation is what you personally agree to on your own. The Oath binds that promise to G-d. One can certainly swear an Obligation with no reference to Deity, but it is the Oath that is essential to have all bound to the same entity and thus on the Level. At least here in PA!
We call it an "obligation" and it is titled as such in our Ritual Books. However as you suggest, that does not quite reflect the wording of it, indeed we "promise and swear" (does that make a double commitment?) and we do it with "So Help Me Almighty G-d"... still, regardless if I take and Oath, Obligation or make a promise, I am going to do all I can to keep it. Promises from me are very rare - with the exception to "Do my best to..." but getting into the details is not something I am keen on in an open forum. However whether I make a promise on my honour or before God, it is still a promise and needs to be kept - so the point for me is do not make them unless you can keep them, and there is nothing unreasonable in any of my Masonic Obligations that I have taken (perhaps except Loyalty to the GL when being Obligated Master - but that is only for 12 months so I had a get out of jail card.. but Doug, like you puzzling before asking for a petition, I puzzled on that before I accepted the position of Master of a Lodge... but I also had the advantage of being to hear, see, and read the WME obligation before taking it. Had I been able to do that as an applicant, FC or MM of those obligations - I still would have taken those obligations knowing they were reasonable and viable promises.
 

LK600

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.
So, belief in a Supreme Being is not enough.

Do we conform to this Landmark, or do we fail to apply it uniformily?

I didn't bold it... I was at work and a quick copy and paste was more prudent lol. Besides that, I take its meaning in summation of the entire piece, which lends the definition of libertine in a different light.
 

dfreybur

Premium Member
I find it interesting the discussion of the Obligation. Do other Jurisdictions, outside of Pennsylvania, refer to what is sworn as simply an "Obligation?"

Different sections of the ritual give different answers to that question. Sometimes it's just the obligation. Other times it's a solemn oath or obligation. With slight variations on that wording among my jurisdictions.
 

Center

Registered User
Welcome to the forum, a marvelous place of real universal freedom for everybody, I wish you always more light
 

wufilas

Registered User
Dear all,

I am sorry for replying so sporadically. Due to work I am not able to check this forum on a daily basis.

I am surprised and delighted that my post has sparked such a discussion. After reading all posts here I realize that the biggest issue you see is that the GOdF accepts atheists. Well, I have to say that I have seen atheists which are in a higher moral standing than most of the faithful I have met. Being a moral being has nothing to do with religion or your personal faith. You can stand by an oath even tho you do not believe in anything. If a G:.O:. accepts atheists and does not inquire about your religious beliefs in an official manner, this doesn`t mean that 1. We are just atheists in the R:.L:. and 2. We accept "immoral libertines".

To tell you the truth, all this regular vs. irregular story reminds me of one thing: The Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church. Some Catholics are so extreme that they do not recognize other christian denominations as really being christian... the same goes for the Orthodox christians. But those people, thank G-d, are in a minority. Most of the catholics go into orthodox churches and vice versa (I left protestants out of this story on purpose). In the same manner I have witnessed dialogue between Grand Lodges and Orients. I have been a lot around this beautiful world and I hope my physical journey will not end very soon. And in most countries I have visited R:.L:. Even in the US. I have witnessed open dialogue between regulars and irregulars not in a Ritual setting, but in an open discussion manner. Even inside Lodges (I am referring to the building). I am not the one who will fix this rupture for sure, but as same as in the case of Christianity, I believe that if we want to survive into the next century, we will have to find common grounds. Charles Darwin said that the organism that will successfully survive natural selection is not the strongest one but the one that is more adaptable. For sure the teachings of F:.M:. will never die as long as the human race still exists, but F:.M:. may die as an organization. Just compare the number of members you had 30 years ago with the numbers you have now. And the decrease is exponential. Moreover, if we shun each other like some do, where is the difference between those radical Christians and us? Where's the tolerance we learn about?

Truth is my Dear Br:., people change, society changes. And these changes were brought in part by us. The declaration of human rights, freedom of expression, universal suffrage, equality between sexes, banishment of slavery.... This has caused society to be more open to the new and more closed to the old. We are being consumed by our own work...It`s like Perillos of Athens who perished in his own bronz bull.

So if we want to survive as an organization, we need to change also. Otherwise, c`est fini ....

PS:
There was a Br:. who commented on the GOdF and blamed it for interfering with French politics. Why do you see the straw in the others eye and do no see the beam in yours? I don`t think that a F:.M:. from the USA can criticize any other masonic body for interfering in politics, as the Masonic interference in American politics was the most pregnant in history. You even had an Anti-Masonic Party at some point for G-d`s sake...
 
Last edited:

David612

Registered User
I think it’s more an intellectual issue than anything, at the end of the day we won’t unite and really we shouldn’t in the same way Prince Hall masonry shouldn’t be assimilated, there’s history there that would be lost if we try to fit square pegs into the regular round hole.
As far as the anti Masonic party goes it wasn’t the anti regular Masonic party additionally that’s one example in one country.. the craft extends well beyond the United States.
 

Winter

Premium Member
Well, I have to say that I have seen atheists which are in a higher moral standing than most of the faithful I have met. Being a moral being has nothing to do with religion or your personal faith.

You are absolutely right. I know some amazing individuals who are secular humanists that are as moral and upright people as you could find. I would never imply that a person could not be upstanding without religion.

Just compare the number of members you had 30 years ago with the numbers you have now. And the decrease is exponential.

Many, myself included, see the decrease as a good thing as our membership numbers go through a correction to a more realistic number.

So if we want to survive as an organization, we need to change also. Otherwise, c`est fini ....

I both agree and disagree. While certain adaptations must be embraced as society changes, such as our method of communication, or how we raise and use funds for our Lodges. The principal foundations of Freemasonry, such as only admitting men who who profess a belief in Deity must be adhered to if we are to remain a Brotherhood of men under the Fatherhood of G-d. To remove such a core principal from the Order means that it ceases to be Freemasonry. It may look like it, act like it, and be an association of some of the finest individuals that humanity has to offer. But it is not Freemasonry.

I don`t think that a F:.M:. from the USA can criticize any other masonic body for interfering in politics, as the Masonic interference in American politics was the most pregnant in history. You even had an Anti-Masonic Party at some point for G-d`s sake...

You may want to check your facts on that. We haven't had a Masonic President since the late 1970's when Gerald Ford was in office. And the Anti-Masonic Party was a political party dedicated to fighting against Freemasonry as an organization as a direct result of the Morgan affair. That whole debacle was a mess and Brothers who were involved were in obvious violation of their Ob. as well as the civil laws. Which is again un-Masonic.

The whole debate isn't going to be solved here no matter how many words we throw at it. The GOdF will continue to justify admitting atheists and mainstream Masonry will continue to not recognize them for it. I don't see that changing any time soon.
 

Warrior1256

Site Benefactor
at the end of the day we won’t unite and really we shouldn’t in the same way Prince Hall masonry shouldn’t be assimilated, there’s history there that would be lost if we try to fit square pegs into the regular round hole.
Good point....I hadn't looked at it this way before. We're Brothers regardless.
The whole debate isn't going to be solved here no matter how many words we throw at it. The GOdF will continue to justify admitting atheists and mainstream Masonry will continue to not recognize them for it. I don't see that changing any time soon.
Agreed.
 

CLewey44

Registered User
My Dear Br:.

I was initiated in the Grand Orient de France and am now integrated in the Grand Orient de Roumanie.
I would like to send you all my Triple Fraternal Accolade.

I registered on this forum because I would like to have debates with "regular" Br:. on the topic of regular vs. irregular in the sense of UGLE vs. GODF (dogmatic vs. adogmatic).

T:.A:.F:.
Maybe you can answer this, was Mustapha Kemal Ataturk a member of the Grand Orient de France in the country of Macedonia?
 

Elexir

Registered User
To me its no so much the obligation but rather the actual ritual worked here that dont leave room for atheists as much of it is focused on a spiritual journey and not just moral teachings.

There are moral and upright atheist as well, my father is one.

In reality, the whole recognised/regular vs. unrecognised/irregular dont bother me. Its nice to visit other lodges around the world but I wouldnt care if it was diffrent.
 

Bloke

Premium Member
...After reading all posts here I realize that the biggest issue you see is that the GOdF accepts atheists. Well, I have to say that I have seen atheists which are in a higher moral standing than most of the faithful I have met. Being a moral being has nothing to do with religion or your personal faith. You can stand by an oath even tho you do not believe in anything. If a G:.O:. accepts atheists and does not inquire about your religious beliefs in an official manner, this doesn`t mean that 1. We are just atheists in the R:.L:. and 2. We accept "immoral libertines"..
,,

I think it is a big issue for us, but completely agree that the moral character of people who are atheists can be very high, that is not what is in question, it is how the value of faith in a Supreme Being permeates our type of Freemasonry.


......There was a Br:. who commented on the GOdF and blamed it for interfering with French politics. Why do you see the straw in the others eye and do no see the beam in yours? I don`t think that a F:.M:. from the USA can criticize any other masonic body for interfering in politics, as the Masonic interference in American politics was the most pregnant in history. You even had an Anti-Masonic Party at some point for G-d`s sake...
&

...You may want to check your facts on that. We haven't had a Masonic President since the late 1970's when Gerald Ford was in office. And the Anti-Masonic Party was a political party dedicated to fighting against Freemasonry as an organization as a direct result of the Morgan affair....

Moreover, we don't stop members from being involved in any legal activity, including politics, but as individuals, our regular version of Freemasonry is supposed to be apolitical and areligious... As you and I appreciate Winter, there is a big difference between a Masonic Politician and a Politician who is a (regular) Freemason
 
Top