By Carlos Antonio Martinez, Jr., J.D., PH.D., M.A., 33º
Read – Is CoMasonry the Antidote part 1
Read – Is CoMasonry the Antidote part 3
SPECULATIVE ERA
1. Alleged “Official Birth” in England
Symbolic or “Speculative Masonry” began to gradually develop during the XVI and XVII in Europe, particularly – though not exclusively – in the kingdoms of England and Scotland.
As the official history relates, on June 24, 1717, four Londonese Lodges gathered to celebrate the Summer Solstice, and to “constitute” the First Grand Speculative Lodge (“Grand Lodge of London”); But, not without the most indignant protest of The Grand Lodge of Operative Masons, which, denounced the “Speculative One” of being Illegitimate and Apocryphal, for many of its subordinate lodges and very leaders (including Anderson himself) had never been affiliated with the Craft – let alone initiated – as “Accepted Masons”.
From that moment on, however, the Grand Lodge of London became the creating source of numerous lodges around the world, which, in turn, were progressively creating their own national bodies (Grand Lodges or Grand orients in every country), all inter-linked by bonds of Solidarity and Mutual Recognition.
In September 1721 (four years later), as a result of the heterogeneity provoked by great errors that existed in all the copies of the Ancient Constitutions, and, at the same time, due to the expansion of Speculative Masonry to Europe and America, the assembly of The Grand Lodge of London charged Pastor James Anderson, chaplain of a subordinate Lodge, with “ordering the old constitutions with a new and better method”. Anderson finalized the assignment in three months and presented his finalized work at the festivity of Winter Solstice of that same year – being thereupon revised by a commission integrated by fourteen erudite masons, shorthly thereafter approved by the same group on March 25, 1722, and subsequently published by William Hunter the following year. In the third article of these “new constitutions”, there is a concrete clause prohibiting women to join the Order. In that sense, Anderson is very clear in stating such prohibition; But, he is rather indifferent in stating the motivations that drove him to such a pronouncement.
2. Emergence in Continental Europe:
Simultaneously, Speculative Masonry started gaining terrain in Continental Europe, mainly in France. In addition to the Irish Lodges that were constituted in Saint Germain in 1690, Free-Masonry attained much strength at the beginning of 1720, under the leadership of the Duke of Wharton, and, posteriorly, under that of Sir John MacLean. The first “londonese styled” election, of which there is historical constancy, was that of Charles Radcliffe, Count of Dervenwater, in 1736, as “Grand Master of the Most Ancient and Most Illustrious Society of Franc-Masons in the Kingdom of France”. The Duke of Anton was the first French Grand Master of the Order in 1738. Later came the Grand Mastership of Louis de Borbon, Count of Claremont and Abbot of Saint Germain from 1743 to 1771, whom at one point was even called “Grand Master of All Regular Masonic Lodges in the Kingdom of France”.
The first french translation of the “Constitutions of the Grand Lodge of London”, better known historically as: “Anderson’s Constitutions”, was made by the Marquis de la Tierce in 1742, twenty years after its first publication in London. In his translation he mentions:
“The famous festivities of Ceres in Eleusis, of Isis in Egypt, of Minerva in Athens, of Urania in Phoenicia, and of Diana in Sitia, had much in common with ours. The celebration of these mysteries contained clear vestiges of the ancient religion of Noah and other patriarchs; they concluded their ceremonies with a feast and libations during which, at the beginning, no one knew of excesses or intemperances, until later when the pagans fell into them gradually. The source of these infamies, was the admission of people from one gender and the other at the nocturnal assemblies of the institution. It was to prevent these abuses that women were excluded from the Order”.
This, could be interpreted as either a tacit or veiled admission that indeed women were admitted to work in Lodge in the past; as a rather poor and quasi-baseless argument to discriminate against women; or, as a political pretext – as the very de la Tierce points out – to keep Queen Elizabeth from joining the Order and using it to her benefit, as she so did with other guilds.
It is possible that due to this draconian transition between the established observance of the real constitution of the Grand Lodge of London and the reissuing of its new general norms (“Anderson’s Constitutions”) which lasted approximately six years, the lodges under its jurisdiction worked without rituals and unifying norms during the first half of the XVIII century, and this was, of course, reflected in the first Speculative or Symbolic Masonic Lodges of Continental Europe, many of which, due to their involuntary or voluntary disavow of Anderson’s Constitutions, welcomed the initiation of women.
3. Pseudo-Initiatic Androgynous Societies of Masonic Appearance:
In the Pre-Revolutionary French Society, there were many organizations created by the growing Bourgeoisie that participated in the process of creating the “Civil Court” which came to gradually substitute the “Imperial Court”; these organizations were circles, clubs, cafes, academies, literary societies, scientific societies, spiritualist societies, alchemical societies, chambers, halls of lecture and singing, etc. The vast majority of these societies were not only bi-gender, but, were also sponsored by women of great economical, social and political power – mainly the “philosophical halls”, a world of initiates that was dominated by the “Court of Seals” of the Duchess of Maine (1676 – 1753), Director ad vitam of the “Order of the Bee”; the hall of the Marquee of Lambert (1647 – 1733); the “Bureau of the Spirit” of Claudine Guerin de Tencin (1681 – 1749); the hall of the Marquee of Deffand (1697 – 1780); the “Kingdom” of Maria Teresa Geoffrin (1699 – 1777) and the “Philosophical Hall” of Julia de Lespinasse (1732 – 1776).
The pseudo-initiatic societies denominated as: “Androgynous” or “Hermaphrodite” that appeared along the XVIII century, have their origins in like organizations created at the end of Louis XIV’s rule, and other social entities of more profane roots where the openness of membership to both genders was not only normal, but, encouraged. These organizations can be divided in two groups:
Secret Societies which were gallant, licentious, fun-seeking and recreational, platonic and charitable.
“Orders” that parodied Free-Masonry and sought to become their competitors and/or substitutes – something that they did so well, that between 1730 and 1740 public powers/officials mistook them for actual Masonic Lodges in a number of occasions. Among these “Orders” were: the “Con-Fraternity of Figs” in Vienna, the “Order of Liberty“, “Order of Felicity“, and “Order of Anthropocentrism” in France. The “Order of Felicity” proliferated and got to be sponsored by high personages of French politics, economics and society at large. On the other hand, the “Order of Anthropocentrism” took its name from maritime language, a fact, which, in the eyes of the profane world, got them often misidentified with Masonic Lodges of naval origin – aside from having passwords and methods of recognition which made reference to bodily parts of men and women, and, that, as such, had erotic, sexual and licentious connotations.
The “Order of Knights and Nymphs of the Rose” was also famous; its membership was mainly constituted of aristocrats and well known free-masons, such as: the Duke of Chartres (then future Duke of Orleans) who was also Grand Master of the Grand Orient of France.
The “Order of Knights and Ladies of Perseverance” equally pseudo-initiatic, but, less “loud”, was created by notable figures such as: the daughter of Stanislav II, Augustus Poniatowski, Last King of Poland, Elizabeth Lubomirska and her daughters, the Countesses Rzewuska and Potocka, all members of the Masonic Lodge of Adoption “Catherine the Northern Star” which was conjoined with its male counterpart of the same name, constituted under the auspices of the Grand Orient of France, and propelled by Ignatius Potocki. Other notables who held membership in this Lodge of Adoption were the Duke of Chartress, the Count of Artois (future Charles X), the Prince of Ligne, Charles Joseph, future Marshall of Russia, the Austrian Duke of Lauzum. Knight Hospitallier of the Order, and a number of prestigious intellectuals.
During the kingdoms of Louis XV and Louis XVI appeared other pseudo-initiatic organizations of Masonic appearance, such as: the “Order of Medusa“, the “Extirpators of Palisades“, the “Knights of the Dove“, the “Order of the Green Apple“, etc.
Since 1730, aside from these more or less “light societies”, in all of Europe we are able to find fraternities (bi-gender or not) which, amused themselves parodying Masonic secrets and rituals out of mere jealousy, contempt, rivalry and/or imbecile humor.
The Order of Mopses (or Order of the Pug) is perhaps the most famous of the aforementioned organizations which used to mocker Free-Masonry. It was born in Strasburg in 1738, after the official prohibition of Masonry emitted by the Empress Mary Therese, as a consequence of the Papal Bull “In Eminenti”. It was presided by Wilhelmina, sister of Frederick II, King of Prussia. With the exception of the Grand Mistress Ad Vitam, all the Sisters may occupy all the “stations”. In every Lodge, every position or office has two titleholders, a man and a woman. Every six months the presidency of the Lodge is alternated between a Man and a Woman, and their ceremony of Initiation is carried out in accordance with the Inductee’s gender, be it by male or female officers.
It was within that context, in 1736, that Andre Michelle, Knight of Ramsay pronounced his over-misogynous speech before the General Assembly of Masonic Lodges in Paris, and which he later repeated in 1737. His public address had the eventually-failed objective of causing Free-Masonry to be under the control of the Monarchy and the Roman Catholic Church, in order to counterattack the incredulity and socio-political discredit in which the Craft had fallen, due to the turmoil and disorder provoked in considerable measure by these Pseudo-Initiatic Institutions of Masonic Resemblance and, of course, by the misconduct of actual Free-Masons.
All this agitation caused a great deal of tension between the Puritan and Orthodox Masonic Jurisdictions of England and their French counterparts. From then on, the English Free-Masons demonstrated an unbelievable efficiency in generating tidal-waves of anti-feminine literature aimed at justifying the non-admittance of women in Lodge. They had three basic arguments which had been tangibly proven in France, at the hands of the previously referenced “Mixed Pseudo-Initiatic Orders”. Such arguments were: the congenital Feminine Indiscretion which made the respect to Masonic secrecy Impossible; the disorders, conflicts and eventual loss of harmony that could be provoked by the “Beautiful Gender” in a Masculine Lodge; and the risks of being accused of Immorality, Lasciviousness and Libertinism by civil and ecclesiastical authorities.
From that moment forward, one of the most colossal anti-feminist campaigns was launched in all of Europe. These campaigns were clearly manifested in Literature, Music, Theater, and, of course, the Media… What’s new?!
In reaction to this, in 1774 the Grand Orient of France legitimized the Lodges of Adoption (Bi-Gender and Feminine Masonic Lodges). Pierre Louis Gouillard Aine, Parliament’s Attorney, Dean of the Faculty of Law in Paris, Royal Auditor, Officer of the Grand Orient of France and Venerable Master of Sophia Lodge prepared a document containing numerous points in defense of Female Free-Masons. Some of those remarks and arguments were:
“The association of both genders is founded upon Natural Law and one cannot separate from this Principle without rebelling against the tenets of this Immutable Law”;
” What a most satisfying spectacle to see a Lodge formed by Brothers and Sisters animated by the desire of practicing the fundamental virtues of our Institution”;
“Which Philosopher – even the most austere – can refuse the pleasure of contemplating in the same place the two most perfect artworks that were ever sculpted by the hand of Nature?!”
Then, he gives historical proof that indeed Women are capable of safe-keeping the most delicate secrets:
“… when being admitted in many of the Mysteries of Antiquity, like those of the Druids, to whom they were Deservers of all Confidence and Respect, even more so than that which they professed toward men, by having been assigned to the office and dignity of Prophetesses and Sages that were considered the elite of the nation …”
He continues on advocating for the innocence of Sisters in Lodge:
“Some of our Brothers, oblivious to the principles of Art and under false pretenses of creating a Lodge of Adoption, have gathered incorrigible females with whom to abandon themselves in orgies and the most uncontrollable excesses of libertinism; But, precisely because we have had the disgrace of nourishing in our bosom those unworthy monsters that I call “men” (for I wish not to call them Masons), these spurious brothers, abusing a title of which they are totally unworthy of, have succumbed to the most execrable superfluities; Can we actually think that the solution is to throw women out of our Temples?, No! Undoubtedly what must be done is to take measures against the perpetrators of these transgressions”.
He then suggested a number of regulative measures to stop the abuses in the Lodges of Adoption – such as the following two:
“To summon, by consent of the majority of the Brethren, to participation in all meetings and special gatherings, which will be indistinctively presided by either the Venerable Master, or one of the Wardens of the Adopting Lodge”;
“Scrupulous Examination of the conduct and state of all female candidates”.
And with this final comment, our French Brethren voted in favor of admitting women into our Order:
“… profiting from lessons of Wisdom that shall be vividly engraved in the hearts of men, when imparted by an amiable mouth which by the sweetness of its accents, shall make the austerity of precepts disappear, and will force us to think of ourselves and to practice virtue …”
From this very moment, many masculine lodges under the jurisdiction of the Grand Orient of France began to auspice Lodges of Adoption, and, at the same time, to enrich the arguments in defense of Free-Co-Masons (Women Free-Masons), thus creating the Perfect Unification of Human Energies and Labors toiling for the material, moral, spiritual and intellectual progress of Humanity.
All these events gave full or partial pretext or foundation to the “surfacing” or “devising” of an Anglo-Saxon System of Masonry which calls itself “REGULAR” and refuses to “recognize” others, and a “LIBERAL” F-R-E-E-MASONRY, integrated by all those other Sovereign Grand Bodies and Jurisdictions that are “Irregular” in the eyes of our English Styled/Controlled Masonry — An absolute contraposition which seems irremediable still in our days.
Reprinted by permission of Carlos Antonio Martinez, Jr.
What would I do if my son wanted to join a male only lodge? In a perfect world there would be no such thing.
:rolls eyes:
I’m still amused at your assertion that women who prefer to stay in feminine lodges are “blind.”
I should also point out that there are many paths to enlightenment; your twins don’t have to take the same path if they so choose.
Tom,
That still in no way answers my question. This is a common tactic and one that is identifiable.
I was not stating that the twins chose differnt paths but that they do the same one. What would your answer to your daughter be?
Come on, have the balls.
S&F,
raum
Raum,
I re-read what I had responded to, and must admit, I did put words into your mouth … I must have been too tired. I am sorry. Thank you for the corrections.
BTW If my son were to decide on Freemasonry and so did my daughter in the example you gave, I would encourage the son to join a Freemason Lodge, and the daughter to join a Masonic Lodge knowing no lodge in my state the is considered a ‘regular’ lodge would allow here, my issue with Co-Mixed Mason lodges are:
1) I don’t know what they teach [I know some lodges for Mix teach york and scottish rites within their teachings.]
2) I am concerned they allow Atheists into Lodge.
I know this is another point of argument, but in my opinion I believe in God and would have taught my children to believe in God, and do not wish the pain they would feel when confronted with someone who not only doubted God but had strong disbelief in God. It is a point unmovable in my life and as the vaule setter for my children and would take the role on with a vengeance.
But I would encourage her and supprot her making a female ‘regular’ lodge.
Thanks for asking the hypo questions D
Have you Bother checked out The Sanctum Sanctorum, Mastermason.com, Freemason Pride, Freemasonryforums.Com, MySpace Cyberlodge #1
Have you checked out the Masoniclight Yahoo group, which happens to include a number of Grand Lodge officers as members, from different jurisdictions, who would likely censure Brethren for the sort of attacks you are mentioning?
I’m asking you, Raum to tell me where you have documented cases of children being threatened in school because their mom’s are Masons.
You know damned well that female and non gender Masons are not welcome under the mainstream even for civil Masonic discourse.
This is a lie, or simply your own intentional ignorance – I know a number of women who are Co-Masons or from feminine GL’s who are welcomed at Masonic Week in DC every year, the only thing they are not allowed to attend is tyled meetings. The open panels are very welcoming to them.
Quit trying to make anti-segregationsists as myself
STOP RIGHT THERE.
I have asked you, repeatedly, to quit trying to compare this to the civil rights movement; it is hypocrisy and defamation of the good work the civil rights leaders did to keep trying to claim their aegis for your badgering.
Masonry is not a public accommodation to which every man and woman is entitled; private groups are not, and cannot be considered under the same argument you kept making about drinking fountains and the back of the bus – one does not need Freemasonry to live, or to make a living.
You this to Tom:
Come on, have the balls.
and then follow it up with this:
S&F
I’m calling you a liar, right here and right now – there is no fraternalism in saying “have the balls” to someone.
It is, in fact, cowardly and disgusting, and not what one expects of a gentlemen who supposedly learned to circumscribe his passions.
You have proven what we see time and time again from the most vocal of the irregular men’s lodges in the USA – that your egos and your self aggrandizement are more important to you than the lessons you should have learned in the first degree.
Talmont,
I appreiate you rereading my posts and I accept your apology. No problems Brother 🙂
I will attempt to answer your questions regarding intergrated Masonry.
1.) What do they teach?
Ingergrated Masons lodges use a variety of rituals. The most common would be the original French AASR. Also a ritual called commonly the “Lauderdale.” This ritual is a combination of the English Emulation Rite and the Indian Dharmic Rite as created by Annie Bessent and Charles Leadebeater.
You will also find the Rite of Memphis Misraim, Emulation, Irish Rite and even your standard Preston-Webb. These rituals are the exact same as used in segregated lodges. I am not aware of any segregation masculine lodges that use Lauderdale, though I am sure they could.
So what do they teach? The same thing that any Masonic lodge teaches.
2.) The admission of atheists.
Not all Co-Masonic orders allow Atheists (though I believe they should.) I am not for segregation based on lack of faith either. In fact I believe that many Athiests do make great Masons and many would have. Carl Sagan, Jiddu krishnamurto and Bruce Lee just for starters would have made fantastic Freemasons IMHO.
Most of academia are either athiests or agnostic. There are as many types of atheism as there are athiests. Some make great Freemasons, other don’t.
FYI: being that there is no universal Masonic authority and that each Masonic order has the right to determine for themselves what regularity means to them.
So, to use the term “irregular” when making reference to another order doesn’t mean a whole lot.
MP,
Are you telling all of us that because one Yahoo group doesn’t dehumanize female and intergrationist Masons that trumps those other outlets that do?
Please clarify.
Why would I post “documented” cases of anything (information that would include personal information) on a open forum at the request of an anonyomous poster? That wouldn’t be good judgement.
Your posts got pretty nasty. Masonic week hardly recifies the treatment of female Masons by segregationists the other 51 weeks of the year.
You asked me to do something then you got really upset and nasty when I did not follow your command. talk about ego. I am sorry that you have rank issues. You are not my employer, my father or any other authoritarian figure to me. I can choose if I like to comply to your request or not. I chose not to, get over it.
The private organization argument is a tired one that I dismantled a few posts back. Now, come up with something new and that does not include escalating your level of hostility.
As to the rest of your nonsensical rant I will give you a pass on it. No worries. I will be back should you choose to resume this conversation like an adult.
S&F,
Raum
Nick,
They do have the right to determine for themselves. Yes they do. Just as I have the right to call them on the carpet that to deny someone even the ability to petition based on no fault of thier own is just flat out wrong.
Just because they have the right and ability to do what they please does no mean that they are apove questioning and challenges. I am not much for standing by where I find inhuman practices being justified as tradition.
S&F,
Raum
FYI: being that there is no universal Masonic authority and that each Masonic order has the right to determine for themselves what regularity means to them.
So, to use the term “irregular” when making reference to another order doesn’t mean a whole lot.
Brad, thank you for explaining that Masonic orders have the right to determine regularity. A major requirement in many Grand Lodges of British origin is no women may be initiated. As you have stated, each Masonic order has the right to determine their requirements of regularity. That is really the point isn’t it, to each their own.
Unlike you, this is not a hypothetical question for me, and it is one which I’ve already addressed. My daughter has been asking me questions about Masonry for the last few years, and I’ve already had several discussions with her about her options, should she choose to follow that path. Fortunately, in the Northeast we have a number of feminine and mixed lodges of different obediences (not all feminine lodges are “Co-Masonry,” nor do they all come from the same Federations. Ironically, some of them do not recognize each other.). In fact, just last week we were talking about her emailing some of the women Masons I know to ask questions. And like me, she doesn’t have any problem with the idea of “separate but equal” nor with the concept that sometimes men and women want to associate with each other, and sometimes they don’t.
Is that enough of my “balls” for you, Brad? Then how about this – I’ve even asked some of the GL officers if they knew of any groups closer to home so I could bring her to visit when the time comes. I’ve also brought this up in conversations with some of my lodge brothers; I’m totally open about this.
And see, this is why I (and I suspect others) don’t take you seriously. It’s easy for you to make your pronouncements from what amounts to your electronic treehouse club. Some of us, though, are doing the real work of promoting goodwill and enlightenment where it counts: with the people to whom it will matter the most. You can sit in your treehouse and hoot about what’s “wrong” with mainstream Freemasonry, but the fact is, you’re not involved in it. I am, and I’m fortunate enough to be a capacity in which I can actually make some small difference.
Most people know well that I’ve defended and promoted non-UGLE Masonry, and you have no idea of the ration of manure that I’ve had to contend with because of my views – and not just on the internet, but also face to face, right here in Conn. Sure, it’s not right, but at the moment, that’s the way that the system is, and it’s not going to change unless some of us work at it reasonably and rationally. You want to talk about “balls,” Brad? You do not belong to any of the organizations which we are discussing; instead of sitting in your treehouse, why not actually join one of them and work to make a difference, instead of lobbing water balloons at those of us who have some stake in the situation?
“Now, come up with something new and that does not include escalating your level of hostility.”
Now please finally come up with something new that can be backed up with facts, instead of making sweeping statements with weak examples and no evidence. Like these papers we’re “discussing”, your argument is full of holes that just get deeper.
Well said, Br. Tom, well said.
Backed up with facts on what point? That women where/are stonemasons and the falsehood that they weren’t has been the backbone justification of the segregation position all along?
You might want to read some of the work done by Bro.Philip Carter.
http://www.geocities.com/womenmasons/
I am sure that some of you may find it of interest.
S&F,
Raum
Talmont,
The boy scouts and girl scouts are childrens organizations.Apples and oranges if it where.
When it comes to atheism and the Craft here are some things I think you should check out.
Sam Harris -Misconceptions about Atheism
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLIKAyzeIw4
Jiddu Krishnamurti
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WEIfMqM5wnM
Bruce Lee
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uXOtmhA6Nvw
Carl Sagan
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wupToqz1e2g
Dan Dennett
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KzGjEkp772s
All of these men where/are Atheists and I would have lodved to have them in my lodge. Freemasonry is a progressive science. Atheists tend to be quite adept at science.
I am not an Atheist, not I am a believer. I say that I have a “resonable acceptence of a Cretor.” I equate belief with fact and I just don’t have any facts in this regard.
S&F,
Raum
Raum, we need to have you take a look at the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts, what are your rates? . Raum, we will agree to disagree.
BUT I value your insite and opinion. as far as Atheists in Lodge, it defeats the point of Lodge no matter how it is sliced. I believe there can be good men who do not believe in God, I believe there are rattle snakes who won’t bite when aggravated, but I don’t trust my luck to either.
THANKS
My penny has been well spent 😀
Tremont,
I will respect your belief. That is probably the worlds most touchy subject and I have no desire to get into that debate on this thread.
I will say that I find the scientific minds of most Atheists very refreshing. I have gottten into great discussions with many a non believer that I found quite stimulating. I also find Atheism to be very much in sink with Freemasonry and Masonic virtue. Because Atheists have a versted interest in THIS LIFE. They are interested in making THIS WORLD a better place and that my friend is what building the temple not made by hands is all about.
I find Freemasonry to be very on line with secular humaism in many ways. That is why the Papacy has feared it so. That is why the merchants of religion as an instrument of torture and death from the Inquisitors to the Nazi’s on to the Mullah’s have sought out and killed Freemasons.
Ahhh I don’t want to get off on a soap box with this topic. Let’s just say tht there are a lot of Atheist and Agnostic Freemasons. Many of them are in the closet in mainstream lodges. I have had long conversations with many of them. It’s a shame that they feel that they cannot be opene about who they are because of fear of reprisal.
My $0.02.
S&F,
Raum
Raum, that is the second time you have said apples to oranges, and you are right.
You see in the Masons it is adults choosing for the present day how men and women interact and how they interact with the world. In Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts Adults are choosing to separate them by gender, and choosing to have the girls do foo-foo things like making cushy seat covers for watching the boys play baseball, and not for camping nor hiking because of ALL the release forms they would need, because it is TOO hazardous … but the Boys in Boy Scouts have very few of the same requirements and are allowed to grow and expand in Cooking, sewing, arts, hiking, swimming, climbing, rifle shooting, etc … so very apples and oranges….
Masons : Choose for themselves
Scouts : Choose for the generation growing and developing now …
If real change in how society works is desired, aim for the youth, change will come in our lifetime.
[Not saying to ignore Masonic changes, saying you are swimming upstream if you don’t address the way our youth are being shaped.]
Just my Penny.
Atheists…
I didn’t say there are no positive atheists. I simply stated my belief, I have no wish to change your. If you desire Atheists in Lodge and desire them in ‘regular’ Blue Lodge, good luck to you. I desire men who believe in God, and will work to keep that standard in Lodge. If a man chooses to question God, that is between him and God, if a man chooses to ignore, deny, or refute God [IMHO that is still between him and God, he just doesn’t yet know it], that is his right as per free will.
I didn’t state Atheists can not shape a city/state/country in a positive manner. But my belief in God means All Good comes from God and all Evil/Bad comes from a lack of God. By definition an Atheist is without God. Logically [by a mixture of my Faith and Logic] then he/she is more prone to bad/negative/evil via that lack, if God is the source of all Good. Since I believe in God, I believe in Him as the source of all positive and a lack of Him as the source of all negative … simple. I am not asking you to believe it, I am not asking ANYONE else to believe it. But it is the reason I would not, knowingly, sit in a Lodge with an Atheist, and the reason I believe having an Atheist in Lodge flies in the face of having a Lodge formed… If they are not dedicated to God, then to who? What is their purpose or point, and stating Good is their purpose or point then I tell you, not to one who believes in God. And that is a belief I will not give up. Nor do I ask of you to believe the same. I am answering your questions 😀
My penny.
Talmont,
FYI not all Co-Masonic orders accept Athiests (I consider this another failing of the classical GL structure.) The AFHR for an example do everything organizationally the same as your Order does. In fact you would find them very recognizable should you ever visit one of their lodges. The only real difference is they do not segregate based on gender. They are very “Antient” in both structure and practice. So would any other Co-Masonic order who fly’s under the Annie Bessant Accord.
I consider segregation on both gender/religious levels to be repulsive and against Masonic virtue.
Here is your misuse of the term “regular” again. C’mon, I know you can use it in it’s correct form. 🙂
Oh, and Masons do not take “oaths” rather “obligations.” There are differences.
S&F,
Raum
Thanks for the response, I would bet their minds are VERY scientific and logical. And it would be in line with the building a better world. [w/o detracting from my previous post]. But the building of each members spirit is my concern for those individuals. I am sorry they are fearful of reprisal in a ‘regular’ lodge, but an Atheist should find welcome in a mixed/CoFreemason lodge, what reason would they have for being in any other? ESPECIALLY if they fear a negative reaction, remembering why there would be a negative reaction concerning an Oath all ‘regular’ Masons accept. It would seem that their acceptance would be a banner flag for Co/Mixed Freemasonry.
A human condition the Lodge is forced to accept? I don’t buy that. Why would that occur then?
An eager awaitence.
Raum,
I knew you would understand Oath = Obligations but I love adding mystery to the Fraternity, enhances the experience for those around me who do become members. AFHR I will check into for the women in my life…
I use the term ‘regular’ in ” marks because it is the title used, not because of the meaning of the term regular. Had I meant regular as in average or normal I would not have ” it :D, hoped you would have picked up on that :).
I know of and understand your disdain for the separation of gender and faith or lack there of in Lodge, but I must ask a question of you again…
To quote me in all arrogance [:)]
‘But it is the reason I would not, knowingly, sit in a Lodge with an Atheist, and the reason I believe having an Atheist in Lodge flies in the face of having a Lodge formed… If they are not dedicated to God, then to who? What is their purpose or point, and stating Good is their purpose or point then I tell you, not to one who believes in God.’
{Remember Dedicated to God, founding principle… }
My penny.
A few post’s back I thought I said that co masonry doesn’t exist and that if your not part of a regular lodge your not a mason, why is this thread still open?
oops I meant “you’re” not “your”
Derrick,
This thread is open because their is an active dialogue on it, if you are a moderator close it if you wish, if not, they have decided to allow it to do what is intended in a blog, generate discussion.
I am glad you have a belief to share, while I do not share it, and can agree most GL’s would agree with you, I would have to point something out to you … your right to your belief ceases at my right to mine.
Thanks for the distraction 😀
Correction:
This thread is open because their is
= This thread is open because there is
Thanks
Oh by the way I can get anyone interested a great deal on bulk gold plated masonic rings (send me a PM) this way you can start your own masonic group. The rings will get you the admiration that your looking for. I also think the “ring around the rosy” and “red rover red rover” rituals are still available to be used by your new lodge. Oh and feel free to call your new group freemasonry because according to this thread freemasonry is what ever you want it to be, the world’s oldest fraternity some would say has no tradition worth keeping.
My five sarcastic cents
Derrick,
My last comment to you, while your point could have been educational, you chose to attack. Poor sportsmanship. I agreed with you on GLs disavowing anything deemed ‘irregular’, and disregarding arguments that may be launched concerning the origins of that in which we place faith as the origin of ‘regular’ lodges, you have another point, that being we are losing our traditions, no proficiencies, lack of response to unmasonic conduct => Jesters, and to allowing felons into Lodge, I would have to say… time to clean our own house before we attempt to straighten out the houses of others. Freemasonry didn’t get a copyright, trademark, patent so they must suffer the inalienable rights of others to imitate, alter [either through improvement or decimating], and otherwise modify that which we hold dear… a sarcastic person would tell you to build a time machine, attempt to pass the challenges of past brothers [considering we lost Royal Arch in the US and can’t even sit in a ULGE Lodge, it would be a good attempt], and get them to protect their rights legally … fortunately I am not sarcastic in any way… and the reason this is my last response to you?
I don’t believe you are trying to change anything in a positive manner and will feed off of negative attention, thus I respond once to state my side and then … ignore.
And if you HAD the proper education, knowing how much you respect tradition, you would NEVER have mocked the penny comment, you don’t know its meaning or origin … seek the York Rite to remedy that, you’ll like it if you are a traditionalist.
My penny’s worth.
touché
Next on the station: Brad Cofield interviews Raum Sauriel and Raum Sauriel interviews Brad Cofield.
Wait…adjust the antenna
No, wait…this is digital.
One can always tell when the argument is over when nothing but insults fly from the other side.
And these are the actions of “enlightened” men.
Sad really.
S&F,
Raum
Freemasonry didn’t get a copyright, trademark, patent so they must suffer the inalienable rights of others to imitate, alter [either through improvement or decimating]
While we (regular) Masons have done no such thing, officially, the mainstream GL’s have stood side by side in court with PHA GL’s even before recognition occurred, to get cease and desist orders issued on other African American Masonic groups, claiming that PHA is the only valid one.
This is a sad state of affairs, in my opinion.
Not because I think that PHA is NOT valid: they are, and this has been proven time and again; but because the court should not have gotten involved, and I think it diminishes our luster if we have to get the legal system involved in saying who is and isn’t legitimate.
What’s next, mainstream and PHA taking AFHR to court?
I won’t get what i wish I could have, not likely in my lifetime: a regular GL telling its members they can visit wherever they want, but only those recognized by the GL can visit that GL’s Lodges.
Raum, I’m not interested in fighting with you: it’s a waste of time, others have done it for years.
MP,
One would think that people would learn the fighting, bashing and harrasment have not lead me to “go away” and it never will. They keep trying and trying and I am still here. I will be until I leave this Earth. They can either accept that or go on with the tantrums. That is up to them.
The independent lodge movement is growing and gaining momentum everyday. People are starting to realize that they do not have to be beholden to the will of others who really don’t have a unique value proposition anyway.
It is wonderful to witness the awakening. Welcome to the Post-Modern era.
S&F,
Raum
Raum, MP,
Note, I was not advocating GLs’ need to protect Freemasonry, nor was I attempting to insult Darrick, I was only trying to point out his comments had been an attack and wasn’t the best way to receive enlightened dialog, he seemed to have concurred. I do not advocate ‘protecting’ Freemasonry ‘rights’ from PHL or even Co-Mason Lodges, there isn’t a point, since, from the best of my knowledge the COMason origin beging with a Grand Lodge, giving them as much right to the name as those called ‘regular’.
Also, I do believe I advoicate the right of those who would disciminate who had what right to exist… but it doesn’t seem well recieved. Sorry to see. What I do see is alot of attacking, and a lot of misreading, as I did with Raum’s post [and got an accepted apology for]…. what I didn’t see was Raum’s answers to my questions :D.
Talmont,
I’m sorry, what questions did I miss?
S&F,
Raum
Do you have anything to ad Mr.YahYah other than baiting soundbites?
I don’t think that we have ever spoken before, so I would guess any
opinion you have of me to be an uneducated one.
Have a great evening.
S&F,
Raum
“And these are the actions of “enlightened” men.”
Huh. And you are? Quid pro quo.
Talmont,
I don’t ee why it is assumed that an Atheist cannit grasp symbology, are automatically cut off from metaphysical experience or initiatic transformation? I would argue that is not the case. Many great spiritual teachers have been Atheists. Men like Jiddu Krishnamurti and Bruce Lee. The most common form of Atheism is simply that they see “no reason” for God to exisr. I can’t argue with that.
As for Atheism and morality I believe that it has been scientifically proven that human morality doesn’t come from religion, but rather from altruistic genes. The only hope manking had to survive as a species where the group dynamic. Ancient man learned that they couldn’t be raping, murdering and steal from each other if they where to survive.
God is not my purpose for being a Mason. I am not an Atheist
but I could see an Atheist getting a lot from and contributing
a lot to the Craft.
A lot of the anti-Atheists in Freemasonry ask “what would an
atheist get out of it?” Well, what do you? I mean I am not a
Hindu, does that mean a Hindu based Rite would be of zero
use to me? Of course not.
BTW: We have created a discussion group on our website. If
you are interested in further discussions besides this one
you may feel free to join.
S&F,
Raum
Raum,
The question I had is almost lost in the distraction, but here : [:)]
To quote me in all arrogance [:)]
‘…[b]ut it is the reason I would not, knowingly, sit in a Lodge with an Atheist, and the reason I believe having an Atheist in Lodge flies in the face of having a Lodge formed… If they are not dedicated to God, then to who? What is their purpose or point, and stating Good is their purpose or point then I tell you, not to one who believes in God.’
{Remember Dedicated to God, founding principle… }
My penny.
Talmont,
One thing to remember is that not every Masonic ritual is the same. In fact, it is argued that the earliest known Masonic ritual made no reference to the G.O.A.T.U. But that is a side issue.
The French Modern Rite for an example is quite secular. As opposed to working in dedication to the G.O.A.T.U. the lodge works towards to perfection of humanity. In French Orders, Lodges have the choice to work towards one or the other, or both.
With the Rosicrucians for an example, one can be an atheist they are just made aware the very religious symbolism of the art and the working of their theurgy. With us in the Rite of Misraim it would be such the same. The Rite of Misraim is deep religious occultism. Now, some atheists may not be comfortable with that but speaking myself as a Deist (with anti-Theist tendencies) I have zero issue with it.
Again, when you speak of a blind man vs. a man who can see color I will refer you to Sam Harris who writes and speaks very well on the subject. You can find tons of his videos on YouTube.
The Outer Court can be found on my lodge website. Just click on my name and follow the links.
All the best,
Raum
I would love to join that discussion, I don’t know the url. My question though was about the contradiction of Atheist and ‘Dedicated to God’, not thinking of, not contemplating, DEDICATED TO … you see in contact the question related to Atheist and non sitting in a Lodge together that is dedicated to God, an Atheist isn’t dedicated to God, I do not state they can’t grasp the concept of Symbolism, but that to me is the difference between a bland man being able to grasp the concept of color and a man with sight being able to see and experience color … I guess the question was how to justify to a spiritually devoted individual their ability to sit in lodge with someone who didn’t believe in God and yet the lodge was dedicated to God, it flies in the face of something that has a basis in God. I am not judging the Atheist, just questioning the propriety of the situation.
Hoping not to have confused the issue too much.
My penny’s worth.
Will move this portion of the discussion there, but not tonight. Thanks [btw, I don’t agree, but then it would be a dull dialog if I did :)]
“With the Rosicrucians for an example, one can be an atheist they are just made aware the very religious symbolism of the art and the working of their theurgy.”
I am curious as to which Rosicrucian order believes this. By and large, Rosicrucian orders have historically been Christian until the beginning of the last century when others were formed with more relativistic syncretism, rather than an acknowledged syncretism based in mystical Christian thought.
So, one must not just state “Rosicrucians” and have that mean (a) actual Rosicrucians, or (b) that all Rosicrucian orders admit atheists–they certainly do not because they hate atheists, but because the egregore is dependent on not only the symbolism, but the faith. Just because one acknowledges the theistic import of the symbols does not mean the operation will work for them. There must be something else–faith. In the case of Rosicrucians, that would be faith in the Christos. Spiritual relativism does not work very will in theurgy and it is limited even when performing thaumaturgy. One key is to not confuse an educated form of syncretism with banal relativism.
“it is argued that the earliest known Masonic ritual made no reference to the G.O.A.T.U. But that is a side issue.”
Please name this document and site which part can be argued to support this statement. This will improve your argument greatly rather than making statements that sound authoritative and contain references that some will find daunting and will not confirm themselves due to lack of resources.
A.M.O.R.C. allows non believers. As to non religious Masonic ritual I suggect you contact the GOdF.
All The Best,
Raum
Please answer the question in detail regarding your assertions about AMORC and let’s discuss their legitimacy within the entire community of Rosicrucian and neo-Rosicrucian orders; this is an interesting conversation. Regarding the name of the document, would you have the name of it? If you intend to mention it as some sort of proof, normal researchers usually give the names–not just referring the person to its supposed owner without any other information. Have you actually seen it, or just heard of it? Referring to a document to make a point and then not providing a name is fishy. It’s something a person would do when they hadn’t actually done the research on their own.
For instance, if I were to make a statement: “It has been decreed by a few Masonic authorities that aprons are cool when worn by Masons and Atheist cooks”, I would have to back that up by sighting the book/interview where that viewpoint could be found–and NOT by stating with faux authority, “Check with the GOdF for the reference because I cannot be bothered, or I don’t really know what I’m talking about, but I’m trying to wriggle my way out of this subject by acting like I do.”
And sorry, Raum, this is what you sound like. Grade: F-
Raum,
Not to sound harsh before, but in order for you to convincingly state your case, your assertions and evidence is never backed up. When confronted with this, you shy away. This is why I got on you about your alleged document and the bankruptcy of your response.
Also, in regard to Rosicrucianism, you never answered my question or addressed the rest of the reply, except to mention AMORC. This is not proper for you did not say anything about AMORC that could be corroborated, nor did you address Rosicrucianism in general. AMORC does not stand as the only example, and so they cannot be used as convincing evidence to justify your claims about atheism, Rosicrucianism and theurgy. I am sorry to say that from your own posts(!) it is difficult to be convinced that you truly know anything about these subjects, other than trivial knowledge. Because you seem to reject certain traditions off-handedly, you cannot know anything except from the base viewpoint of an outsider. You should, therefore, try to write about what you actually know (and can communicate properly, mind you) and leave the rest alone.
OMNI,
Well we could go around and around as to who are the “real” Rosicrucians and who aren’t. Just like any other lineage discussion or debate it would bore me to the the point of non participation.
So, to weed out every Rosicucian order and to what they do and do not accept would be pointless. The largest, A.M.O.R.C. does accept atheist members. This again is to go off topic as far as this goes.
I am sorry if you need the validation of every other western mystery tradition to show you that segregation in Freemasonry is an outdated and inhuman practice that has zero to do with the Craft.
Fraternally,
Raum
I wanted to jump in here to say that I don’t know how much I agree with the premise that Rosicrucian groups (AMORC in particular) is really open to saying that it is open to atheists. Truthfully, I don’t know if it really takes a position either way, as each man’s faith is his own. I would suggest, however, that in the quest for mysticism, it presumes a degree of faith in something beyond ones self (mystical power, vital life force, etc..) which precludes the disbelief in a God.
What would an atheist presume to connect with if he has no belief in the divine?
Rather than say the atheist, perhaps we are inferring the agnostic as the seeker of the unknown, in which case I would think they woudl get something from belonging to a mystical organization. Otherwise, what would be the point?
Below are just a few links I found on the AMORC site to suggest what their “introductory” segments suggest by way of faith and membership. But from my own personal experience with AMORC, I have yet to come across anything to suggest that it encourages atheist members. I don’t think it cares. The bigger question to answer, as with Freemasonry, is why would an atheist want to be a part of a quasi religious/spiritual group?
So to the broader question, I don’t agree that atheists should automatically be made Masons. The question remains what woudl they get from it?
As an aside, the Rose Cross arose out of Christian Mysticism, and early on was very closely linked to Christianity. Even as splinter groups have come (and gone) I don’t think they have gotten to far from its Christian precepts inherently (spiritual resurrection[awakening] by knowledge of the divine)
From the AMORC.org site:
Is the Rosicrucian Order, AMORC, a religion?
No. AMORC, which stands for Ancient and Mystical Order Rosae Crucis, is not a religion and does not require a specific code of belief or conduct. Rosicrucian students come from a variety of cultural and religious backgrounds. Becoming a Rosicrucian student does not in any way require you to leave your church, join a church, or change your religious beliefs.
Some Rosicrucian members do not subscribe to any specific religious beliefs at all. For students who do, we encourage them to participate in the religion of their choice. As a result, Rosicrucian students come from every religious denomination, and through our teachings, many find a greater appreciation of the mystical principles underlying their individual religious and philosophical beliefs. Those who do not belong to any particular religion often discover a sense of connection with a higher intelligence that was missing in their lives before.
Its leadership (Imperator Christian Bernard) saying:
It is, however, the Royal Road, which Moses, Buddha, Jesus, Mohammed, and many others have counseled that we follow. In spite of this, some of the faithful tear one another apart as they pray in their name. Why? Through ignorance of what true prayer is and to whom it should be addressed. As long as human beings pray to a God who is outside themselves, they will be at war with one another through interposed gods. But the day they understand that they must pray to an Inner God who is the same within the heart of a Jew, a Buddhist, a Christian, a Muslim, and even an atheist, then they will commune together in the same temple—that of Universal Peace.
Don’t get yer knickers in too big of a knot with Raum here. It’s the infamous Brad Cofield posting with a pseudonym because his real name carries too much baggage now.
http://www.masonicinfo.com/brad.htm
Don’t feed the troll.
Don’t get your knickers too much in a knot with Raum here. He is really the infamous Brad Cofield using a pseudonym because his real name carries too much baggage now, I guess.
http://www.masonicinfo.com/brad.htm
Don’t feed the troll.
I think it is a tad presumptuous to ask “what would they get out of it?”
What does anyone get out of it? I mean to think that an atheists are automatically immune to metaphysical experience is to place a rather narrow minded view on atheism.
There are as many different form of atheism as are atheists. I have pointed to the workings of Sam Harris as a great example of a spiritual atheist. The forum located at Richard Dawkins home page would be another place to inquire.
There are lot’s of different discussions from different points of view on the subject.
Fraternally,
Raum
I think by the general definition:
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.
That is the commonly understood definition.
In the “common” vernacular an atheist would not, in my opinion, derive a significant benefit in a metaphysical (see spiritual) initiation. At least not an atheist who prescribed to the definition above.
I have no doubt that there are some who suggest that their work (or philosophy) is otherwise, but the argument is that you cant make general statements about specific elements of the whole.