|
Lovable Luciferian posted:It depends on how your state words it. What state are you in so I can look it up, CO Loomer posted:- you have to believe in a higher power, not just the potential existence of one. edit: Lovable Luciferian posted:Really? I figured if he didn't make a thing out of it then the brothers likely wouldn't.
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 03:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 11:17 |
|
|
From the CO GL website:quote:Entry Qualifications
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 03:54
|
|
|
Zeno-25 posted:CO I don't know that it requires a leap of faith, but it requires some form of concrete belief in the existence of a higher being(s). That, at least, is my understanding of the matter. I spent a lot of years grappling with my own religious beliefs and freemasonry's requirement before joining, but as they developed the issue fell away.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 04:18
|
|
|
Solvent posted:I was going to wait for some realistic responses, but instead all I saw was a suggestion to demit, and go gently caress myself. Solvent posted:For example, there are people who believe that it is still a choice, or mortal sin, or both and no amount of progressive thinking would make it otherwise.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 05:00
|
|
|
Oh yeah, ignore me. Particularly the parts where I mentioned the majority will of the lodge, or the fact that I'm just one person with a not particularly dearly held opinion. Sub, you got PM. You wanna keep this up, PM me.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 05:01
|
|
|
Solvent posted:Oh yeah, ignore me. To be frank, your view is in my eyes wholly unmasonic and unacceptable to me. While you are a brother and entitled to be treated as one, that doesn't mean I have to approve of your views, let alone fail to reassure a man who wants to join our great and noble tradition. Nowhere in our customs, landmarks, or constitutions are homosexuals prohibited from the Lodge and they being men the same as any other, it is unconscionable to refuse them admission into the body of a lodge if they should otherwise be candidates of suitable material or of the highest quality. That is why I tell the would-be candidate to ignore you. Your view is not that of masonry, it is your own, and he should not be left to believe that it is our custom or our law.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 05:09
|
|
|
Seriously, the best version of the lovely without merit argument of no gays allowed is that it is immoral to be a sodomite so they are people of ill repute who are not therefore of good report. And this viewpoint is being brought to the thread by Solvent who [...] But yeah, it's the gays who are the ones who we need to keep out because they'll ruin our reputation. Sub Rosa fucked around with this message at 15:35 on May 21, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 05:33
|
|
|
Zeno-25 posted:Would you say that requires a leap of faith? There are some interesting things about the universe that almost seem like something is "winking" at whoever notices them. That's a leap I can make. A more mystical than spiritual leap, I suppose. Your and mine religious viewpoints are similar. When asked the question if I believed in a higher being I answered that "this is an acceptable metaphor" and nobody mentioned it again. I swore on the bible because that is what we do and it is a symbol in the end. Sub Rosa posted:*internet detective stuff* Please brethren, let's not go here. It is a silly place. 
Keetron fucked around with this message at 07:37 on May 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 07:33
|
|
|
If anything, gay bretheren would be much, MUCH better at "brotherly love" than anyone else in the lodge.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 12:01
|
|
|
What do most Masons think of recreational drug use? Not any of the harder stuff like heroin or meth. Let's say LSD and weed.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 17:22
|
|
|
The use of an illicit drug is a criminal matter, and that's not something to look for in a candidate or a Brother. While I recognize that various drugs can have legitimate medical, entheogenic, and recreational uses, until they're legalized or decriminalized I think it's a poor choice for a Freemason. Conviction for possession would end with a brother being disqualified from Lodge which would be deeply unfortunate for all involved. I treat it as a red flag to investigate further if it comes up when a man is petitioning for membership. It may not disqualify them outright but it does say certain things that we need to consider when we're allowing a man into the Craft. Is he using drugs to escape something? Is he an addict? Is he now clean, but confessing to prior use to be totally honest? Is he a responsible user, or does he neglect his other responsibilities to smoke weed all day? Is he going to reveal our secrets when he's doing psychedelics? There's a lot of concerns, and similar ones come up for me with people who are serious alcohol users. For some people who are struggling with a problem but are otherwise ideal candidates, I actually support bringing them in so that we can help them with the moral instruction of the Lodge and the practical support of its members. Loomer fucked around with this message at 17:38 on May 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 17:35
|
|
|
So it sounds like drugs are okay-ish if they are used in moderation, used only responsibly, and used legally? Some questions about my hopefully upcoming application: Will I have to talk much about my religious stances in the interview? I can comfortably say that I believe in a higher power and do so honestly, but I am not a member of a proper and well known religion and I see the details of my faith as personal, and discussing them with others would honestly make me quite uncomfortable, though I would if they required it. Also, and this is mostly just a theoretical question since I have no intent of doing so myself, but does Masonry see it's membership as exclusive with membership in other similar but non-masonic organizations such as the Odd Fellows?
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 18:35
|
|
|
Loomer posted:Is he a responsible user, or does he neglect his other responsibilities to smoke weed all day? This is mainly what I was referring to.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 20:34
|
|
|
Depends. Does federal law matter if weed is legal in the state?
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 22:24
|
|
|
This is another one of those things that comes down to individual conscience and so on. I'd be happy to make a person a Mason who, in every other way, was qualified and considered a man of good repute and so on. Having done a weed drug does not concern me much. If you show up high, well, maybe. Occasional recreational use is like alcohol, but if you smoke trees like cigarettes, I dunno. I will judge a man on the strength of his character, not on the content of his hair. That said, some lifestyles that drugs lend themselves to simply are not compatible with our order. Also, being convicted of a drug crime really depends. Were you running drugs to sell? Or did you get popped with a recreational amount and turned into a felon because of drug laws of dubious morality? GlyphGryph posted:Some questions about my hopefully upcoming application: I was made a Mason in a lodge where the Secretary and I regularly argued because he said he might have problems admitting a Muslim. I say this only to cast the character of the region, I was in the Bible Belt and this Matters there. At the time, I professed to no particular faith, but only affirmed that I did believe in some higher power, and that I would not have problems with the obligations as I understood them. When you apply, you will be told what you need to know at the time, and given a chance to walk, no harm, no foul. I was only willing, at the time, to deign to a sort of Philosopher's God, but the questioning went no further than it had to. Depending on your region, you may be asked where you go to Church or something. Just answer like "I don't attend any particular Church and have a relationship with God that is my own" or whatever other kind of honest answer you can give. quote:Also, and this is mostly just a theoretical question since I have no intent of doing so myself, but does Masonry see it's membership as exclusive with membership in other similar but non-masonic organizations such as the Odd Fellows? Had a brother back at my mother lodge who was also an Odd Fellow. No problems there, they will only ask to make sure there are no fraternal organizations that you would potentially put "above" Masonry. They also will ask to kind of get a sense of if other organizations have allowed you in. Were or are you an Odd Fellow? If so that will give some context if you want to talk on IRC or something at some point. PS I'm glad to see you're in this thread planning to take your space conspiracy game to the next level. There's no conspiracy like a Masonic conspiracy. Paramemetic fucked around with this message at 23:29 on May 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 23:09
|
|
|
Just a reminder, a large number of Freemasons committed treason (and they certainly weren't tempering their passion at the time, either). A law is just some words unless it's actually moral, and of course most everyone's morals are different.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 23:16
|
|
|
Hi Zeno! I'm actually a pansexual woman who lives in Texas and is in OES (the group for women who are descended from masons, since only men can be masons). Also like you, while I believe in a higher power, I'm not one for organized religion. There are some people in my chapter who believe that only strict Christians can join but I think the exact wording is that anyone who believes in a higher power can join. I'm also told that the wording in masonic rituals is very deist, so that might match pretty well with your beliefs depending on what they are. The OES rituals are very explicitly Christian however (we only have five degrees, and they all reference Biblical women) so that's not as interesting to me. There are a lot of older conservative types, and I avoid mentioning my orientation at meetings. However I did add people that I liked on facebook, where I don't hide such things. That said, there definitely are hippies scattered around in masonry! And depending on what part of the south you're in, there might be a lodge with a higher ratio of hippies than normal. I went in thinking of it as a way to a) better myself and b) meet new people, and I feel like I've accomplished both.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2015 23:17
|
|
|
Paramemetic posted:Had a brother back at my mother lodge who was also an Odd Fellow. No problems there, they will only ask to make sure there are no fraternal organizations that you would potentially put "above" Masonry. They also will ask to kind of get a sense of if other organizations have allowed you in. Were or are you an Odd Fellow? If so that will give some context if you want to talk on IRC or something at some point. quote:PS I'm glad to see you're in this thread planning to take your space conspiracy game to the next level. There's no conspiracy like a Masonic conspiracy. 
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2015 01:06
|
|
|
Solvent posted:For the record, has anybody ever met an openly gay blue lodge mason? Yes. Many. I vote for the good of masonry. Solvent, gay men are a diverse group. I can understand your concern if by "openly gay" you're thinking Johnny Weir - very flamboyant and dedicated to making a spectacle of his fabulousness. I'm not sure how I'd vote if he were an applicant because I'd be concerned that his application being a publicity stunt or that he would never be able to meet his brothers on the level. Anyways, openly gay doesn't mean flamboyant attention seeker. It just means not hiding. Emron posted:This is, sadly, an all too common experience in any masonic body. I'm currently struggling with trying to figure out how to deal with a member in our lodge who is very active, a very nice guy, and who thinks that the best way to handle black applicants is to point them toward Prince Hall. Use the "vote for the good of masonry" argument. Another thing to check on is if the particular brother thinks he is trying to uphold any part of an oath that he took a few decades ago.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2015 19:36
|
|
|
Finally got my copy of the Textbook of Freemasonry, the little blue hardcover book from the 1880s - 1910s. Mine is a 1908 edition. It's interesting seeing how much the ritual has changed in just a century.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2015 14:43
|
|
|
Loomer posted:Finally got my copy of the Textbook of Freemasonry, the little blue hardcover book from the 1880s - 1910s. Mine is a 1908 edition. It's interesting seeing how much the ritual has changed in just a century. That's interesting that you say that! Ohio sticks pretty close to Duncan's ritual and Webb's monitor.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2015 15:05
|
|
|
Most of its very minor changes, but I haven't dug in far. Changed words, dropped lines, re-ordering of the content of the T.B.s (particularly 3rd) and the exact order of parts of charges. It'll be a nice thing to study from and then add to the growing Masonic library I want to establish, though some of the Brethren at my Lodge may get shirty because they take the idea our Order hasn't changed at all very much on the face of it and insist that no part has undergone any real change. EDIT: The little blue book in question is UGLE, of course, and I'm UGLNSWACT, so there may be much bigger differences for you yanks since our masonries are of substantially distinct detail. Loomer fucked around with this message at 15:17 on May 22, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 22, 2015 15:12
|
|
|
There's some very obviously added modern sections in Ohio, particularly in the lectures. In the MM one, there's a paragraph that drops all symbolic discussion to enumerate the constitutional number of masons necessary to open a lodge and transact business in our jurisdiction. I get mad every time I need to say that part, since it's so out of tone with the rest of it.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2015 15:26
|
|
|
We have so far avoided such nonsense, though we did recently drop the 'swear' from one of the Obligations in favour of 'promise' because 'you don't swear in lodge'. Fortunately, my Lodge tends to slip it in there anyway because seriously.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2015 15:29
|
|
|
We actually promise AND swear 
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2015 15:43
|
|
|
I was reading through some of the early early stuff (late 1700s and early 1800s), and there is a lot that is surprisingly close, if you take vernacular into account. Then again, a lot that is NOT close, but I still wish it were in place! For instance: In the early days of Masonry, the degree would be given in a room above a bar (or just any public-access large room, which were usually above free houses/bars), and the trestleboard drawings of the degree would be made in chalk on the floor of the room. Afterward, the candidate would go through with a mop and pail, to wash off all the chalk, and contemplate the trestleboard drawings. Kinda cool 
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2015 15:53
|
|
|
COOL CORN posted:I was reading through some of the early early stuff (late 1700s and early 1800s), and there is a lot that is surprisingly close, if you take vernacular into account. Mother Kilwinning (Lodge 0 in Scotland) actually performs a degree dressed up in clothing of the period, using the olden ritual style and such. I was fortunate enough to see it being performed at the 275th anniversary celebrations of my lodge.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2015 19:54
|
|
|
One interesting thing they've dropped. The 1908 Ritual book teaches the different manner the various MM signs are communicated in different jurisdictions - ours doesn't. Of course it doesn't actually say what they are, but that's what I'd consider a significant change.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2015 01:28
|
|
|
Question time again: There is a requirement I am concerned about. Specifically, the one that says I must "cheerfully conform" to every single law of my country, state and community. It's under the "loyalty to ones country" section, and I don't know, this might be a disqualifier for me. I follow the laws of my country, state, and community, but there are several I could not honestly say I "cheerfully conform" to. Grudgingly, yes, cheerfully, no. Additionally, it says disloyalty to my country "in any form" is inconsistent with masonic teachings and a barrier to entry. My desire to emigrate to the land of the Kiwi where I lived for a while in University, though staunched by practical and family concerns such that it is unlikely to ever, nonetheless exists, and that is quite obviously a form of disloyalty to my country. I don't know how else one could describe wanting to leave it for a different one. I don't think I could in good faith conform to this requirement. I still plan on going to the pre-application meeting, and talking about the issue with them, but I'm kind of assuming now I won't be able to get in after all. We'll see how it goes, anyway. As a curiosity question: If a mason loses his faith in a supreme being, perhaps after years and years as a mason, do they get kicked out? I'm just wondering because the application process is constantly emphasizing and re-emphasizing "AND YOU HAVE TO BELIEVE IN GOD", making it very clear they take it seriously,
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 03:05
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Question time again: If you don't treat real cops like we treat space cops you're probably fine. Cheerfully conforming to laws of one's country is up to one's own moral conscience. I speed sometimes, but I also accept that speeding isn't great and if I get a ticket that's on me. I disagree with some laws, but I recognize that our pretend-democracy has pretend-systems in place to fix unjust laws so I abide by them. I'm also a fan of literally dismantling our congressional system and rebuilding it like a modern European democracy. I don't plan on committing treason, but I don't think our government is in any way sacred. quote:I don't think I could in good faith conform to this requirement. I still plan on going to the pre-application meeting, and talking about the issue with them, but I'm kind of assuming now I won't be able to get in after all. That's an extremely robust questionnaire they've got. I think I asked before but where are you applying again? quote:As a curiosity question: If they lose their faith after having taken their oaths that is up to them how they go forward, it never really needs to come up in lodge. That question comes up during rituals and within some of the functionality of the lodge, but nobody is measuring your god-thetans. When I took my oaths I had a sincere belief in a supreme being, and I think I still technically comply with that, at least to my own satisfaction. The expectation is that one wouldn't lie during their oaths, and that's the important thing here. Whether or not you continue to believe in a supreme being is between you and that being, so long as you're not being deceptive right now, in the future. You'll get more information about that before actually taking any oaths though.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 03:26
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Question time again: I've seen this come up, and it might even be the case in my state, but it's a dumb thing to say. Again, I'll reference the 18th Cnetury Masons who committed treason against their country, one in particular who actually led the rebel army. At any rate, no one's going to ask you about that, and even if you bring it up, I can all but guarantee the Brothers you ask will justify certain laws that don't apply because they're against a moral code they subscribe to, and that code is higher, &c., &c., &c.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 12:01
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Question time again: The cheerful conformance excludes genuine objections based on grounds of ethics and morality as masons are also, to a much higher degree, exhorted to adhere to our consciences and to act as morally upright and just men in all respects. If the law of a country permits slavery, it would not be unmasonic to seek the dissolution of slavery. If the law of a country demands the killing of rape victims, it is not unmasonic to refuse to do so. (Arguably, it is unmasonic to assent to this law!) We are bound much more by our consciences and by the higher laws to which we are sworn. Wanting to emigrate is certainly not disloyalty to your country. You are not injuring your country, nor impugning it. Disloyalty in that context requires malicious intent.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 12:27
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Question time again: But again this was just one of many red flags for this gentlemen we found.
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2015 00:30
|
|
|
Some Zero posted:But again this was just one of many red flags for this gentlemen we found. What were the others?
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2015 07:37
|
|
|
Are there still jurisdictions that bar Communists from joining?
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2015 08:57
|
|
|
Sub Rosa posted:Are there still jurisdictions that bar Communists from joining? Hahaha, what? Don't you guys take pride in being apolitical?
|
|
#
?
May 30, 2015 23:51
|
|
|
Noctis Horrendae posted:Hahaha, what? The Reagan years were hard in America. I was literally a member of the Communist Party, USA in my college years and had concerns about that but it was no problem in the end.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2015 00:37
|
|
|
Noctis Horrendae posted:Hahaha, what? The ideal differs between jurisdictions. It is a disgrace to Masonry wherever political or religious differences are used to keep would-be worthy men excluded, but if the Grand Lodge of a jurisdiction bans communists, there is little the rest of us can do. Likewise, I am bound by grand edict not to discuss rosicrucianism or druidism in Lodge - despite the fascination with both that marks many of the most esteemed Masonic authors, including many of those my GL specifically recommends to new brethren. Frankly, the idea that Freemasonry is apolitical in and of itself has never held much water anyway. We do not discuss politics in Lodge but that is not because we cannot hold political beliefs - it is to preserve the brotherhood of those present. Religion and politics can break friendship and so we do not speak of it except in the lightest sense. We do not throw the support of the Craft or a Lodge behind a political cause for the same reasons - that our friendships, both personal and on the larger scale of social units (town/lodge, etc) may be preserved. But throughout our history plenty of politics has gone down via Masonry, and it likely always will - and not usually in the sense of backdoor shenanigans, but rather in that of the underlying politics of our order. This is because the moral and ethical teachings of the Craft necessarily predispose people towards certain viewpoints regarding helping the poor, helping your neighbour, and respecting people's freedoms and liberties. The Mason who separates these teachings from the rest of his life is a poor one. Unfortunately, there are very many poor Masons, especially among those who joined for improper reasons of political or mercantile advancement. However, a 'true' and 'proper' Mason will absorb these lessons and act on them in his life. That is, in fact, one of the prime purposes of our Craft, beyond those more esoteric purposes: to make good men better. As man is a part of his society, it necessarily follows that by improving the man, you improve the society; or, that by improving the society, the man may also improve himself. There is a reason many of the prominent aristocrat proto-socialists of the 18th and 19th Centuries belonged to the Craft.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2015 04:52
|
|
|
I spent some more time with the Masons last night and I think it put a lot of my concerns to rest. These are good people, people I'd be happy to call brothers, and they answered all the questions I had and I still want to do this, so it looks like we can check off pre-application meeting. Now I just need to fill out this paperwork and then, I think, there's just the one more thing to do before I'm in (or out).Some Zero posted:This question came up with a candidate I was investigating recently. Not saying you are in this position but upon further dialog it became clear and he admitted later that he did not hold a belief in a higher power was simply claiming he did to gain admission. GlyphGryph fucked around with this message at 14:48 on May 31, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 31, 2015 14:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 11:17 |
|
|
Oh word. Not sure of the source of your inclination towards vegetarianism but I rejoice in your decision. Likin' this guy more and more
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2015 17:01
|
|