Greetings from an "irregular"

[Elexir]

First of- given the OPs affiliation it’s safe to assume I’m not talking about Italy.

Can you clarify what you mean by “not a seperate obedience” as it sure ain’t regular blue lodge masonry, but as far as the GOdF it wouldn’t matter what they feel about it as we can only regulate our own policies, I’m not talking about mutual recognition and visitation, I’m talking about not prohibiting members from holding dual membership.

Then I see how you mean.

OES Is not its own entity since it requirs a male master mason to be present at the meetings.

The problem is that when we premit members to also be members of irregular/unrecognised GLs and have degrees there we also would in fact recognise them as masonic bodies. It would in fact be the same as if we allowed visitation.

 

[David612]

Then I see how you mean.

OES Is not its own entity since it requirs a male master mason to be present at the meetings.

The problem is that when we premit members to also be members of irregular/unrecognised GLs and have degrees there we also would in fact recognise them as masonic bodies. It would in fact be the same as if we allowed visitation.

I’d say it’s more like joining Golden Dawn, BOTA or some other initiatory body.



In that it’s none of GL business-

 

[Elexir]

I’d say it’s more like joining Golden Dawn, BOTA or some other initiatory body.



In that it’s none of GL business-

Then again neither GD, BOTA etc. dont claim to be a masonic body.

 

[David612]

Then again neither GD, BOTA etc. dont claim to be a masonic body.

True-but lets be real, to some degree all roads lead to Rome.

 

[CLewey44]

True-but lets be real, to some degree all roads lead to Rome.

They certainly were born out of Masonry and wouldn't exist without Masonry. Would be interesting GD (Ciceros version), Memphis Mizaram and Le Droit Humain etc were under the umbrella as well.

 

[Warrior1256]

The problem is that when we premit members to also be members of irregular/unrecognised GLs and have degrees there we also would in fact recognise them as masonic bodies. It would in fact be the same as if we allowed visitation.

I am most certainly NOT in favor of allowing duel membership in irregular / unrecognized lodges or Grand Lodges.

 

[Winter]

The divergence of “Regular” masonry and that of the Grand Orient is an interesting bit of history, at this point it seems to be the dug in heels of our past that keeps the two sides seperate which is a shame as being able to unite under the one banner would really be a beautiful thing and given the context of the time it’s all very understandable.
That said much like Prince Hall masonry I’m sure the Grand Orient has a flavour all it’s own, it would really be beneficial to get to a point where we could operate in the same way we do with the OES.

I don't think it is just "dug in heels" that keeps our two sides separate. It is actually very serious concerns like the fact the GOdF does not require a Candidate to profess a belief in Deity. Without which, no Ob. could be binding. That is no small matter, not to mention the admittance of women which all mainstream jurisdictions agree violates the Landmarks.

First of- given the OPs affiliation it’s safe to assume I’m not talking about Italy.

Can you clarify what you mean by “not a seperate obedience” as it sure ain’t regular blue lodge masonry, but as far as the GOdF it wouldn’t matter what they feel about it as we can only regulate our own policies, I’m not talking about mutual recognition and visitation, I’m talking about not prohibiting members from holding dual membership.

How would that even work with a Brother holding membership in organizations that have been classified as unrecognized, irregular, or clandestine? It makes my head hurt just thinking of it.

Picture this scenario. Grand Lodge A opens dual membership with GOdF. Members join both organizations. Atheist members of GOdF join in sufficient numbers in Grand Lodge A and work through the officer chairs to have sufficient numbers to vote out the requirement for a belief in Deity. Now Grand Lodge A is as unregular as the GOdF.

 

[CLewey44]

It's simply not possible to merge the two based on obligations.

 

[Warrior1256]

It is actually very serious concerns like the fact the GOdF does not require a Candidate to profess a belief in Deity. Without which, no Ob. could be binding. That is no small matter, not to mention the admittance of women which all mainstream jurisdictions agree violates the Landmarks.

How would that even work with a Brother holding membership in organizations that have been classified as unrecognized, irregular, or clandestine? It makes my head hurt just thinking of it.

It's simply not possible to merge the two based on obligations.

Exactly!

 

[David612]

i think the idea that obligations can only be binding if a person believes in a deity is a tad flawed- is there no personal responsibility? Can a person not do what they say they will do purely based on their word as a man?
If our concern is questioning a brothers ability to up hold his obligations I as you how many brothers do you know who are divorced for example.
Again not suggesting we merge but rather accept that if a person would choose to be involved in both it actually has no real bearing on us seprarely.

 

[Winter]

i think the idea that obligations can only be binding if a person believes in a deity is a tad flawed- is there no personal responsibility? Can a person not do what they say they will do purely based on their word as a man?
If our concern is questioning a brothers ability to up hold his obligations I as you how many brothers do you know who are divorced for example.
Again not suggesting we merge but rather accept that if a person would choose to be involved in both it actually has no real bearing on us seprarely.

While I see where your argument is coming from, the requirement is built right into the foundation of mainstream Freemasonry with almost the exact wording that no Ob. Would be binding on a Brother without that belief in Deity. If you take G-d out of Freemasonry it ceases to be Freemasonry.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

 

[David612]

While I see where your argument is coming from, the requirement is built right into the foundation of mainstream Freemasonry with almost the exact wording that no Ob. Would be binding on a Brother without that belief in Deity. If you take G-d out of Freemasonry it ceases to be Freemasonry.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

If it ceases to be freemasonry then we shouldn’t have an issue- There shouldn’t be a prohibition on it if it isn’t masonry, hypothetically speaking the secrets are the same, surely the obligations would prevent a member of either or both confirming it to anyone except perhaps someone who already knows it.
At the end of the day we can go in circles about this but it’s a moot point really-
I’ll just say this- read up on the split if your aren’t familiar- really interesting.

 

[Winter]

If it ceases to be freemasonry then we shouldn’t have an issue- There shouldn’t be a prohibition on it if it isn’t masonry, hypothetically speaking the secrets are the same, surely the obligations would prevent a member of either or both confirming it to anyone except perhaps someone who already knows it.
At the end of the day we can go in circles about this but it’s a moot point really-
I’ll just say this- read up on the split if your aren’t familiar- really interesting.

I've taken part in many debates on the matter. And it does often devolve to a circular debate, unfortunately. What it ultimately comes down to is that the jurisdictions considered irregular (and sometimes clandestine) removed elements for candidates that are seen by the mainstream grand lodges as integral to the Order.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

 

[Bloke]

..If you take G-d out of Freemasonry it ceases to be Freemasonry...

That's a very interesting statement. As I have said, I intellectually see some of these irregular bodies as branches of the same tree while others new trees from the same seed. I certainly can respect them, and at the very least, agree to disagree.

I am posing myself a hypothetical thought experiment - would I be more likely to , in an imagined future world;

1. Sit in lodge with a males openly acknowledged as atheists.
2. Sit in lodge with females to have a belief in as supreme being.

I value our male space and fraternity - so I could see that #1 would perhaps be a smoother change socially, but for me, and reality is that in the ritual, the GAOTU is ever present and hence I think it more likely for and imagined future to see option 2 above, which would be more familiar to me than a Lodge without reference to the GAOTU.

On a surface level, the fraternal aspect of Freemasonry is so important, Freemasonry being a device to unite diverse men, but that unity is based in part of common faith in a personal GAOTU which is a strong underpinning to our movement, and while Freemasonry might help shape all our human relationships regardless of gender, politics, religion and even faith itself, when you delve deeper into our mysteries, one finds that our relationship with our personal God is also influenced or, at least, strongly supported by Freemasonry..

So I think you are very correct Brother when you say "If you take G-d out of Freemasonry it ceases to be Freemasonry"

Sometimes to understand what something is, you also need to understand what it is not; Freemasonry is much more than a social group, it is a path, and one where the GAOTU plays an important, and perhaps, the most important, part.

 

[David612]

It has been said that the two orders are basically the same but each following a different path-
“Regular” the spiritual path and GOdF went the political more charitable route.
No idea how true that is and I don’t think we even have a Grand Orient in Australia...
But I digress- I think it’s important to understand that GOdF isn’t exclusively atheistic, there is simply a provision there that allows for men who aren’t religious/spiritually inclined to join, I’d be curious what the demographics are actually like

 

[Bloke]

..and I don’t think we even have a Grand Orient in Australia...

Not to my knowledge - but we do have Le Droit Humain - Edith Cowan being the most notable Australian to have been a member. (she is on our $50 note).

 

[David612]

Not to my knowledge - but we do have Le Droit Humain - Edith Cowan being the most notable Australian to have been a member. (she is on our $50 note).

True-
Perhaps once we sort out relations with the Grand Orient we can sort them out next?

My understanding is basically the obligation is made on your word as a good person, ours however is a promise to the deity of our personal choice-
I think the obligation argument is flimsy at best-

 

[LK600]

It has been said that the two orders are basically the same but each following a different path-
“Regular” the spiritual path and GOdF went the political more charitable route.

I would disagree. There was a path, and then GOdF consciously stepped off that path. There was no point where Regular Freemasonry elected to take a path; they stayed on the same path that always was. The GOdF elected to discontinue adherence to specific landmarks on their own, which is what caused their designation as Irregular. We can discuss the motives for their deviation (there were several), and while I understand why they made those choices, I can not condone them nor accept them as Brothers because it would be a violation of ALL of my obligations, Grand Lodge choices aside. Nevertheless, I would view them as a friend and treat them accordingly.

The obligation argument is flimsy depending on a persons view of what an Obligation is.

 

[David612]

I think it’s a flimsy argument as there are other obligations we take in life and violation of those dosnt result in being expelled.
Additionally- there are faiths represented in the craft that don’t really conform to the monotheistic framework we have for ourselves but a blind eye is turned to that.

 

[Winter]

I think it’s a flimsy argument as there are other obligations we take in life and violation of those dosnt result in being expelled.
Additionally- there are faiths represented in the craft that don’t really conform to the monotheistic framework we have for ourselves but a blind eye is turned to that.

But it isn't a flimsy argument if the Landmarks are inviolable. The jurisdictions that admit atheists and women chose to set those Landmarks aside because they saw them as not necessary to the Order. That action was of sufficient seriousness to be labelled as irregular. You wave a wand and just say the argument has no weight.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk