Third Degree Word (Masonic & OTO)
Lowell Morrison
<cky...@eagle.wesleyan.edu> wrote:
>
> Deyton and Leigh are the mysterious cognomens of Baigent and Leigh,
>two authors who wrote "The Temple and the Lodge", a poorly researched,
>garbled account of the origins of Freemasonry.
You are of course correct on the spellings, I was at work when I did not
have my references.
> As for the possible continental origins of Freemasonry, that's
>impossible. Again, there is no references at all to anything like a ritual, a
>philosophy, or a symbolism anywhere in Europe among any of the building trades
>until the late in the 15th and 16th century in (of all places) Scotland.
Michael Segall of the Grand Orient of France, and a Fellow of the
Philathes Society will disagree with you quite hotly. His proof does seen
to be quite reasonable, aprons of lambskin with all seeing eyes of them
dating from France in the 1300's, and Poetic Refereces to Masonic
rituals dating as far back as Circa 1000.
> The documentary evidence produced by Stevenson in his Origins of
>Freemasonry clearly trace the development of a tradition and civil
>perogatives among the stonemason's guild in Scotland. The guild's limited
>perstige as a trade was at its peak in the 1590's.
I still have not seen the thesis, so I will reserve my judgement.
> This, however, was not Freemasonry. The elements which are associated
>with Freemasonry, Lodges, degrees, ceremonial functions of officers, written
>constitutions, the aprons, and the whole allegorical, symbolic, and
>enlightening philosophical system are clearly not present in the 1590's. That
>developed over the next 120 years, (especially after, say, 1680 or so), and
>came to fruition in 1717.
1717 is clearly the year when the five lodges in London announced them selves
as the Grand Lodge of England. How long they existed before that is unclear.
Robinson would have then leading a rebelion (Circumstantial Evicence) almost
a hundred years before. Mike Segall ties them to Aprons in France in the
1300's. Alan Roberts (two "L's" Alan?) deny's the Templar Connection, and
has some glorious arguments with those who believe it. My Main Objection is
that the Templar Conncetion is too seductive and desirable, so is probably
ficticious.
> This is what alt.freemasonry can be like. This is the joys of a
>historical discussion of Freemasonry, unmoderated, and blissfully public.
>
Chris, here I disagree with you. alt.freemasonry simply would not have
enough trafficK to justify such a group. Masonry Plus on Compuserve
does do well, partly because lots of us Push it, and Demonstrate it
at the Grand Lodge Sessions. The alt.magick and pagan crossposts do not
amount to much more than 100 posts a year, most of it Me and a few others
trying to correct falsehoods and mistatments posted by some.
>How do I send a control message or whatever so I can get the blasted thing
>working. Help!!!!!!! I don't want to be on alt.magick!!! There's no magic
>in Freemasonry, why do I have to write here??
>
I will disagree with you here too, there is lots of MagicK in FreeMasonry
for those with eyes to see. I do want to be on alt.magick and alt.pagan
as well... Heck, any orginization that does not hew to the Christian
Fundimentalist Line has to be just a bit pagan perhaps<grin>...
>Help!!!!
Chris, I cannot help, unless you let me know what editor or path
you are using to post this message.........
--Uncle Wolf
--Man, Mason & Bard
cky...@eagle.wesleyan.edu
Dear Lowell,
I found your posting, and I thought I would respond to it. Recently,
I was hoping there could be a forum for the reasonable discussion of the
kinds of questions we are now discussing.
Bit.listserve.freemasonry doesn't seem to be the proper format for
this, because of its moderated nature. Even if Freemasons are willing to trust
to a moderated newsgroup, the public doesn't seem willing to. Given the amount
of irrelevant and misleading information published about Freemasonry in the
past 300 years, they seem entirely justified in their doubts.
Alt.magick is also not a proper format. I respect the rights of the
alt.magick users to have it for their topics. No reason why they should have to
wade through discussions of Freemasonry. The nature of the historic
inter-relation of Freemasonry and the OTO might also lead to having any
discussion between the two groups highly fractious.
The amount of postings is not indicative of anything. I have had
suggested to me that there would be a lot more discussion on bit.listserve.
freemasonry if the moderator wasn't deleting anything which *may* be
percieved to be provocative. The same may well be true in alt.magick.
In fact, this is why I do not think that I can undertake to debate with
you. I would very much like to debate with you some of the ideas you have
expressed about the history of Freemasonry. I think that such a discussion
could be mutually beneficial, and I think that if the debate was held on a
newsgroup, there are doubtless others who would have something to contribute,
and all could profit from the experience.
However, I cannot debate with you. And I think that the moderated
nature of the both alt.magick and the internet in general make that impossible.
For example, I have posted three or four things to alt.magick in the
past week, and I am unable to find them when I call up the newsgroup. Ones
dated before and after have been present, and some of mine have even been
present for a half-day and then disappeared. (It is not a system error, I
*have* checked with the computing center operators.) Further, items posted by
others to alt.magick (one on Freemasonry) are now gone.
So, I can't debate with you. For whatever reason, the limitations
on the lines of communication have left me handicapped. I suppose the
erroneous statements, (facts which are not facts, opinions floated as
facts, etc.) that are posted to alt.magick will just have to stand
unchallenged. I see no reason for entering a game against a stacked deck.
So much for the goal of increasing light...
(I can't resist commenting on your statements below, if you'll
pardon me...)
Newsgroups: alt.magick
Subject: Re: Third Degree Word (Masonic & OTO)
From: low...@oolong.la.locus.com (Lowell Morrison)
Date: 19 Jul 1994 22:36:18 -0700
In article <1994Jul18...@eagle.wesleyan.edu>,
<cky...@eagle.wesleyan.edu> wrote:
>> As for the possible continental origins of Freemasonry, that's
>>impossible. Again, there is no references at all to anything like a ritual, a
>>philosophy, or a symbolism anywhere in Europe among any of the building trades
>>until the late in the 15th and 16th century in (of all places) Scotland.
>Michael Segall of the Grand Orient of France, and a Fellow of the
>Philathes Society will disagree with you quite hotly. His proof does seen
>to be quite reasonable, aprons of lambskin with all seeing eyes of them
>dating from France in the 1300's, and Poetic Refereces to Masonic
>rituals dating as far back as Circa 1000.
1)The Grand Orient of France has no scholarly reputation at all, in
fact, it has been one of the worst sources of masonic disinformation in all
of Freemasonry. The convoluted nature of French politics, and perhaps a bit of
the Frence joie de vivre has made the statements coming out of that body
unreasonable and fantastical since the 1720's. Since Ramsay, it has been
unreliable. I see no reason to respect the scholarly opinion of its Grand
Master.
2) The Philalethes Society, although admirable in the attempt, is
not a body with any scholarly standing. Its journal is entertaining and useful,
the quality of writing and research does not compare well with college
freshmen.
3) An All-Seeing eye would be well worth looking at, yet there is no
reason to assume that, (if it even actually is an All-Seeing Eye), that it had
the meaning that Freemasons now assign to it. It could have meant something
else, perhaps there is a Roman Catholic symbolism behind it. For example, there
are eyes painted on the prows of Mediterranean fishing boats, and there is even
a lineage of symbolic descent (very likely) to older and higher sources, yet
Mediterranean fishermen are not Freemasons.
4) Poetic references to masonic rituals are again not proof of
anything. I'm sure you aware of the difference between ritual and ceremony.
I suspect that what we're actually talking about is a ceremony among
operative masons. That's entirely reasonable to expect among any long=
standing body. Your local I.A.W.U. might even have some special way that they
always welcome new members by;- such a thing would indeed be rightly called
an initiation ceremony. However, this doesn't mean that whatever they were
doing in France at that time has anything to do with Freemasonry.
What you cut out of my original message (a message, by the way, which
now I no longer can find a trace of in my local hook-up to internet), in what
you cut out I clearly said that there were traditions and folk-tales in the
operative craft. By this I meant to indicate that there probably were welcoming
ceremonies of a very simple, (and let's face it, rustic), kind. Further, they
clearly were passing along the Hiram Abiff tale.
This doesn't mean that they "had Freemasonry". It is possible to come
up with the beginnings of a definition of Freemasonry. I began to do that in
the same posting, you have it included below. For example, I mention lodges,
degrees, certain officers engaged in certain roles, symbolical allegory using
a certain number of a stone-mason's work tools, non-operative membership,
*and certain philosophical attitudes*. You will not be able to find any of
this anywhere in Europe (or anywhere else) until bit by bit in Scotland after
the 1590's, and particulayly in England after the 1650's
None of the stuff you mention cuts any weight. Particularly when it
comes from a leader of a disreputable body.
>> The documentary evidence produced by Stevenson in his Origins of
>>Freemasonry clearly trace the development of a tradition and civil
>>perogatives among the stonemason's guild in Scotland. The guild's limited
>>perstige as a trade was at its peak in the 1590's.
>I still have not seen the thesis, so I will reserve my judgement.
I hope you'll find it refreshing to find a historian who looks at the original
documentary evidence and carefully reads it to see what that document says
in a plain and level-headed way.
>> This, however, was not Freemasonry. The elements which are associated
>>with Freemasonry, Lodges, degrees, ceremonial functions of officers, written
>>constitutions, the aprons, and the whole allegorical, symbolic, and
>>enlightening philosophical system are clearly not present in the 1590's. That
>>developed over the next 120 years, (especially after, say, 1680 or so), and
>>came to fruition in 1717.
>1717 is clearly the year when the five lodges in London announced themselves
>as the Grand Lodge of England. How long they existed before that is unclear.
>Robinson would have then leading a rebellion (Circumstantial Evicence) almost
>a hundred years before. Mike Segall ties them to Aprons in France in the
>1300's. Alan Roberts (two "L's" Alan?) denies the Templar Connection, and
>has some glorious arguments with those who believe it. My Main Objection is
>that the Templar Connection is too seductive and desirable, so is probably
>ficticious.
I don't see why this would be desirable at all. They were knights, after all.
They were lice-ridden mercenaries, plundering like barbarians through the
wisdom and light of the arab world; gaining wealth and power by fleecing
the peasantry; disturbing the balance of power between the church and state
by giving the pope a standing military stretegic command all over Europe,
buggering each other with wild abandon, and generally making nuisances of
themselves. There had no mysteries. There has never been an iota of evidence
of them having any mysteries. There is no "eastern wisdom" no "gnostic
heresies", nada. Zip. Zilch. Not a single shred of contemporary evidence.
>> This is what alt.freemasonry can be like. This is the joys of a
>>historical discussion of Freemasonry, unmoderated, and blissfully public.
>Chris, here I disagree with you. alt.freemasonry simply would not have
>enough traffic to justify such a group.
See what I said above about deletions by moderators...
>Masonry Plus on Compuserve does do well, partly because lots of us push
>it, and demonstrate it at the Grand Lodge Sessions.
I'm not talking about a service for Freemasons, or "electronic Freemasonry",
I think if the public felt comfortable there, it could do very well.
>The alt.magick and pagan crossposts do not amount to much more than 100
>posts a year, most of it Me and a few others trying to correct falsehoods
>and mistatments posted by some.
What I've seen of corrections have references from Manly Palmer Hall and
McNulty and you bring in Segall of France above. You might as well go to
inmates for their opinion on the asylum :)
>>I don't want to be on alt.magick! There's no magic
>>in Freemasonry, why do I have to write here??
>I will disagree with you here too, there is lots of MagicK in FreeMasonry
>for those with eyes to see.
From what I can tell, for those with eyes to see, there's lots of Magick in
a toaster-oven. Who cares? Freemasonry is not a magickal system. It was never
intended to be. In fact, its obvious from history that it isn't, or why else
would Mathers and Wescott have to leave Freemasonry to establish the Golden
Dawn, or why would the founders have to leave their German Templarism to
establish the OTO?
As you *should know*, the rituals of Freemasonry are not even rituals, they are
ceremonies: they are never thought to be efficacious.
As an example, consider the Roman Catholic mass, it is believed by members
to be an effective means of (magically) connecting the person to God. That
is why it's called communion. Mass is therefore efficacious. Its ritual
does *make* the desired goal happen. If it is done properly, it will work. I've
even seen old ladies say that they weren't sure that they would be up to mass
on the next morning, so they might just watch it on television. It would still
be efficacious, (though in a limited way).
The rituals of Freemasonry are only ceremonies. There is nothing in them that
*makes* anything happen. There is nothing in Freemasonry that says that if the
officers of the lodge follow this prescription of activities, a change will
take place in the candidate that will magically transform them. They do become
Freemasons, and members of their lodge, and perhaps the degree will be
meaningful and instructive, but it will not alter the man. They will not become
higher beings, and their spiritual relation to the divine is unchanged.
The rituals of Freemasonry...the CEREMONIES of Freemasonry are do not change
the indivudual's spirit, do not alter their faith, nor their beliefs. If someone
wishes to see them that way, that's their business, but there is never anything
implicit or explicit which can be construed that way.
The surest proof of this is to ask any Freemason after a degree. Do the lodge
members say to themselves, "Oooo, we have now altered him, his relation to the
universe is now different. Our rituals are magical and potent. The manipulation
of the gavel is the manipulation of a special power."??? Bull.
The guy is now a member of the order. No special transformation took place to
achieve this, no special power invoked, no nothing. Only what was plainly
visible and spoken.
The ceremonies themselves, per se, are not efficacious. They do not cause a
change.
Why do you think there's all that blather about building a temple for yourself
in your own heart, or to "fit myself as a stone for that house, not made by
hands, eternal in the heavens"? The whole point of Fremasonry is that after the
degree, you should now go off and begin to transform yourself. YOU transforming
YOURSELF. No ritual can do this, you have to do it yourself.
The ceremonies cannot do it. They are not efficacious. They have no magic
(or magick) in them, nor any special power. You have to do it for yourself;
as when you're taught "to remove the vices and superfluities of (your own)
life".
Freemasonry is not a magical system. From Cagliostro to Crawley there have been
men who have misunderstood what was going on, and in vain, have tried to come
up with a magical Freemasonry. It doesn't work. It's like trying to create
a magical tool and die factory.
That's why it's so irksome to have to discuss Freemasonry on alt.magick, it
clearly doesn't belong there. That's why I pushed for an alt.freemasonry.
>I do want to be on alt.magick and alt.pagan as well...
I wouldn't want to call into question your discretion, but I'm reminded of an
old quotation...
"Whoso belongs only to his own age, and reverences only its gilt
Popinjays or soot-smeared Mumbojumbos, must needs die with it."
>Heck, any orginization that does not hew to the Christian Fundimentalist Line
>has to be just a bit pagan perhaps<grin>...
Oh, leave the Christian Fundamentalists alone, they're just trying to find
their way to God like anyone else...
Ciao,
Christopher Kylin.
Chela Wednesday
<cky...@eagle.wesleyan.edu> wrote:
> The amount of postings is not indicative of anything. I have had
>suggested to me that there would be a lot more discussion on bit.listserve.
>freemasonry if the moderator wasn't deleting anything which *may* be
>percieved to be provocative. The same may well be true in alt.magick.
>nature of the both alt.magick and the internet in general make that impossible.
> For example, I have posted three or four things to alt.magick in the
>past week, and I am unable to find them when I call up the newsgroup. Ones
>dated before and after have been present, and some of mine have even been
>present for a half-day and then disappeared. (It is not a system error, I
>*have* checked with the computing center operators.) Further, items posted by
>others to alt.magick (one on Freemasonry) are now gone.
As can be evidenced by recent discussions, not only is alt.magick not
moderated, but the inhabitants thereof are, for the most part, opposed to
the idea. (And I've made my position on that clear.)
The internet is largely -not- all that moderated, and certainly the
alt.hierarchy of USENET isn't to a large extent. You may have censorship
on local sites, you may have a newsreader that does not necessarily hold
what you have not marked unread, you may even have a system error that
has gone so far undetected. (My newsreader is usually pretty dandy,
but sometimes articles will blip in and out of existence for no good
reason). Have you read control to see if any of your messages have had
a forged cancel sent after them?
I have not been paying attention to the freemasonry thread, simply because
it has been large enough here that I simply haven't had time for it. I take
that as evidence that at least some of the posts are getting out.
YOur problem sounds fairly localized. I'd recommend obtaining a freenet
account somewhere (if you have telnet access) and reading alt.magick
from two different sites for a while. Sometimes USENET is funky.
Let me know if/when this reaches your site, 'k?
ChWk'TA
--
IntoTheFireI'mReunitedIntoTheFireIAm C h e l a W e d n e s d a y
TheSparkIntoTheNightIYearnForComfort k ' T r e v a A s h k e v r o n
FreeThatWaterThatCarriesMeToTheSea w e d n s d a y @ m c s . c o m
Ron2140
Wednesday) writes:
In a previous post you quoted CKYLIN when he said:
The amount of postings is not indicative of anything. I have had
>suggested to me that there would be a lot more discussion on
bit.listserve.
>freemasonry if the moderator wasn't deleting anything which *may* be
>percieved to be provocative. The same may well be true in alt.magick.
> However, I cannot debate with you. And I think that the moderated
>nature of the both alt.magick and the internet in general make that
impossible.
> For example, I have posted three or four things to alt.magick in
the
>past week, and I am unable to find them when I call up the newsgroup.
Ones
>dated before and after have been present, and some of mine have even been
>present for a half-day and then disappeared. (It is not a system error, I
>*have* checked with the computing center operators.) Further, items
posted by
>others to alt.magick (one on Freemasonry) are now gone.
I would like to clear up a minor issue. I AM THE MODERATOR OF
BIT.LISTSERV.FREEMASONRY. I will go straight to the point. There is a
large amount of gossip going around that I *delete* provocative posts. I
do not. In fact the members here on this newsgroup would have very little
to fear in the very SLIGHT MODERATION of the newsgroup. There is only one
type of post that gets deleted there. I delete INFLAMMATORY ATTACKS, not
provocative statements or questions. I will give examples:
If a poster writes something like:
"I have found as a member of OTO that we have a lot in common." His post
will stay and be discussed. Why? Because it was a rational statement of
a position that was not meant as an attack on Freemasonry.
If a poster writes:
"I am a member of the Southern Baptist Church and my minister who sits
next to God (although not a Mason) has proof that Masons worship Satan,
plot the overthrow of every major world power, and you are all going
straight to Hell". I delete this. See the difference? One was a
cold-hearted attack and the first one was a rational statement to entice
discussion. The second was not interested in discussion, only
judgementalism and mallicious attack.
On the other hand even the second poster could have said:
"My minister has convincingly stated that you are all devil worshippers
bent on world domination. Is this true?" And even his post would be left
on the newsgroup.
The only reason there is moderation at all is to simply stop any "flame
wars" that easily get started. I'm sure anyone on this newsgroup can
understand the headaches such flame wars create for them and the diversion
from open and substantial discussion. BTW, I recently took a vote on the
newsgroup to determine whether remaining moderated is the way the users
want to go or if they want me to simply open it up completely. The vote
was 8 to 1 in favor of moderation.
Out of fairness, I will admit that most of the rumors about CENSORSHIP
although innacurate are partly our own fault for 2 reasons:
1.) Moderation alone on Internet seems to cause paranoia and rumors of
censorship (understandable).
2.) When we first started the newsgroup techinical problems as well as
lack of experience administrating a newsgroup caused hundreds of posts (in
large blocks) to be lost as they were missaddressed. I got a slew of
CENSORSHIP ALLEGATIONS thrown at me for that one (G). They seem to still
be floating around.
3.) Nothing has been posted to the newsgroup for almost 2 weeks now
because the BBS running the Listserv it is cross posted with is down for
equipment upgrades, many have posted and found displeasure that their
posts do not show up in a few hours. These people WILL see their posts in
a few days as all the posts have been comming in and being saved. They
will see all of these posts in a few days (though they be a few weeks
old).
I just thought some clarification was in order here.
cky...@eagle.wesleyan.edu
> > Steven Cranmer <CRA...@brivs2.bartol.udel.edu> wrote:
> > >
> > >Sure, there were plenty of operative stonemasons
> > >all over Europe from 1100 on, but there's really no proof that the
> > >ritual and symbolism today known as "Freemasonry" was in existence
> > >prior to the late 1400's, in Scotland.
> > The Grand Orient of France has some Lambskin Aprons with the "All Seeing
> > Eye" similar to what is used for a Past Masters Apron dating from circa
> > 1350 in its Custody, while this is not conclusive proof, it does gove
> > one pause.
> > Those who claim to be Masons Must have undergone Initiation, or it is
> > all a baseless claim.
> I never contested this fact -- maybe I wasn't clear. But *must* it be
> an initiation in a Lodge sanctioned by the Grand Lodge of the particular
> region you are in? Can't it simply be a dozen or so like-minded
> people who get together and work the ritual? Or an "astral" Lodge
> formulated by a competent mage, which keeps to the tradition?
There seems to be confusion on alt.magick about "regularity" in Freemasonry,
it has come up in discussions about women in lodges, the Grand Orient in
France, and in, obviously, the OTO's history. When a Freemsaon mentions
regularity, the usual response is "Hey, you're just being repressive".
Well, it's not like that. There are strong reasons why regularity is so
important. One of the single most important truths about Freemasonry was that
it was the first time *ever* that men could organize outside the direct control
of church and state. From before classical civilizations through the
rennaisance, any group of individuals that met formally in either a church
setting, or a civil setting. (Family meetings were somewhat both, having both
church and civil sanction; families are usually somewhat anomolous in social
structures.) Particularly in medieval and rennaisance culture there was little
room outside the church and state for social interaction.
The great breakthrough of Freemasonry was that it provided a method of social
interaction that was independant of the state and the church. (That's
something of the root of the term Free in Freemason.) Even the stone guilds
that it derived from were both under the control of the church, (the annual
chapel services, and other linkages), and of the state, (it was in Scotland
where the stone guilds were granted privileges, among them the privilege to
meet without supervision in about 1598 (going from memory here)).
The English Civil Wars and the second wave of the Protestant reformation
weakened the church and state hold on society much more. By the Glorious
Revolution, the idea of modern Freemasonry began to develop, and by the
success of the Whig party over the next few decades, it was possible to
create an organization completely independant of outside control. (There
were, of course, all sorts of other types of social organization that
profited from this, but we'll stick to Freemasonry.)
Freemasons, who at this time were merely middle-class and some gentlemen
meeting in a club, when they worked out the principles under which they would
meet, were men who were very much aware of the writings of Hobbes and Locke and
the like. These authors were **contemporaries** then, and their concepts of
social compacts and the like were the basis of much discussion in London
throughout the period.
They hit upon the idea of a written constitution, something unheard of in those
times. Prior to this time, when people spoke of the constitution of England,
they were speaking of how England is constituted, how it was made up. If a
monarchy, then it would be that that it is in the constitution, the very bone
and marrow, of English society that there be a monarch.
This was different. The founders of Freemasonry worked out a written document,
a contract, by which they would agree to particular social behavior. This was
as significant as the earlier Mayflower Compact of 1620, (which was the same
idea, only smaller).
The spread of Masonic lodges into France, Germany, and America had a profound
effect on social development, and here led to our own constitution. This was
recognized by contemporaries of the time.
In Europe the effect was equally strong, and in France and the Netherlands
it has been suggested that many pre-revolutionary members joined the lodges
simply to learn the lessons of self-governance, the theories of
constitutionality, and, broadly, how to organize themselves when the group is
starting out as equal individuals.
A book came out recently, Living the Enlightenment, (which is fairly useful),
where the author (whose name escapes me) describes lodges as "schools of
constitutionality". A useful point to keep in mind.
When one swears the Oath to be a Freemason, one (among other things), swears
to uphold this system of constitutionality. One joins a system of *Regular*,
*Upright*, behavior. This agreement itself becomes the mutual compact upon
which real Freemasonry is based. It's almost as if a lodge is simply a room
full of men who've agreed to agree. It may be circular logic, but it's
unbeatable.
When it comes to "Irregular" groups, somewhere back at their origin, they must
have had founders who didn't see that a real purpose of Freemasonic conduct
is the constitutionality itself. Someone, the founder of the irregular group,
was willing to toss aside the oath he already had to break with the rest of
Freemasonry, and that in itself unmade that person as a Mason. To go from there
to perpetuate the irregular body is to perpetuate the lie.
That's why in my previous, I showed that the rituals of Freemasonry are not
efficacious. You could put a Golden Retriver through the three degrees, and
that wouldn't make the dog a Freemason. If you don't believe me, try it.
You can even check out a copy of the degrees from the library and do them on
a friend. Then ask them if they feel like one. They won't. And they won't be
one.
That's why the degrees need to be in a "just and lawfully constituted lodge"
of Freemasons. That's the only place where they would count. Not because
that's the only place the ritual is magically powerful, but that you are
covenanting to a group of people, and they need to be there to be a part of
that, otherwise, it's just words.
The bonds that do bind Freemasons together are not of spirit and dynamic
energy, but of logic and honor.
That's also why there are **no** secrets in Freemasonry, really. You can
publish them all, and people have done just that, and seeing the words on a
page have done nothing. Mah-hah-bone or MABN isn't going to mean anything
if you haven't been there with real people.
>You see, it's your equation of "Freemason" with "Member of a Just and
>Legally Constituted Lodge" that bothers me. IMHO, the ritual (and the
>symbolic "social structure" inside the Lodge) STANDS ON ITS OWN, and
>can/should support various *physical* "social structures." For example,
>the competition between different strands of Masonry in France, I see
>as a good and healthy thing.
I hope now things are, (if not acceptable), a little clearer. I'm not
surprised that you're confused. With old "Uncle Wolf" out there baying
at the moon, I'm sure that anyone would be confused. There is not, nor
ever has been, any suggestion of a "state of being" that a Candidate
has to be in in any Regular Grand Lodge on the planet. I guess he *is*
a Freemason, but it seems he can't tell Freemasonry from magick.
> >If we're
> >both presented with the same ritual texts -- without the encumberance
> >of a social structure -- we can do completely different things with them!
> >And, to your chagrin, I can call my version "Freemasonry." Sorry.
You might as well, Crowley did. But to do that is to try to cheat reality
and live a delusion. It doesn't look like it worked out well for him.
> >The social structure that
> >exists between the Worshipful Master, the Wardens, etc. is quite diff-
> >erent from the social structure which exists between the people who
> >play these roles.
...only in your mind.
> Interesting. I noted that some of the Royal Arch materials I saw when taking
> the tour of the Washington Masonic Temple in Alexandria, Va., had what appear
> to be writing using the Aiq Bkr... from what I've learned from and about the
> majority of Masons, however, I doubt if 1 in 1000 can read it, or if they can,
> can tell how Aiq Bkr is used.
The only masonic cipher is simple. Make a tic-tac-toe box. Write the alpha-
bet into the nine boxes, two letters at a time. "ab", then "cd", then "ef"
across the top, then middle then bottom. Then draw an "X", and write the last
eight letters in the four corners. If you want to indicate a letter, say the
letter "e", write |_ which shows the upper right corner of the tic-tac-toe
box. If you want the second letter,"f", put a dot in the corner |'_ (a right
angle with a dot in it). The center, "ij" is a box, or a box with a dot. The
"X" goes the same way.
All very simple, somewhat dumb, and useless. Have fun!
Raven
cky...@eagle.wesleyan.edu writes:
>That's why in my previous, I showed that the rituals of Freemasonry are not
>efficacious. You could put a Golden Retriver through the three degrees, and
>that wouldn't make the dog a Freemason. If you don't believe me, try it.
>You can even check out a copy of the degrees from the library and do them on
>a friend. Then ask them if they feel like one. They won't. And they won't be
>one.
>
>That's why the degrees need to be in a "just and lawfully constituted lodge"
>of Freemasons. That's the only place where they would count. Not because
>that's the only place the ritual is magically powerful, but that you are
>covenanting to a group of people, and they need to be there to be a part of
>that, otherwise, it's just words.
You could use the analogy of naturalized citizenship.
A group of Haitians wanting to go to the USA *COULD* just take turns
swearing each other in as naturalized citizens, issue each other
passports, and then come to the USA freely as citizens returning home.
Right?
Oh -- they have to be sworn in by a duly authorized official of the
United States of America? Gee... that hardly seems fair!
"Raven" (JSi...@Music.Lib.MATC.Edu) Milwaukee, Wisconsin USA
-----------------------GENERIC DISCLAIMER:------------------------
The above is personal opinion, and not anyone's "Official Policy".
Steven Cranmer
Hello,
Chris Kylin (CKY...@eagle.wesleyan.edu) writes...
> There seems to be confusion on alt.magick about "regularity" in Freemasonry,
> it has come up in discussions about women in lodges, the Grand Orient in
> France, and in, obviously, the OTO's history. When a Freemsaon mentions
> regularity, the usual response is "Hey, you're just being repressive".
[...history of constitutionality deleted...]
> When one swears the Oath to be a Freemason, one (among other things), swears
> to uphold this system of constitutionality. One joins a system of *Regular*,
> *Upright*, behavior. This agreement itself becomes the mutual compact upon
> which real Freemasonry is based.
This is one interpretation of the text of the Oaths. I'm sorry, Chris,
but others can exist. You can call them "irregular" if you want, but I,
for one, won't really care.
> When it comes to "Irregular" groups, somewhere back at their origin, they
> must have had founders who didn't see that a real purpose of Freemasonic
> conduct is the constitutionality itself.
Is this "real purpose" written down somewhere? Funny, I thought that
the most important purpose of Freemasonry was to transmit Mysteries.
That's what *I* get out of reading the ceremonies, and that's what I
would emphasize in my own "edited/revised" version of Freemasonry.
Do Freemasons have restrictions on how they can interpret their own
ceremonies?
> Someone, the founder of the irregular group, was
> willing to toss aside the oath he already had to break with the rest of
> Freemasonry, and that in itself unmade that person as a Mason.
Let me give you a different example: In the 1930's, Israel Regardie
broke his secrecy oaths to the Bristol Temple of the Golden Dawn (Stella
Matutina), and published all the rituals and materials he had. If it
wasn't for this bold move -- which caused him a lot of guilt, and
brought a lot of animosity his way -- the Golden Dawn today might just
be a historical anomaly, not a set of (healthily competing) active
orders! I do realize that the GD is not Freemasonry, though.
> That's why in my previous, I showed that the rituals of Freemasonry are not
> efficacious. You could put a Golden Retriver through the three degrees, and
> that wouldn't make the dog a Freemason. If you don't believe me, try it.
Okay, but I never claimed that it would!
> That's why the degrees need to be in a "just and lawfully constituted lodge"
> of Freemasons. That's the only place where they would count.
But "count" to who? What about my "twelve guys in a basement" example
I gave before? Do you admit the possibility that the candidate *could*
be strongly and positively affected in such an "irregular" lodge?
> Not because
> that's the only place the ritual is magically powerful, but that you are
> covenanting to a group of people, and they need to be there to be a part of
> that, otherwise, it's just words.
"Magical power" of ritual is a red herring. This is just symbol manip-
ulation we're talking about here. Okay, I'll call it "ceremony" instead
of "ritual," if that makes you happy. They're synonyms to me.
> That's also why there are **no** secrets in Freemasonry, really. You can
> publish them all, and people have done just that, and seeing the words on a
> page have done nothing. Mah-hah-bone or MABN isn't going to mean anything
> if you haven't been there with real people.
Again, I agree.
Hmm, this same misunderstanding keeps coming up. Many months ago, this
same topic was being discussed, but concerning the OTO. Bill Heidrick
kept assuming that my claims that:
"the ritual can have meaning outside the context of a lineaged lodge"
were identical to claims that:
"reading them is just as good as going through them" !!!
Not the same thing!
>> >If we're
>> >both presented with the same ritual texts -- without the encumberance
>> >of a social structure -- we can do completely different things with them!
>> >And, to your chagrin, I can call my version "Freemasonry." Sorry.
>
>You might as well, Crowley did. But to do that is to try to cheat reality
>and live a delusion. It doesn't look like it worked out well for him.
Really? The OTO is doing just fine, from what I can see.
.......
>> Interesting. I noted that some of the Royal Arch materials I saw when taking
>> the tour of the Washington Masonic Temple in Alexandria, Va., had what appear
>> to be writing using the Aiq Bkr... from what I've learned from and about the
>> majority of Masons, however, I doubt if 1 in 1000 can read it, or if they can,
>> can tell how Aiq Bkr is used.
>
>The only masonic cipher is simple. ...
The person who commented on aiq-bkr, by the way, wasn't me.
-- Steve
Mark Metson
: Is this "real purpose" written down somewhere? Funny, I thought that
: the most important purpose of Freemasonry was to transmit Mysteries.
: That's what *I* get out of reading the ceremonies, and that's what I
: would emphasize in my own "edited/revised" version of Freemasonry.
Presumably the 'validity' of such groups boils down to "do they in fact
transmit the 'mysteries'?" A claim of Masons, I hear, is that they take
good men and make them better men. This does not imply 'mysteries' unless
you bring in some 'mysterious' concept such as for instance, 'enlightenment'.
If their true purpose is to spread 'enlightenment', the nature of which is
such that it is commonly regarded as 'mysterious' (i.e. in its absence it
is hard to define, yet by some mysterious process it can be communicated;
or that while many recognise it, few can define it in rigorous terms)...
then the 'validity' of a group boils down to, are they enlightened people,
do they 'produce' enlightened folks, are they enlightening, and questions
along those lines. Whether some Grand Punjab of Whatnot, who may or may
not have been an enlightened individual, founded the group is not greatly
relevant to whether the persons currently representing themselves as that
group are enlightened folk. Which is the more valid Christian, the Good
Samaritan or the Officer of the Holy Inquisition?
I think that the failure of various groups purporting to pass on 'the
Mysteries' to recognise one-another is prima-facie (sp?) proof that they
do not in fact have access to 'the Mysteries'. For if they did, they
would see that they are all transmitting the same fundamental truth.
The kind of arguments the groups use against each-other primarily show
that the persons involved have failed to penetrate the 'mysteries' and
are arguing from surface things such as accidents of accretion and
stultification of teaching or ritual, what colour/shape of schoolbooks or
symbols are used, and the like. (You arent True Teachers (tm) because you
use pencils, True Teachers (tm) use fountain pens!) Sorry but True Teachers
(tm) use whatever works, even varying the approach to suit each student
if need be. If each approach such a person has attempted was mimicked by
some "school" purporting to convey the 'mysteries' or 'teachings' of such
a teacher, you might end up with many different schools all with various
fossilised teaching-methods. When they get to the point they are declaiming
one-another's lack of validity, the chances are good the True Teacher (tm)
has long gone on to some other approach less tainted by the fossilisation of
views and expectations about what is taught and how.
Blessed Be. -MarkM-
--
Mark Metson How many mystics does it take to bring Peace on Earth?
gpu...@fox.nstn.ns.ca Only one - but each one has to do it for themself.....
===============================================================================
This posting is 'software for wetware' placed under version 2 of the GNU public
license. Intent being: IF YOU DISTRIBUTE IT YOU CANNOT RESTRICT REDISTRIBUTION!
(This is a GNU-ware .signature: please re-use and re-cycle!)
===============================================================================
B Heidrick
In article <30qoi2$f...@owl.nstn.ns.ca>, gpu...@fox.nstn.ns.ca (Mark
Metson) writes:
>I think that the failure of various groups purporting to pass on 'the
>Mysteries' to recognise one-another is prima-facie (sp?) proof that they
>do not in fact have access to 'the Mysteries'. For if they did, they
>would see that they are all transmitting the same fundamental truth.
Natural enough mistake. Life and the quest for truth is a struggle
along many unique paths. The Adversary is necessary. That's not to say
that Satan is necessary in the Christian sense, just in the sense of Job
in the O.T. All these proper mysteries are the same in goal, but all
roads are different. It is necessary that some definition and some
exclusion take place on the roads --- hence the lack of recognition and
the lack of sameness between different schools of the Mysteries. Formal
recognition, even at times the abstenance from denunciation for certain
paths, misleads the candidate into thinking that effort and precision is
not necessary. Basically, it doesn't matter what way you take to the
ultimate secret; but the way of all ways is the most difficult --- seeing
that it's the default alluded to by "the wheel of rebirth".
93 93/93
Bill Heidrick
Steven Cranmer
Hello,
low...@oolong.la.locus.com (Lowell Morrison) and I continue to hash
out what is meant by "irregularity" to Masons...
By the way, my similar discussion with Chris Kylin has been moved over
to alt.freemasonry, but I haven't seen his latest (also email) reply
show up there yet. Stay tuned...
> Steven Cranmer <CRA...@brivs2.bartol.udel.edu> wrote:
>
> >Can't it simply be a dozen or so like-minded
> >people who get together and work the ritual?
>
> No, and Yes. No, it cannot be done, Except by the Grand Master of a
> State, and it is even forbidden him is some states, or in Dire
> Emergencies by any Mason.
My question above was semi-rhetorical, because I see the answer as an
unqualified "yes." As I hope you've figured out by now, I don't give
a damn what the rules of the Grand Lodge(s) are. Below, however, you
give a more compelling reason...
> No, a Mason is a Member of a Just and Legally Constituted Lodge who
> has gone through Initiation.
Nice definition. The guy with the cement caked to his overalls, who
isn't a member of any kind of "Lodge," may call himself a mason as well,
don't you think?
> >Aha -- here's our misunderstanding! I never said I wanted to claim to be
> >a member of *your* group. I want to re-formulate the whole shebang ab
> >initio, and work with it without having to give allegiance to a Grand Lodge.
> >I can still keep all the tradition/ritual/symbolism I want -- and call
> >the resulting system of initiation "Freemasonry."
>
> Ah, then you would be in violation of International Copyright Laws as well.
> You can call yourself anything you like, except a Freemason or a Mason.
> Use of those terms without joining the Lodge is Fraud.
Okay! *Here's* what I've been waiting for. Which group(s) have registered
these copyrights? What do countries with competing Grand Lodges do in
this matter -- sue each other for using the word "Freemason?" Can the
unrecognized Prince Hall Lodges here in the States get sued by the F&AM
or AF&AM Lodges for calling themselves Freemasons?
See how tricky this issue can be? What if there were other unrecognized
types of Masonic Lodges? I mentioned the French diversity before, but
you dismissed it. How far away from the pale of "recognizability" is
far enough to become sue-able?
And let me say *YET AGAIN*, this isn't about making "claims" in public,
or "calling myself" things in front of Masons. As long as "Mason"
in this country means "member of a [A]F&AM Lodge," you're damned right
I won't be trying to pass myself off as one. This definition is what
I think needs *changing*.
My tirade, to say it one last time, is about Masons not recognizing the
fact that the Masonic Work *can* indeed be done without the authorization
of their own particular group.
> >[ The word isn't copyrighted, is it? ]
>
> Nope, not at all, after all OTO uses a word similar and perhaps the
> same word <grin>. It is an open secret.
Oops, I meant the word "freemason," which you answered above.
> Again look at the Oaths,
> Expecially the Third degree one, Duncans Ritual though wrong is close
> enough for this purpose. A social structure is very clearly set up.
Can't this be taken metaphorically, just like the stuff about bodily
mutilation?
-- Steve
Steven Cranmer
Hello,
gpu...@fox.nstn.ns.ca (Mark Metson) writes...
> A claim of Masons, I hear, is that they take
> good men and make them better men.
This is a standard and frequent claim, yes. Many people over the years,
though, have found *more* in the Masonic ceremonies. A few have found
(gasp) magic!
> I think that the failure of various groups purporting to pass on 'the
> Mysteries' to recognise one-another is prima-facie (sp?) proof that they
> do not in fact have access to 'the Mysteries'.
Not necessarily. Mysteries live in symbols, and these can be preserved
and transmitted by people who have no conscious idea what they are all
about.
Don't worry, Masons, I'm not accusing you of being ignorant of your own
symbolism. In fact, as Amanda said previously, Freemasons are extremely
forthright about the meanings of their symbols.
> For if they did, they
> would see that they are all transmitting the same fundamental truth.
Well, I don't know about others, here, but my interest here in alt.magick
is only partially in the "fundamental truths." I'm interested in the
systems themselves -- I have fun reading and learning about their history,
theories, and their contemporary practice. Sorry if some think that
this has nothing to do with magic(k).
-- Steve Cranmer
Chela Wednesday
>> A claim of Masons, I hear, is that they take
>> good men and make them better men.
I'm having horrible visions of the commercials. "The Freemasons. We're
looking for a few good men."
Wednesday. I'm so sorry....
--
C h e l a W e d n e s d a y Chela Wednesday is a caring anti-nurturer,
k ' T r e v a A s h k e v r o n a bane to several 12-step groups, but not
w e d n s d a y @ m c s . c o m a licenced driver.
B Heidrick
In article <30srpi$8...@news.udel.edu>, CRA...@brivs2.bartol.udel.edu
(Steven Cranmer) writes:
>> You can call yourself anything you like, except a Freemason or a Mason.
>> Use of those terms without joining the Lodge is Fraud.
>Okay! *Here's* what I've been waiting for. Which group(s) have
registered
>these copyrights? What do countries with competing Grand Lodges do in
>this matter -- sue each other for using the word "Freemason?" Can the
>unrecognized Prince Hall Lodges here in the States get sued by the F&AM
>or AF&AM Lodges for calling themselves Freemasons?
In California and in many other (if not all) states, there is a State
law expressly protecting Freemasonry and other organizations from rip-off.
It is a misdemenor to wear Masonic pins or proclaim yourself a Mason
without actual membership. US Federal law recognizes common law trademark
through established use. In practice, these laws are very seldom enforced
and are quite general. There was an effort about ten years ago in San
Francisco to ban Nazi regalia under this law --- failed because it was too
sweeping a construction on the law. This is the same law that is used to
charge individual who pretend to be police.
93 93/93
Bill Heidrick.
Lowell Morrison
Steven Cranmer <CRA...@brivs2.bartol.udel.edu> wrote:
>
>Hello,
>
>low...@oolong.la.locus.com (Lowell Morrison) and I continue to hash
>out what is meant by "irregularity" to Masons...
>
>>
>> >Can't it simply be a dozen or so like-minded
>> >people who get together and work the ritual?
>>
>> No, and Yes. No, it cannot be done, Except by the Grand Master of a
>> State, and it is even forbidden him is some states, or in Dire
>> Emergencies by any Mason.
>
>My question above was semi-rhetorical, because I see the answer as an
>unqualified "yes." As I hope you've figured out by now, I don't give
>a damn what the rules of the Grand Lodge(s) are. Below, however, you
>give a more compelling reason...
to abide by their rules.
>
>> No, a Mason is a Member of a Just and Legally Constituted Lodge who
>> has gone through Initiation.
>
>Nice definition. The guy with the cement caked to his overalls, who
>isn't a member of any kind of "Lodge," may call himself a mason as well,
>don't you think?
There is the Difference between "Mason" or "FreeMason" and "mason".
Any one can be a mason, just by laying bricks, but that does not
make him a Mason or a FreeMason.
>> Ah, then you would be in violation of International Copyright Laws as well.
>> You can call yourself anything you like, except a Freemason or a Mason.
>> Use of those terms without joining the Lodge is Fraud.
>
>Okay! *Here's* what I've been waiting for. Which group(s) have registered
>these copyrights? What do countries with competing Grand Lodges do in
>this matter -- sue each other for using the word "Freemason?" Can the
>unrecognized Prince Hall Lodges here in the States get sued by the F&AM
>or AF&AM Lodges for calling themselves Freemasons?
Grand Lodge of England has the Copyrights.
Guess what, the Prince Hall Lodges cannot be sued because they hold a
charter, illregularly with drawn by mistake, from the Grand Lodge of
England, the Same Source that all F&AM and AF&AM lodges derive their
charter. This being the case, no one has felt like sueing.
Besides, in past years it would have forced a court decision "Regularlizing"
the Prince Hall Lodges, and forcing the re-granting of their charter.
And Until perhaps 10 years ago, very few people In Either the Prince Hall
or the Regular Lodges wanted that outcome, that especially way. Many do
want to some how merge the lodges, but that is a long and touchy process that
is now beginning to happen.
>
>See how tricky this issue can be?
Not at all, you just have to know the history of how those "Irregular"
Masonic Lodges were formed. The Co-Masonic Lodges are Chartered from
the Grand Orient of France, whose Charter was Withdrawn by the Grand
Lodge of England without due process, so it too is a dicy proposition
to sue any of them. Of course, the French Never Recognized the Primacy
of the English Grand Lodge, so the whole point here is Moot.
Both Lodges are of considerable antiquity, and the Grand Lodge of England
is not about to prosicute a case where they would loose their Copyright.
A new Lodge forming without going through either one of the three
recognised, but squabbling systems, is going to be in a lot of
trouble though.
>And let me say *YET AGAIN*, this isn't about making "claims" in public,
>or "calling myself" things in front of Masons. As long as "Mason"
>in this country means "member of a [A]F&AM Lodge," you're damned right
>I won't be trying to pass myself off as one. This definition is what
>I think needs *changing*.
Here I disagree, the definition does not need changing. There is no
claim that Masonry is any sort of "one True Path", and many other
paths are valid. But Masonry with all of it's squabbling is a single
path. Either you come in through the lodge systems, or you are not
a Mason. There is no question, nor is their a need to change.
And, I would like to point out, that "in this country" is incorrect,
please substitute, "in the world". Masonry is a recognised, World
Wide Body.
>My tirade, to say it one last time, is about Masons not recognizing the
>fact that the Masonic Work *can* indeed be done without the authorization
>of their own particular group.
If you say Work can be indeed done without authorization of a Masonic
Body then you are indeed correct, Good Honest, and Effective Work.
It simply however is not Masonic. To so call it requires qualifications
you have not met.
>> Again look at the Oaths,
>> Expecially the Third degree one, Duncans Ritual though wrong is close
>> enough for this purpose. A social structure is very clearly set up.
>
>Can't this be taken metaphorically, just like the stuff about bodily
>mutilation?
The Alegorical and Metephorical content of the Body Mutilation or
outright death surely is there. And is most of the "penilties".
The Social Structure that is set up, it metephorical as well, and
is the stronger a Social Structure because of it. How far you can
carry that metephor however is the question, without guidance it
can stray to become non-Masonic very quickly.
--Uncle Wolf
Lowell Morrison
Chela Wednesday <wedn...@MCS.COM> wrote:
>>gpu...@fox.nstn.ns.ca (Mark Metson) writes...
>>> A claim of Masons, I hear, is that they take
>>> good men and make them better men.
>
>I'm having horrible visions of the commercials. "The Freemasons. We're
>looking for a few good men."
LOL, Wednesday. That is funny. As a Matter of Fact, Masons May NOT
by their own rules Advertize for members, and I hope that the bylaws
are never changed to allow that stupidity.
We feel that the search in finding us is a nescessary part of the
initiation. Some might consider that elitist, but that is the
way it has always been, and I hope allways will be.
Don't be sorry about expressing honest opinions<grin>..
--Uncle Wolf
Raven
> Since the Grand Lodges are the Only Source of Masonry, then
> It is best to abide by their rules.
Since Masonry (both operative and speculative) predates the Grand Lodges
-- as do some individual lodges -- I dispute your premise.
What if someone studied under sources that never came under Grand Lodge?
>>Nice definition. The guy with the cement caked to his overalls, who
>>isn't a member of any kind of "Lodge," may call himself a mason as well,
>>don't you think?
>
>There is the Difference between "Mason" or "FreeMason" and "mason".
>Any one can be a mason, just by laying bricks, but that does not
>make him a Mason or a FreeMason.
Operative Masons CAME FIRST! Your speculative Freemasonry descends
from people who got into operative lodges as "Accepted" members,
meaning they weren't really stonemasons but they were allowed to
join the lodge anyway. Now you want to deny the people who actually
do real live operative masonry the right to their own proper title?
This is like a kid on a plane being given "Junior Pilot" wings -- then
denouncing those guys in the cockpit as imposters borrowing his title.
The legitimate operative heirs of Freemasonry are not the speculative
lodges, but the building trades guilds and unions... the "guys with
cement caked to their overalls".
> Ah, then you would be in violation of International Copyright Laws as well.
> You can call yourself anything you like, except a Freemason or a Mason.
> Use of those terms without joining the Lodge is Fraud.
So I pull out my Webster's Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary....
"Mason" is defined FIRST as "a skilled workman who builds with stone or
similar material," BEFORE the secondary meaning of "Freemason".
Anyone who builds with stone or brick can call himself a Mason.
Truthfully. Without fraud. That is THE proper word for what he does.
It is more of a fraud for a group of people to call themselves Masons
when they have never so much as built a single short low wall, and have
no idea how to mix mortar, let alone apply it to bricks or stone.
>>Okay! *Here's* what I've been waiting for. Which group(s) have registered
>>these copyrights? What do countries with competing Grand Lodges do in
>>this matter -- sue each other for using the word "Freemason?" Can the
>>unrecognized Prince Hall Lodges here in the States get sued by the F&AM
>>or AF&AM Lodges for calling themselves Freemasons?
>
>Grand Lodge of England has the Copyrights.
You can copyright the contents of a document. You can't copyright
a name or book title. (That's why duplicate book titles exist.)
>A new Lodge forming without going through either one of the three
>recognised, but squabbling systems, is going to be in a lot of
>trouble though.
You might want to argue that point with the AFL-CIO.
>Either you come in through the lodge systems, or you are not a Mason.
>There is no question, nor is there a need to change. And, I would like
>to point out, that "in this country" is incorrect, please substitute,
>"in the world". Masonry is a recognised, World Wide Body.
Even the dictionary defines Masonry as "the art, trade, or occupation
of a mason" before it gives a secondary meaning of "Freemasonry".
It is a recognized trade, of the guys with cement etc., and has been
since long before the F&AM or its Grand Lodges.
Lowell Morrison
Raven <JSI...@MUSIC.LIB.MATC.EDU> wrote:
>Quoth "Uncle Wolf" to Cranmer:
>
>> Since the Grand Lodges are the Only Source of Masonry, then
>> It is best to abide by their rules.
>
>Since Masonry (both operative and speculative) predates the Grand Lodges
>-- as do some individual lodges -- I dispute your premise.
in the Grand Lodge System. Like Wicca, If you go back and pull from original
routes you are not reconstructing that Old time Religion, or FreeMasonry.
You are creating something new, and it is not Masonry.
Want to name some of those Individal lodges who predate the Grand Lodge
System, that have not joined the Grand Lodge System to this date?
>
>What if someone studied under sources that never came under Grand Lodge?
>
>>>Nice definition. The guy with the cement caked to his overalls, who
>>>isn't a member of any kind of "Lodge," may call himself a mason as well,
>>>don't you think?
>>
>>There is the Difference between "Mason" or "FreeMason" and "mason".
>>Any one can be a mason, just by laying bricks, but that does not
>>make him a Mason or a FreeMason.
>
>Operative Masons CAME FIRST! Your speculative Freemasonry descends
>from people who got into operative lodges as "Accepted" members,
>meaning they weren't really stonemasons but they were allowed to
>join the lodge anyway. Now you want to deny the people who actually
>do real live operative masonry the right to their own proper title?
Falacious argument. Not understanding that stone masons today have
little ties to the "Guild" system of the Middle Ages that some
believe were the foundation for FreeMasonry.
Just as trying to trace anything in an unbroken lineage from the
middle ages is questionable. My contention is that the Old
Operative Masons have largely died out, Yes, I know some Swedish
Operative Masons claim to be the Original, but their clams seem
suspect. And that in the Last 300 years of history has transfered
that "Title" of FreeMasonry to the Grand Lodge System of Lodges.
If we can find a true remnant of the Old Operative Masonic Guild,
then we might revisit this discussion, and Speculative Masons
will probably welcome them back into the Brotherhood with Open Arms.
>
>This is like a kid on a plane being given "Junior Pilot" wings -- then
>denouncing those guys in the cockpit as imposters borrowing his title.
>
>The legitimate operative heirs of Freemasonry are not the speculative
>lodges, but the building trades guilds and unions... the "guys with
>cement caked to their overalls".
>
Your Opinion, and one not shared by Many. The Current Unions has nothing
of lineage or of skills with the Operative Masons of History.
>> Ah, then you would be in violation of International Copyright Laws as well.
>> You can call yourself anything you like, except a Freemason or a Mason.
>> Use of those terms without joining the Lodge is Fraud.
>
>So I pull out my Webster's Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary....
>
>"Mason" is defined FIRST as "a skilled workman who builds with stone or
>similar material," BEFORE the secondary meaning of "Freemason".
"mason" surely is, "Mason" is the FreeMason and Masonic Lodge, Case
in this is important.
>
>>>Okay! *Here's* what I've been waiting for. Which group(s) have registered
>>>these copyrights? What do countries with competing Grand Lodges do in
>>>this matter -- sue each other for using the word "Freemason?" Can the
>>>unrecognized Prince Hall Lodges here in the States get sued by the F&AM
>>>or AF&AM Lodges for calling themselves Freemasons?
>>
>>Grand Lodge of England has the Copyrights.
>
>You can copyright the contents of a document. You can't copyright
>a name or book title. (That's why duplicate book titles exist.)
You can copyright Trade or Service Marks, that is Why no one else
can use the trade or service mark "Coke". Or "Kleenex" or ....
this list could get to the thousands.
>
>>A new Lodge forming without going through either one of the three
>>recognised, but squabbling systems, is going to be in a lot of
>>trouble though.
>
>You might want to argue that point with the AFL-CIO.
Since the AFL-CIO is not in the business of authorizing Masonic
Lodges, they have no part of this discussion, a red herring.
>
>>Either you come in through the lodge systems, or you are not a Mason.
>>There is no question, nor is there a need to change. And, I would like
>>to point out, that "in this country" is incorrect, please substitute,
>>"in the world". Masonry is a recognised, World Wide Body.
>
>Even the dictionary defines Masonry as "the art, trade, or occupation
>of a mason" before it gives a secondary meaning of "Freemasonry".
Again, the Dictionary defines "masonry" as the "art, trade, or occupation
of a mason", it does not so define "Masonry". The Dictionary also
in like manner defines "God" as "that god of the J-C-M Faith" and
"god" as "all other gods of religions outside of J-C-M Faith", Case
is important. The Freemason is included in the definition becasue
a large number of people do not recognise the signifance of the
Case change.
--Uncle Wolf
B Heidrick
>You can copyright the contents of a document. You can't copyright
>a name or book title. (That's why duplicate book titles exist.)
Right, those are by Trade Mark. Unlike copyrights, Trade Marks and Trade
Secrets (including scripts used for initiations) can be renewed
indefinitely.
93 93/93
Bill Heidrick