Message from discussion Aleister Crowley: Freemason!
From: "Joe Steve Swick III" <jsw...@mindspring.com>
Subject: Re: Aleister Crowley: Freemason!
Date: Wed, 1 Jan 2003 09:42:06 -0800
Organization: MindSpring Enterprises
References: <VA.email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com>
X-Server-Date: 1 Jan 2003 17:40:17 GMT
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106
In Joe Swick's Ideal World (call it my personal fantasy), the term
"unrecognized" would refer to those bodies that your Grand Lodge does not
recognize, witholding judgment on the "regularity" of work. "Irregular and
unrecognized" would be a stronger term, used of those bodies which in the
opinion of your own Grand Lodge, have no legitimate link to a historical
Masonic body, or which otherwise does not perform "regular" ritual work.
While my language could be tightened up a bit, I would suggest that by such
a definition, PHA Lodges have always been "regular," even when
"Gene Zippy Goldman.·." <br_g...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
> On Wed, 01 Jan 2003 05:08:50 GMT, drjo...@uci.net (David R. Jones)
> > Did regularity for past initiations come with that? Different
> >jurisidictions have different statutes regarding this.
> Insofar as regularity determines rights of visitation (as in
> California Masonry, which literally equates "Regular" with
> "Recognized"), no. Regularity/recognition is a strictly temporal
> Until a few years ago, Prince Hall Masonry in California was
> unrecognized, and then, whallah, all of a sudden, a similar vote was
> taken in each Grand Lodge (we voted first, they reciprocated a few
> months later), there was inter visitation.
> > Does the loss
> >of amity irregularize those we thought were regular?
> Yup! If amity is dissolved, there may be no intervisitation between
> the jurisdictions.
> >Does amity confer regularity on those we once thought irregular?
> Yup. If we recognize them, they are - by definition - regular.
> >In the present
> >it is easy to define those who we consider regular. Historically this
> >is more difficult.
> Not really. The archives of any Grand Lodge will show who was
> Recognized at any particular time.
> |O| Be well. Travel with a light heart.
> Brother Gene .*.
> Regular 1,765 degree Mason
> MBBFMN #387
> ICQ #503060
> "Are you guys ready? Let's Roll!!"
> Todd Beamer, Flight 93
> And in case I don't see ya' - Good Afternoon, Good Evening and Good Night!
> -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
> Version: 3.1
> GCM/CC/TW/O d--(++) s:,s++ a+ C+(++++) U--- P! L-- E! W++ N+++ o-- K-
w++++ O---- M--(+) V? PS+++ Y+ PGP-- t* 5 X- R* tv+++ b++ DI+++ D G e* h----
> ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
> Remember: Your Masonry may be different from someone else's.
> Internet newsgroup posting. Copyright 2002. All rights reserved.
> Any Mason may use the contents for any valid Masonic purpose, permission
may be granted to others upon request.
> Objects in this post are funnier than they appear
> Can you imagine a world without hypothetical situations?
> Be seeing you