As is being discussed in another thread, the GLNF and UGLE are once again in amity.
Sent from my iPhone using My Freemasonry
Sent from my iPhone using My Freemasonry
Well I'll be damned. It seems to me that that's not necessary, I thought that was hashed out a hundred years ago. Oh well...thanks for the update though.As is being discussed in another thread, the GLNF and UGLE are once again in amity.
Sent from my iPhone using My Freemasonry
I do not disagree with anything that you have said brother. My lodge also looks after the widows of its members. I have respect for everyone, women most definately included. I am simply saying that regular Masonry is a fraternal organization and, in my opinion, should stay that way.I don't feel so as you do about women, because my great grandmother was well taken care of by the Masons when her husband died. She also had no intent to try to get into the Masons. Her husband's grave bears a square and compasses and "perpetual care". From the Masons. She was OK with that and were she alive (1892-1984) she'd be OK with it today.
... I thought that was hashed out a hundred years ago ...
Good to know, thank you for the clarification, Brother.That one was the Grand Orient in France. Still irregular.
The GNLF is the regular lineage in France. There was an explosion in their grand line a few years ago that triggered pulling recognition by many but not all jurisdictions. Eventually they expelled the person at the center of the storm and things settled down. Recognition restoration has been rolling back in.
I agree with you, Brother.I do not disagree with anything that you have said brother. My lodge also looks after the widows of its members. I have respect for everyone, women most definately included. I am simply saying that regular Masonry is a fraternal organization and, in my opinion, should stay that way.
I am sure that some will take this as a rant from a co-Mason, but you can ask the question about regular FM as well. Is every lodge 'good', just because it is linked to a regular organisation and is every lodge that is not by definition 'bad'? I know a FM who has little good to say about the Dutch Grand Orient even though they are regular (the man himself is of the Regular Grandlodge of Belgium). He can talk for hours what the problems are in his opinion. Or what about France. Were Grand Orient lodges 'bad' when the Grand Orient was irregular and did they suddenly become 'good' when relations with UGLE were reastablished?AmigoKZ said:Thanks for the info! I just wanted to ask: is there any difference in, ifit's possible to say, in "masonic "skills" between regular/irregular freemason? For example, I mean, if a student goes to 'bad teacher'(musicians or painter) that 'bad teacher' will teach bad. And the student's skills will be 'bad' as result. I mean, Frenchmasons think that they are also 'true' masons. What's the difference of 'skills' of The Crafts?
It has nothing to do with freemasonery but with politics.As is being discussed in another thread, the GLNF and UGLE are once again in amity.
Sent from my iPhone using My Freemasonry
Some can argue, and quite convincingly so, that freemasonery [SIC] IS nothing BUT politics.It has nothing to do with freemasonery but with politics.
How do you define "politics"? The term is often used by the losing side in a dispute who used the same competition methods, just not successfully.It has nothing to do with freemasonery but with politics.
Taking this example, do you think that next day after derecognition of GLNF masons, meetings, lodges have changed at a point we are not acceptable to meet ? And The contrary when Glnf was re-recognized ? There is something totally artificial in this matter of regularity.
They first went astray by being co-Masonic.there are co-Masonic lodges that went astray by skipping the GAOTU
This is certainly the way that I see it.They first went astray by being co-Masonic.