Does GLoT allow Wiccans to become TX masons?

[Browncoat]

Does not follow from "An oath is an oath is an oath" and is not related to the issue.

That's some pretty flawed logic, don't you think?

If we take our oaths upon a sacred book, you're saying that the book is insignificant? The same book that is placed on a central altar and is featured in all rituals? Including all oaths, degrees, and opening/closing of the Lodge?

 

[dfreybur]

That's some pretty flawed logic, don't you think?

Which is why I did not reply in detail to your canard but rather identified it as such. In this case the flawed logic being on your part. You made an unjustified jump. We have all taken our obligations and we all depend on each other keeping them. We are brothers who know some unknown percentage of us do not share our religion and we have landmarks that keep the difference mysterious. It is a certainty that some brother's faith doesn't match the book as well as a certainty that all brothers have taken our obligations.

If we take our oaths upon a sacred book, you're saying that the book is insignificant?

The lectures explain why the book and shoes and everything else are used as amplifiers and are thus significant. All of which apply even when the candidate's religion is not one that uses the book present on the altar. Again you use a canard, a logical fallacy. That our oaths stand on their own and apply whether the book is or was there does not make the book insignificant.

Checking another part of your understanding - The VSL on the altar is not the VSL of every brother. It is the VSL of the local majority. As such it is the symbol for the candidate's faith whether his matches the book or not. It's a symbol that might or might not mean what is printed on it depending on what is in the heart of the candidate independent of what is in the heart of any one other brother. It is, as you write "a" sacred book which points to "the" sacred book of the candidate whether it's a physical match or not.

The same book that is placed on a central altar and is featured in all rituals? Including all oaths, degrees, and opening/closing of the Lodge?

This is a Texas specific thread but you are aware that in regions of the planet where other faiths are in the majority there are other physical VSLs on the altar, right? And sure enough every one to every brother is as you write "a" sacred book which symbolizes the one that is "the" sacred book to him.

And in every degree, as explained in the lectures, the VSL is an amplifier to reenforce the seriousness of the obligation taken by the candidate. No amplifier creates signal other than noise. If an oath isn't binding upon some one candidate no amount on amplification is going to make it so. And thus an oath is an oath is an oath because it needs to be binding with or without a book for the amplification to have any effect.

 

[Browncoat]

Which is why I did not reply in detail to your canard but rather identified it as such. In this case the flawed logic being on your part. You made an unjustified jump.

Unjustified to whom? You're just talking in circles and extrapolating on your own talking points in an effort to prove them.

 

[Brother JC]

"Howsoever men differ in creed or theology, all good men
are agreed that within the covers of the Holy Bible are found
those principles of morality that lay the foundation upon
which to build a righteous life. Freemasonry, therefore, places
this BOOK upon its altars, with the command to each of its
votaries, that he diligently study therein to find the way to
everlasting life. Adopting no particular creed, forbidding
sectarian discussion within its Lodge Rooms, and encouraging
each to be steadfast in the faith of his acceptance,
Freemasonry takes all good men by the hand, and leading
them to its altars, points to the Holy Bible thereon and urges
upon each that he faithfully direct his steps through life by the
light he there shall find and as he there shall find it."

 

[BryanMaloney]

"It is not a question of a Bible being on the altar. It is the Volume of the Sacred Law we recognize. Among Christians it is the Old and New Testaments combined; among Jews it is the Old Testament alone; among Mohommedans..."

"In a lodge of Israelites it is the Pentateuc; In a lodge of Moslems, the Koran; in a lodge of Brahmans, the Vedas; and in a lodge of Christians, the Old and New Testaments. That 'Book of the Law' upon the Masonic altar must represent the symbolism of the Divine will to man; otherwise, the foundation of our faith is removed, and there will be no beacon light to guide us on to 'Truth.'"

"What is vital and unchangeable, a Landmark of the Order, is that a Volume of the Sacred Law be open upon the Masonic altar whenever the lodge is open. A lodge that is wholly Jewish may prefer to use only the old Testament; in Turkey and Persia the Koran would be used as the Volume of the Sacred Law of the Mohammedan; Brahmins would use the Vedas. In the Far East where Masonic lodges have members of many races and creeds it is customary to have several holy books upon the altar that the initiate may choose that which is to him the most sacred."

 

[BryanMaloney]

An excerpt from the Utah Grand Lodge's magazine:

http://www.freemasons-freemasonry.com/sbooks.html

 

[CuAllaidh]

I see no issue with a non Christian taking an oath upon a Christian bible. I do not consider myself christian yet I took my oath upon the bible. My oath was to the GAOTU and my lodge, the book of sacred law could have been the Koran, the Torah or any other sacred book and my oath would be as binding in my heart and mind, heck I would have accepted a physics textbook as a book of sacred law to take my oath upon and I believe that would have been just as valid, although since there are little to no moral teachings in physics it is considerably more logical to use the Bible to take the oath . All of these books have excellent teachings within them, all of them have great guidelines in which to learn from it is not the book which binds me it is my word and my faith.

I know many Wicca, I am not one myself, and many to have a polytheistic view however they all tend to agree that all gods are aspects of the one true authority. As such I see no issue with Wiccan's answering truthfully that they believe in A higher power.

 

[dfreybur]

I see no issue with a non Christian taking an oath upon a Christian bible.

This being a Wicca specific topic I point out that Wicca teaches a reverence for that which others consider sacred (for some adding a caveat to the extent that reverence is mutual, for others without that qualification). Any Wiccan who has reached enough security in his faith to be comfortable going through degrees that tell a story from the Old Testament is going to be comfortable taking an oath on physical book that is sacred to others especially given that the physical book is deliberately a symbol for the book the candidate holds in his own heart and mind as his Volume of the Sacred Law.

A Wiccan might request that his own personal notebook be used. They usually call their notebook their "Book of Shadows" as it is about their personal quest to bring spiritual knowledge out of the shadows into their own personal light. None of the Wiccan brothers I know made that request for their degrees.

I know brothers of at least two other polytheist faiths and none of them requested a specific book be on the altar for their obligations.

 

[Browncoat]

That just seems screwy to me.

I am a Christian, but not what you'd call a "religious type". I can't even remember the last time I attended church, if I'm being honest. That said, I can't imagine taking an oath on any book other than the Bible. I understand that the Lodge isn't the place for religion, and I'm 100% for everyone exercising their religious freedom. Someone could worship pocket lint for all I care.

Maybe I'm in the minority here. But it seems that Masonic principals have at least some ties to one's faith, whatever it may be. It seems a bit out of place to be so cavalier with your faith to not care what book is used to represent it. It's a personal choice, I suppose. I just have a hard time believing it is one most would make.

 

[dfreybur]

That just seems screwy to me.

Thus the beauty of our landmark to not discuss sectarian religion in our tiled assemblies.

 

[CuAllaidh]

I understand where you are coming from Browncoat, but that's because one of the tenets of Christianity is that the Bible is the sole source of the word of God, other religions do not have that tenet. My faith has no book, because my faith is my own, I believe the Bible has some sections which are wonderful moral guides, as do the Koran, as does many other religious texts, but none of them stand alone, therefore I have no problem swearing an oath on a book I have read and agree with the main messages of. Not to mention it is not the bible which holds me to my oath, but myself and my faith and most importantly my honour, I look to the GAOTU to keep me steady and I would lean on my brothers if need be, the Bible however is a vessel to me, a vessel to be honoured, for sure, but not what holds me to my oath.

 

[brother josh]

I thought true satanism was atheist or at least tilted that way I could be wrong on this I'm really just guessing


Sent From My Freemasonry Pro App

 

[dfreybur]

I thought true satanism was atheist or at least tilted that way I could be wrong on this I'm really just guessing

Sure but the main topic of this thread is Wicca so that's just a distraction.

 

[Brother JC]

As I see it, the bond of your Obligation is between you and Deity. The Volume of Sacred Law is a reminder of the sanctity of that Obligation. For some, that Volume represents a literal connection, for others it is a moral code.
Were you serious when you took your Obligation? Again, that's between you and Deity.
This still leaves us at the point that there is no reason a Wiccan can't be a Freemason. The Archdruid is, so why not a member of any other nature-based theology?

 

[JohnnyFlotsam]

I disagree.

Wicca does not have a central figure.

You know this, how, exactly?
More importantly, the petition asks no questions of this nature. If the candidate answers yes to the question that is asked, done.

As to what book to use? Whatever he identifies as his VoSL should be acceptable. BTW, lots of Wiccan's have their "Book of Shadows" which is as close as that religion (using the singular form of the word advisedly) comes to having a holy book. The truth of the matter is that there are many religions that have no "book", no printed and bound document that purports to reveal the mind of deity. Does that make those men who follow such a path less fit to be made Masons?

May I suggest that rather than worrying about labels, you give our candidates the respect and consideration they deserve, and if you find yourself in the company of a Brother whose beliefs are foreign to you, endeavor to learn and understand your Brother instead of looking for reasons to exclude him?

 

[Browncoat]

I know this because I read. Wicca has two chief deities, but they are not universally recognized.

As for the rest, you took several liberties with what I wrote and drew your own (false) conclusions. At no point did I write that I did not understand Wicca, that I sought to exclude them, label them, or infer that they were somehow inferior.

 

[CuAllaidh]

Well since I believe the requirement is to believe in a higher power, would not the acceptance of the Pantheon of gods as the higher authority be acceptable. This I am not sure, just curious.

As for the wiccans deities, there are many different beliefs to modern wiccans, some do recognize a higher central figure, some do not.

 

[BryanMaloney]

I know this because I read. Wicca has two chief deities, but they are not universally recognized.

As for the rest, you took several liberties with what I wrote and drew your own (false) conclusions. At no point did I write that I did not understand Wicca, that I sought to exclude them, label them, or infer that they were somehow inferior.

I know Wiccans. As it has been explained to me, Wicca neither requires nor prohibits belief in any higher power, although its rituals refer to a "God" and a "Goddess", but what those mean is up to the individual Wiccan. Thus, one Wiccan could see them as merely "personifications of concepts", while another could see a Supreme Goddess who is always aided by her indispensible Consort.

 

[dfreybur]

Well since I believe the requirement is to believe in a higher power, would not the acceptance of the Pantheon of gods as the higher authority be acceptable. This I am not sure, just curious.

I have mentioned that Buddhists tend to ponder over the word "existence" before answering yes on our petitions and joining our assemblies. I have mentioned that polytheists tend to ponder over the word "supreme" before answering yes on our petitions and joining our assemblies. Even though the situations are in one sense opposites they are in another sense the same. It's like a spectrum that wraps back into a circle by drawing together the edges. In the end what matters is they arrived at a yes answer in good conscience and that was that.

Going further to answer your specific question - That's not the only way to arrive at the yes so it depends on the individual brother. Different brother, different answer, same yes. You'd need to locate a polytheist brother, spend enough years demonstrating an open mind and heart enough that he is willing to discuss the topic, and ask outside of our buildings.

As for the wiccans deities, there are many different beliefs to modern wiccans, some do recognize a higher central figure, some do not.

Exactly. The way Wicca works my comparison to Buddhism applies which neither requires nor forbids a belief in deity. In addition a comparison to Hindu applies which neither requires nor forbids a belief that one deity is supreme. The idea of aspects of the one as taught in Hindu resembles one of several answers to your question but is not the only answer to it. Our plentiful Wiccan brothers are those who have made specific decisions on these topics.

 

[JohnnyFlotsam]

I know this because I read. Wicca has two chief deities, but they are not universally recognized.

The pronouncement that "Wicca has two chief deities" reflects a shallow and incomplete understanding of Wicca. In a way, it's as inaccurate (and easily as insensitive) as suggesting the "the Jews, the Muslims and the Christians should just set aside their differences because it's all just one God. Right?" Of course, such an oversimplification completely ignores the many differences, some subtle and some profound, between the beliefs and doctrines embraced by those followers whom we might identify with one of those three broad labels.

It is true that most Wiccan traditions refer to a God and Godess, but there is virtually no agreement as to who or what those deities really are, or that there are only two. Some traditions identify their deities with specific names and characteristics. Most do not. You see, Wicca, like many religions, including most neo-pagan paths, is not a "revealed" religion. The notion that this or that book contains the complete and accurate "word of God" is completely foreign to such belief systems. The followers are taught and encouraged to actively pursue their spiritual connection with the GAotU, rather than have it handed to them from a book, or pulpit. This not to say that these religions have no sacred law. Quite the contrary, it's just not handed down in printed and bound form.

As for the rest, you took several liberties with what I wrote and drew your own (false) conclusions. At no point did I write that I did not understand Wicca, that I sought to exclude them, label them, or infer that they were somehow inferior.

Really?

That just seems screwy to me...
...it seems that Masonic principals have at least some ties to one's faith, whatever it may be. It seems a bit out of place to be so cavalier with your faith to not care what book is used to represent it. It's a personal choice, I suppose. I just have a hard time believing it is one most would make.

So the notion that a candidate might rest his hand(s) on anything other than the "official" book of his faith is "screwy". What label then, would you chose for the Native American who, for example, chooses to use some other symbol to represent the gravity that he attaches to the promises he's making? And make no mistake, it is always a symbol. There's no magic in a book, any book, that will bind the man to his promises, so who are we to say what object he may choose to convey the seriousness of those promises?

Again, how our Brother embraces and engages with his deity is not a thing we may judge, only that he does so.