UGLE Gender Policy

[David612]

Referring to the VOSL as a piece of furniture, suggesting that our obligation should not be taken literally, and insulting a MM because he protests your obvious disregard for both the VOSL and the obligation, is not taking your obligation seriously, IMHO.

At least not as seriously as some.

The craft has not thrived for over 300 years by reciting meaningless words on some book that looks pretty on the middle of the room.

It has been built and maintained by Men of strong moral fiber, whose belief in a Supreme Being and a obligation to one another is un faltering.

Many of those men still take their literal obligation, on the written word of GAOTU quite seriously.

More seriously than others.


Sent from my iPhone using My Freemasonry mobile app

Simply because people disagree dosnt mean people are insulted, it’s called a civil discourse.
Why it is that my views on the esoteric nature of our craft upsets you so is beyond me however-
For your to say that the words said are meaningless says more about you and your point of view than it does mine-

If you feel you cannot engage in a discussion about this subject please just add me to your ignore list-
Personally I add people I think are trolls or generally don’t put forward valuable talking points- as a result this thread for example is shorter for me than it is for many I’m sure.
In no way do I want to live in an echo chamber but to say the VSL can only be what it literally appears to be because God said so dosnt resonate with me personally, you are of cause welcome to disagree.

 

[Glen Cook]

I would suggest that “religious “ is susceptible to two meanings.

Relating to or believing in a religion;

A belief or practice forming part of one’s belief in a divine being.
See https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/religious

In English speaking jurisdictions, Masonic symbolic ( craft) degrees are not the former, they are the latter.

 

[CLewey44]

If the UGLE, in an effort to be tolerant, runs off intolerant individuals, I'm quite ok with that.

 

[darsehole]

If the UGLE, in an effort to be tolerant, runs off intolerant individuals, I'm quote ok with that.

Define “tolerant”.

We don’t allow women, atheists, and people with mental disabilities.




Sent from my iPhone using My Freemasonry mobile app

 

[Glen Cook]

Define “tolerant”.

We don’t allow women, atheists, and people with mental disabilities.




Sent from my iPhone using My Freemasonry mobile app

In substance I agree, but I would clarify that I’m unaware of any jurisdiction which uses the term “mental disabilities.” Yes, many prohibit the “mad man” and the “fool”as well as an “old man in his dotage.” However, those are more specific than just a prohibition on “mental disabilities.” I know Masons with PTSD and depression. I once had an expert testify that at some point in their life, 70% of adults suffer depression. I know those who appear to meet the criteria for a narcissistic personality disorder, and other personality disorders. Yet, here we all are with our many imperfections.

 

[darsehole]

In substance I agree, but I would clarify that I’m unaware of any jurisdiction which uses the term “mental disabilities.” Yes, many prohibit the “mad man” and the “fool”as well as an “old man in his dotage.” However, those are more specific than just a prohibition on “mental disabilities.” I know Masons with PTSD and depression. I once had an expert testify that at some point in their life, 70% of adults suffer depression. I know those who appear to meet the criteria for a narcissistic personality disorder, and other personality disorders. Yet, here we all are with our many imperfections.

Ok. I could argue this point, but its more important to me that I don’t, out of respect for any brothers who may be suffering from any form of depression, to whom I wish a full and speedy recovery.

We’ll leave it at women and atheists.

Do we have a definition on tolerance yet?


Sent from my iPhone using My Freemasonry mobile app

 

[CLewey44]

That's where the divide would be. Are these individuals now men or still women. Who am I to decide that. Probably wouldn't even know it in most cases.

 

[darsehole]

That's where the divide would be. Are these individuals now men or still women. Who am I to decide that. Probably wouldn't even know it in most cases.

Perhaps we should only allow free born men, of strong moral virtue, with a belief in a Supreme Being.

Then there would be no divide.

Like it was prior to UGLE announcement.


Sent from my iPhone using My Freemasonry mobile app

 

[coachn]

...The last thing we need is to come across discriminatory.

LOL! That ship has sailed.

 

[Glen Cook]

Ok. I could argue this point, but its more important to me that I don’t, out of respect for any brothers who may be suffering from any form of depression, to whom I wish a full and speedy recovery.

We’ll leave it at women and atheists.

Do we have a definition on tolerance yet?


Sent from my iPhone using My Freemasonry mobile app

I’m reminded of HL Mencken’s quip: We must respect the other fellow’s religion, but only in the sense that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children are smart.

 

[Elexir]

Please show me where I’m wrong?
If I’m incorrect here I’d love to know about it.

For starters: a big part of masonry is your religion and your relationship with God, even looking at a version of the FC in webb I was suprised by how much it points to your own God.

Second, while the VSL also has a tradition history its posistion in ritual also denotes its higher meaning in Freemasonry.

Thirdly and lastly, prayers as used in anyform has a specific purpose. There is a reason its not used in secular organisations.

Within GOdF etc. the VSL is changed to something known as the "white book". If the VSL dont hold a religious signicance, why did they change it?

(Sidenote: there are masonic juristictions and orders that only allows christians to join)

 

[CLewey44]

Perhaps we should only allow free born men, of strong moral virtue, with a belief in a Supreme Being.

Then there would be no divide.

Like it was prior to UGLE announcement.


Sent from my iPhone using My Freemasonry mobile app

I feel ya. Let's stay the course for sure then.

 

[coachn]

Define “tolerant”. ..

Not taking negative, detrimental, violent, immoral, unethical or illegal actions toward what irritates, unnerves or disagrees with you.

 

[CLewey44]

Not taking negative, detrimental, violent, immoral, unethical or illegal actions toward what irritates, unnerves or disagrees with you.

Layne's Law?

 

[coachn]

Layne's Law?

Only if you want to argue that the definition I offered is not the one I go by ;-)

 

[Bloke]

I think ones view of ones own VSL as either allegorical or the literal word of God is exactly that, your own view depending on your beliefs and the religious traditions you belong to. I also think in lodges, you will have people in both camps, perhaps some even just seeing their VSL as a loose moral guide. While there might indeed be a "Truth" in one view, each Freemason can only try to follow his version of that "Truth" according to his own conscience and if varying from our own, respect their beliefs; respect for difference, being a core value in Freemasonry. Under my Grand Lodge, an individual's view of their VSL is regarded as the private affair of each individual Freemason and hence cannot be validly used as a sweeping point of argument in a discourse or debate on an ethical or moral discussion, and further, that a religious discussion is actually something which cannot take place in a lodge. Hence I wonder if resting on a point made according to a specific view of the content or standing of a VSL is an admissible point in a discussion around Freemasonry, unless presented as a selectively held belief or viewpoint with according weight within the body of Freemasonry, also acknowledging that outside Freemasonry that view might be an axiom without challenge.

I was asked about this last night at lodge, and simply replied that I have so much to do and so many more pressing concerns, that until it arose in one of my official capacities or within a specific lodge I was a member of, that I would focus on other challenges and working to make my lodges and the Craft strong within my own jurisdiction. I might be a member for 50 years and never meet this question in any other form but the abstract.

That said, some have said they would retire from a lodge where a woman was given entry, and to that, we can do nothing but ask them if they feel that is right, and if fixed on the idea, but do nothing but respect their decision.

 

[David612]

I think ones view of ones own VSL as either allegorical or the literal word of God is exactly that, your own view depending on your beliefs and the religious traditions you belong to. I also think in lodges, you will have people in both camps, perhaps some even just seeing their VSL as a loose moral guide. While there might indeed be a "Truth" in one view, each Freemason can only try to follow his version of that "Truth" according to his own conscience and if varying from our own, respect their beliefs; respect for difference, being a core value in Freemasonry. Under my Grand Lodge, an individual's view of their VSL is regarded as the private affair of each individual Freemason and hence cannot be validly used as a sweeping point of argument in a discourse or debate on an ethical or moral discussion, and further, that a religious discussion is actually something which cannot take place in a lodge. Hence I wonder if resting on a point made according to a specific view of the content or standing of a VSL is an admissible point in a discussion around Freemasonry, unless presented as a selectively held belief or viewpoint with according weight within the body of Freemasonry, also acknowledging that outside Freemasonry that view might be an axiom without challenge.

I was asked about this last night at lodge, and simply replied that I have so much to do and so many more pressing concerns, that until it arose in one of my official capacities or within a specific lodge I was a member of, that I would focus on other challenges and working to make my lodges and the Craft strong within my own jurisdiction. I might be a member for 50 years and never meet this question in any other form but the abstract.

That said, some have said they would retire from a lodge where a woman was given entry, and to that, we can do nothing but ask them if they feel that is right, and if fixed on the idea, but do nothing but respect their decision.

You are quite right bloke, in the interest of harmony I’m going to desist-
I wonder if the VSL could reasonably discussed in a meeting

 

[LK600]

I think ones view of ones own VSL as either allegorical or the literal word of God is exactly that, your own view depending on your beliefs and the religious traditions you belong to. I also think in lodges, you will have people in both camps, perhaps some even just seeing their VSL as a loose moral guide. While there might indeed be a "Truth" in one view, each Freemason can only try to follow his version of that "Truth" according to his own conscience and if varying from our own, respect their beliefs; respect for difference, being a core value in Freemasonry. Under my Grand Lodge, an individual's view of their VSL is regarded as the private affair of each individual Freemason and hence cannot be validly used as a sweeping point of argument in a discourse or debate on an ethical or moral discussion, and further, that a religious discussion is actually something which cannot take place in a lodge. Hence I wonder if resting on a point made according to a specific view of the content or standing of a VSL is an admissible point in a discussion around Freemasonry, unless presented as a selectively held belief or viewpoint with according weight within the body of Freemasonry, also acknowledging that outside Freemasonry that view might be an axiom without challenge.

I was asked about this last night at lodge, and simply replied that I have so much to do and so many more pressing concerns, that until it arose in one of my official capacities or within a specific lodge I was a member of, that I would focus on other challenges and working to make my lodges and the Craft strong within my own jurisdiction. I might be a member for 50 years and never meet this question in any other form but the abstract.

That said, some have said they would retire from a lodge where a woman was given entry, and to that, we can do nothing but ask them if they feel that is right, and if fixed on the idea, but do nothing but respect their decision.

There's very little you have stated that I disagree with. One's personal view of the content of the VSL is up to the individual. Within Freemasonry, no member should push their beliefs on another person, regardless if the person believes the VSL is written by the hand of God or a loose set of rules or symbolic in nature and has very little meaning to them. Regardless, The VSL is not a prop within Freemasonry to be compared to pictures or rocks, because it does not carry the same weight. The VSL (at least in the US) is a Landmark just as the requirement (also a Landmark) in the belief in a supreme being(worded differently by Jurisdiction). You could remove the rocks, pictures, etc out of a lodge and you would still have a lodge. Remove the VSL and you would not. I will leave the other issue alone due to relevance.

 

[Warrior1256]

I’m reminded of HL Mencken’s quip: We must respect the other fellow’s religion, but only in the sense that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his children are smart.

Lol!

That said, some have said they would retire from a lodge where a woman was given entry, and to that, we can do nothing but ask them if they feel that is right, and if fixed on the idea, but do nothing but respect their decision.

Agreed.

One's personal view of the content of the VSL is up to the individual.

True.

 

[David612]

There's very little you have stated that I disagree with. One's personal view of the content of the VSL is up to the individual. Within Freemasonry, no member should push their beliefs on another person, regardless if the person believes the VSL is written by the hand of God or a loose set of rules or symbolic in nature and has very little meaning to them. Regardless, The VSL is not a prop within Freemasonry to be compared to pictures or rocks, because it does not carry the same weight. The VSL (at least in the US) is a Landmark just as the requirement (also a Landmark) in the belief in a supreme being(worded differently by Jurisdiction). You could remove the rocks, pictures, etc out of a lodge and you would still have a lodge. Remove the VSL and you would not. I will leave the other issue alone due to relevance.

So people can believe what they want- as long as they agree with you on this point?