What's new
By:
Advanced search…
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"

CLewey44

CLewey44

Registered User
Great points, but isn't the '4th' degree only the Mark Master Degree or was it required to receive the entire HRA degree system at one time? Also, wasn't George Washington under the legal age at that time in that GL therefore he would be considered 'irregularly made' a MM? If this is true, we do tend to cherry pick sometimes perhaps. Crowley fans may want to say he was a MM when in fact he was but right before his initiation (or being raised, can't remember) that lodge was no longer considered regular.
 
Warrior1256

Warrior1256

Site Benefactor
Everyone is entitled to their opinion and the points are interesting concerning recognizing women Masons and admitting them into regular Masonry. BUT.... as I have stated before....I DON'T want to "bury the hatchet" and recognize lodges that admit women let alone admit women to our ranks. One of the main reasons that I joined Masonry was that it is a fraternity. The day that we admit women to our ranks will be the same day that I demit.
 
Last edited:
CLewey44

CLewey44

Registered User
I genuinely can't say one way or the other on this. If I was the deciding vote, I'd vote to keep it as is I suppose. It is certainly a little chauvinistic and also self-serving so we can sleep at night knowing 'we included everyone' in our club. We require a MM at OES meetings which I find odd. Or at least two or so in the officer line. I think at the end of the day, it's best to keep as is simply because (dare I say) that's how it's always been. It is a tradition and should stay that way.

Keeping women out of masonry does not 'hold them back' or 'hold them down' as far as life success. It also does not spiritually hold them back in any way. They can read all the books, Google, whatever all day and have the same knowledge masons have. The only difference would be they don't know a few sgn, stp, tks, de gds or wrs. That's not going to secure their salvation, gain them any financial advantage or be more intelligent in any way.
 
Glen Cook

Glen Cook

G A Cook
Site Benefactor
CLewey44 said:
I genuinely can't say one way or the other on this. If I was the deciding vote, I'd vote to keep it as is I suppose. It is certainly a little chauvinistic and also self-serving so we can sleep at night knowing 'we included everyone' in our club. We require a MM at OES meetings which I find odd. Or at least two or so in the officer line. I think at the end of the day, it's best to keep as is simply because (dare I say) that's how it's always been. It is a tradition and should stay that way.

Keeping women out of masonry does not 'hold them back' or 'hold them down' as far as life success. It also does not spiritually hold them back in any way. They can read all the books, Google, whatever all day and have the same knowledge masons have. The only difference would be they don't know a few sgn, stp, tks, de gds or wrs. That's not going to secure their salvation, gain them any financial advantage or be more intelligent in any way.
Click to expand...
Well, the status quo is that women already have Freemasonry, and have for over a hundred years. That would be keeping it as is.

My comment was directed toward merger and taking away that single sex space.
 
CLewey44

CLewey44

Registered User
Glen Cook said:
Well, the status quo is that women already have Freemasonry, and have for over a hundred years. That would be keeping it as is.

My comment was directed toward merger and taking away that single sex space.
Click to expand...

True, I see what you're saying. I should specify 'regular' masonry as keeping it as it is myself.
 
Warrior1256

Warrior1256

Site Benefactor
dfreybur

dfreybur

Premium Member
Love of Truth said:
In common with almost everyone here, I have been raised to the Sublime Degree within a constituent lodge of a Grand Lodge that is recognized as regular. In the process of becoming a MM, I received a charge to uphold the Ancient Landmarks, and, specifically, I assumed the obligation to - without using the exact words in the obligation - to avoid irregular Masonry and clandestinely-made Masons.
Click to expand...

The exact words of the obligation matter because when you look at the exact words what each of us promised is to not go past the Tiler to attend a tiled meeting of any such organization.

That is totally different from avoiding them. As long as you don't discuss the stuff that let's you go past a tiler, you can have all the contact you like.

In the case of clandestine jurisdictions, having more contact is usually better. It helps the guys realize they were duped into joining an imitation.
 
CLewey44

CLewey44

Registered User
Warrior1256 said:
I can understand this since, please correct me if I'm wrong, OES was created primarily as a means to allow Masonic wives a more direct participation in a Masonic type of organization.
Click to expand...
Thats my understanding as well. Daughters too. I think the "requirement" part is why I find it a bit vexing.
 
Bill Lins

Bill Lins

Moderating Staff
Staff Member
I'm still a bit confused- is it Masonry or OES who has the requirement that a MM must be present @ OES meetings?
 
Glen Cook

Glen Cook

G A Cook
Site Benefactor
Elexir said:
OES has that requirment. If Im not misstaken this is one of the reason UGLE does not allow its members to join. @Glen Cook do I understand it correctly?
Click to expand...

“The Board is also aware that there exist other bodies not directly imitative of pure antient Masonry, but which by implication introduce Freemasonry, such as the Order of the Eastern Star. Membership of such bodies, attendance at their meetings, or participation in their ceremonies is incompatible with membership of this Grand Lodge.”
 
CLewey44

CLewey44

Registered User
Bill Lins said:
I'm still a bit confused- is it Masonry or OES who has the requirement that a MM must be present @ OES meetings?
Click to expand...
That's really a good question. I would venture to say Freemasonry would require it since a MM is required in every appendant body as far as I know. I could be wrong as there are the Rainbow, Job's Daughters, Daughters of Isis and Daughters of Mokanna etc that I know absolutely nothing about. They may only require OES members as adults. Organization of Triangles in New York has a MM officer/position, OES has at least two. I think it helps GLs sleep at night that way at least a MM has their hands in something and it doesn't turn into something too far out in left field that wouldn't jive with masonry.
 
Glen Cook

Glen Cook

G A Cook
Site Benefactor
CLewey44 said:
That's really a good question. I would venture to say Freemasonry would require it since a MM is required in every appendant body as far as I know. I could be wrong as there are the Rainbow, Job's Daughters, Daughters of Isis and Daughters of Mokanna etc that I know absolutely nothing about. They may only require OES members as adults. Organization of Triangles in New York has a MM officer/position, OES has at least two. I think it helps GLs sleep at night that way at least a MM has their hands in something and it doesn't turn into something too far out in left field that wouldn't jive with masonry.
Click to expand...
Though one step removed through an appendant order, Beauceant, LOS, and Nile do not require a KT or Shriner’s presence.
 
Bill Lins

Bill Lins

Moderating Staff
Staff Member
CLewey44 said:
That's really a good question. I would venture to say Freemasonry would require it since a MM is required in every appendant body as far as I know. I could be wrong as there are the Rainbow, Job's Daughters, Daughters of Isis and Daughters of Mokanna etc that I know absolutely nothing about. They may only require OES members as adults. Organization of Triangles in New York has a MM officer/position, OES has at least two. I think it helps GLs sleep at night that way at least a MM has their hands in something and it doesn't turn into something too far out in left field that wouldn't jive with masonry.
Click to expand...
As a former Rainbow Assembly board member, I can state that the presence of a MM is NOT required @ their meetings- dunno about the other groups.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top