# Greetings from an "irregular"



## wufilas

My Dear Br:.

I was initiated in the Grand Orient de France and am now integrated in the Grand Orient de Roumanie.
I would like to send you all my Triple Fraternal Accolade.

I registered on this forum because I would like to have debates with "regular" Br:. on the topic of regular vs. irregular in the sense of UGLE vs. GODF (dogmatic vs. adogmatic).

T:.A:.F:.


----------



## Lightlife

As one of the more irregular regular brothers, I welcome you.


----------



## CLewey44

Welcome and look forward to your prospective (edit perspective :/)


----------



## Bloke

Welcome. There are several threads which have already discussed regularity - it can be a touchy subject so I ask you to be sensitive to that
http://www.myfreemasonry.com/thread...ing-women-legitimate.29749/page-2#post-196309


----------



## David612

My parents say I can’t talk to you.

Welcome to the forum-


----------



## Warrior1256

Greetings and welcome to the forum.


David612 said:


> My parents say I can’t talk to you.


Lol!


----------



## LK600

Welcome to the forums my friend, hope you enjoy your stay.


----------



## Brother JC

Greetings, and welcome! A view from the other side will be interesting to follow.


----------



## wufilas

Thank you dear Br:.

To tell you the truth I did not expect so many answers on this thread. But they are indeed a pleasant surprise 

T:.A:.F:.



David612 said:


> My parents say I can’t talk to you.
> 
> Welcome to the forum-



Have to admit I chuckled when I read this...


----------



## David612

wufilas said:


> Thank you dear Br:.
> 
> To tell you the truth I did not expect so many answers on this thread. But they are indeed a pleasant surprise
> 
> T:.A:.F:.
> 
> 
> 
> Have to admit I chuckled when I read this...


At the end of the day we may not be able to converse masonically but it dosnt stop us from conversing.


----------



## Warrior1256

David612 said:


> At the end of the day we may not be able to converse masonically but it dosnt stop us from conversing.


Ditto!


----------



## ELIJAHWILLY1

Lightlife said:


> As one of the more irregular regular brothers, I welcome you.


please can anyone connect me with lodge here in Qatar


----------



## David612

ELIJAHWILLY1 said:


> please can anyone connect me with lodge here in Qatar


Just like the other thread..
No.


We aren’t here in Qatar..


----------



## Winter

Welcome to the forum. As has been mentioned, discussions of Regularity can be touchy. But done with a eye to remaining courteous can usually be interesting.  I look forward to the topic.  

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## Warrior1256

Winter said:


> As has been mentioned, discussions of Regularity can be touchy. But done with a eye to remaining courteous can usually be interesting. I look forward to the topic.


Same here.


----------



## CLewey44

Seems we're like step-brothers. Brother-in-laws maybe?


----------



## David612

The divergence of “Regular” masonry and that of the Grand Orient is an interesting bit of history, at this point it seems to be the dug in heels of our past that keeps the two sides seperate which is a shame as being able to unite under the one banner would really be a beautiful thing and given the context of the time it’s all very understandable.
That said much like Prince Hall masonry I’m sure the Grand Orient has a flavour all it’s own, it would really be beneficial to get to a point where we could operate in the same way we do with the OES.


----------



## CLewey44

David612 said:


> The divergence of “Regular” masonry and that of the Grand Orient is an interesting bit of history, at this point it seems to be the dug in heels of our past that keeps the two sides seperate which is a shame as being able to unite under the one banner would really be a beautiful thing and given the context of the time it’s all very understandable.
> That said much like Prince Hall masonry I’m sure the Grand Orient has a flavour all it’s own, it would really be beneficial to get to a point where we could operate in the same way we do with the OES.


It very well could actually. Freemason may "expand" out into other avenues.


----------



## Elexir

David612 said:


> The divergence of “Regular” masonry and that of the Grand Orient is an interesting bit of history, at this point it seems to be the dug in heels of our past that keeps the two sides seperate which is a shame as being able to unite under the one banner would really be a beautiful thing and given the context of the time it’s all very understandable.
> That said much like Prince Hall masonry I’m sure the Grand Orient has a flavour all it’s own, it would really be beneficial to get to a point where we could operate in the same way we do with the OES.



First off, not all GOs are irregular, look at italy.

Second, OES was designed by american masons it has never been a separate obediance. Do you really think GOdF would accept that posistion? Take into account that not all regular GLs accept OES.


----------



## David612

Elexir said:


> First off, not all GOs are irregular, look at italy.
> 
> Second, OES was designed by american masons it has never been a separate obediance. Do you really think GOdF would accept that posistion? Take into account that not all regular GLs accept OES.


First of- given the OPs affiliation it’s safe to assume I’m not talking about Italy.

Can you clarify what you mean by “not a seperate obedience” as it sure ain’t regular blue lodge masonry, but as far as the GOdF it wouldn’t matter what they feel about it as we can only regulate our own policies, I’m not talking about mutual recognition and visitation, I’m talking about not prohibiting members from holding dual membership.


----------



## Elexir

David612 said:


> First of- given the OPs affiliation it’s safe to assume I’m not talking about Italy.
> 
> Can you clarify what you mean by “not a seperate obedience” as it sure ain’t regular blue lodge masonry, but as far as the GOdF it wouldn’t matter what they feel about it as we can only regulate our own policies, I’m not talking about mutual recognition and visitation, I’m talking about not prohibiting members from holding dual membership.



Then I see how you mean.

OES Is not its own entity since it requirs a male master mason to be present at the meetings. 

The problem is that when we premit members to also be members of irregular/unrecognised GLs and have degrees there we also would in fact recognise them as masonic bodies. It would in fact be the same as if we allowed visitation.


----------



## David612

Elexir said:


> Then I see how you mean.
> 
> OES Is not its own entity since it requirs a male master mason to be present at the meetings.
> 
> The problem is that when we premit members to also be members of irregular/unrecognised GLs and have degrees there we also would in fact recognise them as masonic bodies. It would in fact be the same as if we allowed visitation.


I’d say it’s more like joining Golden Dawn, BOTA or some other initiatory body.



In that it’s none of GL business-


----------



## Elexir

David612 said:


> I’d say it’s more like joining Golden Dawn, BOTA or some other initiatory body.
> 
> 
> 
> In that it’s none of GL business-



Then again neither GD, BOTA etc. dont claim to be a masonic body.


----------



## David612

Elexir said:


> Then again neither GD, BOTA etc. dont claim to be a masonic body.


True-but lets be real, to some degree all roads lead to Rome.


----------



## CLewey44

David612 said:


> True-but lets be real, to some degree all roads lead to Rome.


They certainly were born out of Masonry and wouldn't exist without Masonry. Would be interesting GD (Ciceros version), Memphis Mizaram and Le Droit Humain etc were under the umbrella as well.


----------



## Warrior1256

Elexir said:


> The problem is that when we premit members to also be members of irregular/unrecognised GLs and have degrees there we also would in fact recognise them as masonic bodies. It would in fact be the same as if we allowed visitation.


I am most certainly NOT in favor of allowing duel membership in irregular / unrecognized lodges or Grand Lodges.


----------



## Winter

David612 said:


> The divergence of “Regular” masonry and that of the Grand Orient is an interesting bit of history, at this point it seems to be the dug in heels of our past that keeps the two sides seperate which is a shame as being able to unite under the one banner would really be a beautiful thing and given the context of the time it’s all very understandable.
> That said much like Prince Hall masonry I’m sure the Grand Orient has a flavour all it’s own, it would really be beneficial to get to a point where we could operate in the same way we do with the OES.



I don't think it is just "dug in heels" that keeps our two sides separate. It is actually very serious concerns like the fact the GOdF does not require a Candidate to profess a belief in Deity. Without which, no Ob. could be binding.  That is no small matter, not to mention the admittance of women which all mainstream jurisdictions agree violates the Landmarks.



David612 said:


> First of- given the OPs affiliation it’s safe to assume I’m not talking about Italy.
> 
> Can you clarify what you mean by “not a seperate obedience” as it sure ain’t regular blue lodge masonry, but as far as the GOdF it wouldn’t matter what they feel about it as we can only regulate our own policies, I’m not talking about mutual recognition and visitation, I’m talking about not prohibiting members from holding dual membership.



How would that even work with a Brother holding membership in organizations that have been classified as unrecognized, irregular, or clandestine?  It makes my head hurt just thinking of it.

Picture this scenario. Grand Lodge A opens dual membership with GOdF. Members join both organizations. Atheist members of GOdF join in sufficient numbers in Grand Lodge A and work through the officer chairs to have sufficient numbers to vote out the requirement for a belief in Deity.  Now Grand Lodge A is as unregular as the GOdF.


----------



## CLewey44

It's simply not possible to merge the two based on obligations.


----------



## Warrior1256

Winter said:


> It is actually very serious concerns like the fact the GOdF does not require a Candidate to profess a belief in Deity. Without which, no Ob. could be binding. That is no small matter, not to mention the admittance of women which all mainstream jurisdictions agree violates the Landmarks.





Winter said:


> How would that even work with a Brother holding membership in organizations that have been classified as unrecognized, irregular, or clandestine? It makes my head hurt just thinking of it.





CLewey44 said:


> It's simply not possible to merge the two based on obligations.


Exactly!


----------



## David612

i think the idea that obligations can only be binding if a person believes in a deity is a tad flawed- is there no personal responsibility? Can a person not do what they say they will do purely based on their word as a man?
If our concern is questioning a brothers ability to up hold his obligations I as you how many brothers do you know who are divorced for example.
Again not suggesting we merge but rather accept that if a person would choose to be involved in both it actually has no real bearing on us seprarely.


----------



## Winter

David612 said:


> i think the idea that obligations can only be binding if a person believes in a deity is a tad flawed- is there no personal responsibility? Can a person not do what they say they will do purely based on their word as a man?
> If our concern is questioning a brothers ability to up hold his obligations I as you how many brothers do you know who are divorced for example.
> Again not suggesting we merge but rather accept that if a person would choose to be involved in both it actually has no real bearing on us seprarely.


While I see where your argument is coming from, the requirement is built right into the foundation of mainstream Freemasonry with almost the exact wording that no Ob. Would be binding on a Brother without that belief in Deity. If you take G-d out of Freemasonry it ceases to be Freemasonry. 

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## David612

Winter said:


> While I see where your argument is coming from, the requirement is built right into the foundation of mainstream Freemasonry with almost the exact wording that no Ob. Would be binding on a Brother without that belief in Deity. If you take G-d out of Freemasonry it ceases to be Freemasonry.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


If it ceases to be freemasonry then we shouldn’t have an issue- There shouldn’t be a prohibition on it if it isn’t masonry, hypothetically speaking the secrets are the same, surely the obligations would prevent a member of either or both confirming it to anyone except perhaps someone who already knows it.
At the end of the day we can go in circles about this but it’s a moot point really-
I’ll just say this- read up on the split if your aren’t familiar- really interesting.


----------



## Winter

David612 said:


> If it ceases to be freemasonry then we shouldn’t have an issue- There shouldn’t be a prohibition on it if it isn’t masonry, hypothetically speaking the secrets are the same, surely the obligations would prevent a member of either or both confirming it to anyone except perhaps someone who already knows it.
> At the end of the day we can go in circles about this but it’s a moot point really-
> I’ll just say this- read up on the split if your aren’t familiar- really interesting.


I've taken part in many debates on the matter. And it does often devolve to a circular debate, unfortunately. What it ultimately comes down to is that the jurisdictions considered irregular (and sometimes clandestine) removed elements for candidates that are seen by the mainstream grand lodges as integral to the Order. 

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## Bloke

Winter said:


> ..If you take G-d out of Freemasonry it ceases to be Freemasonry...



That's  a very interesting statement. As I have said, I intellectually see some of these irregular bodies as branches of the same tree while others new trees from the same seed. I certainly can respect them, and at the very least, agree to disagree.

I am posing myself a hypothetical thought experiment  - would I be more likely to , in an imagined future world;

Sit in lodge with a males openly acknowledged as atheists.
Sit in lodge with females to have a belief in as supreme being.

I value our male space and fraternity - so I could see that #1 would perhaps be a smoother change socially, but for me, and reality is that in the ritual, the GAOTU is ever present and hence I think it more likely for and imagined future to see option 2 above, which would be more familiar to me than a Lodge without reference to the GAOTU.

On a surface level, the fraternal aspect of Freemasonry is so important, Freemasonry being a device to unite diverse men, but that unity is based in part of common faith in a personal GAOTU which is a strong underpinning to our movement, and while Freemasonry might help shape all our human relationships regardless of gender, politics, religion and even faith itself, when you delve deeper into our mysteries, one finds that our relationship with our personal God is also influenced or, at least, strongly supported by Freemasonry..

So I think you are very correct Brother when you say "If you take G-d out of Freemasonry it ceases to be Freemasonry"

Sometimes to understand what something is, you also need to understand what it is not; Freemasonry is much more than a social group, it is a path, and one where the GAOTU plays an important, and perhaps, the most important, part.


----------



## David612

It has been said that the two orders are basically the same but each following a different path-
“Regular” the spiritual path and GOdF went the political more charitable route.
No idea how true that is and I don’t think we even have a Grand Orient in Australia...
But I digress- I think it’s important to understand that GOdF isn’t exclusively atheistic, there is simply a provision there that allows for men who aren’t religious/spiritually inclined to join, I’d be curious what the demographics are actually like


----------



## Bloke

David612 said:


> ..and I don’t think we even have a Grand Orient in Australia...



Not to my knowledge - but we do have Le Droit Humain - Edith Cowan being the most notable Australian to have been a member. (she is on our $50 note).


----------



## David612

Bloke said:


> Not to my knowledge - but we do have Le Droit Humain - Edith Cowan being the most notable Australian to have been a member. (she is on our $50 note).


True- 
Perhaps once we sort out relations with the Grand Orient we can sort them out next?

My understanding is basically the obligation is made on your word as a good person, ours however is a promise to the deity of our personal choice- 
I think the obligation argument is flimsy at best-


----------



## LK600

David612 said:


> It has been said that the two orders are basically the same but each following a different path-
> “Regular” the spiritual path and GOdF went the political more charitable route.



I would disagree.  There was a path, and then GOdF consciously stepped off that path.  There was no point where Regular Freemasonry elected to take a path; they stayed on the same path that always was.  The GOdF elected to discontinue adherence to specific landmarks on their own, which is what caused their designation as Irregular.  We can discuss the motives for their deviation (there were several), and while I understand why they made those choices, I can not condone them nor accept them as Brothers because it would be a violation of ALL of my obligations, Grand Lodge choices aside.  Nevertheless, I would view them as a friend and treat them accordingly.

The obligation argument is flimsy depending on a persons view of what an Obligation is.


----------



## David612

I think it’s a flimsy argument as there are other obligations we take in life and violation of those dosnt result in being expelled.
Additionally- there are faiths represented in the craft that don’t really conform to the monotheistic framework we have for ourselves but a blind eye is turned to that.


----------



## Winter

David612 said:


> I think it’s a flimsy argument as there are other obligations we take in life and violation of those dosnt result in being expelled.
> Additionally- there are faiths represented in the craft that don’t really conform to the monotheistic framework we have for ourselves but a blind eye is turned to that.


But it isn't a flimsy argument if the Landmarks are inviolable. The jurisdictions that admit atheists and women chose to set those Landmarks aside because they saw them as not  necessary to the Order. That action was of sufficient seriousness to be labelled as irregular. You wave a wand and just say the argument has no weight. 

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## David612

Winter said:


> But it isn't a flimsy argument if the Landmarks are inviolable. The jurisdictions that admit atheists and women chose to set those Landmarks aside because they saw them as not  necessary to the Order. That action was of sufficient seriousness to be labelled as irregular. You wave a wand and just say the argument has no weight.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


I hardly ever wave wands sir!
No, it’s more that I get a bit sceptical of rules that are not applied uniformly.


----------



## Winter

David612 said:


> I hardly ever wave wands sir!
> No, it’s more that I get a bit sceptical of rules that are not applied uniformly.


Sorry. Typing on my phone I omitted a word. I meant to use the cololqualism that you can't wave a wand.  I would never imply you were wandering around the countryside waving wands! 

As to not applying the Landmarks uniformly, did you have a specific example? As far as my experience has been, all candidates in mainstream Freemasonry are required to profess a belief in Deity as well as possession of the Requisite plumbing. 

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## David612

Winter said:


> Sorry. Typing on my phone I omitted a word. I meant to use the cololqualism that you can't wave a wand.  I would never imply you were wandering around the countryside waving wands!
> 
> As to not applying the Landmarks uniformly, did you have a specific example? As far as my experience has been, all candidates in mainstream Freemasonry are required to profess a belief in Deity as well as possession of the Requisite plumbing.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk



We have had quite a few examples of discrimination based on sexuality, race or religion however when it comes to obligations- consider a brother who is divorced- had he not made a life long binding obligation which he has broken?
Why is a breach of an obligation outside of the craft held to account?


----------



## Winter

David612 said:


> We have had quite a few examples of discrimination based on sexuality, race or religion however when it comes to obligations- consider a brother who is divorced- had he not made a life long binding obligation which he has broken?
> Why is a breach of an obligation outside of the craft held to account?


But a marriage contract is not a Landmark of Freemasonry. We are talking about an organization who purports to be a Masonic body but has chosen to not adhere to the Landmarks. We cannot hold non Masons in unrelated situations to the same standards. 

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## hanzosbm

Winter said:


> As to not applying the Landmarks uniformly, did you have a specific example? As far as my experience has been, all candidates in mainstream Freemasonry are required to profess a belief in Deity as well as possession of the Requisite plumbing.



Well, for one thing, which landmarks?  Everyone talks about them, but the first time they were enumerated was in 1858.  Before that, there were charges that in some cases bore resemblance to each other, but not one set of codified rules that was universal.

One of the Landmarks that includes that the candidate needs to be a man, also has rules against him being a cripple, or deformed in any way.  This is worded in various ways, including being able bodied.  I doubt there are many regular Grand Lodges who hold to this Landmark.

Another is the right to visit and sit in every regular lodge.  Yet, it is up to the Master of that lodge to allow admission.  How can a right laid out by a Landmark be countermanded by the Master?  He couldn't simply decide to initiate a woman.

Every time I hear someone try to make sense of our "rules" it comes off like Dogberry and the watchmen in Much Ado About Nothing.


----------



## Brother JC

hanzosbm said:


> Every time I hear someone try to make sense of our "rules" it comes off like Dogberry and the watchmen in Much Ado About Nothing.


Instant vision of Michael Keaton springing to mind!


----------



## LK600

hanzosbm said:


> Everyone talks about them, but the first time they were enumerated was in 1858.



Mackey took liberties in 1858, but it was a nice effort.  Still, enumeration and nonexistence are not the same thing.  Some "landmarks" run deep regardless what they are called.  
Anderson’s _Constitutions_ of 1723
I. _Concerning_ GOD _and_ RELIGION. 
A _Mason_ is oblig'd by his Tenure, to obey the moral Law; and if he rightly understands the Art, he will never be a stupid Atheist nor an irreligious *Libertine*. But though in ancient Times Masons were charg'd in every Country to be of the Religion of that Country or Nation, whatever it was, yet 'tis now thought more expedient only to oblige them to that Religion in which all Men agree, leaving their particular Opinions to themselves; that is, to be _good_ Men _and true,_ or Men of Honour and Honesty, by whatever Denominations or Persuasions they may be distinguish'd; whereby Masonry becomes the _Center_ of _Union,_ and the Means of conciliating true Friendship among Persons that must have remain'd at a perpetual Distance.


----------



## David612

“yet 'tis now thought more expedient only to oblige them to that Religion in which all Men agree, leaving their particular Opinions to themselves”


----------



## Glen Cook

LK600 said:


> Mackey took liberties in 1858, but it was a nice effort.  Still, enumeration and nonexistence are not the same thing.  Some "landmarks" run deep regardless what they are called.
> Anderson’s _Constitutions_ of 1723
> I. _Concerning_ GOD _and_ RELIGION.
> A _Mason_ is oblig'd by his Tenure, to obey the moral Law; and if he rightly understands the Art, he will never be a stupid Atheist nor an irreligious *Libertine*. But though in ancient Times Masons were charg'd in every Country to be of the Religion of that Country or Nation, whatever it was, yet 'tis now thought more expedient only to oblige them to that Religion in which all Men agree, leaving their particular Opinions to themselves; that is, to be _good_ Men _and true,_ or Men of Honour and Honesty, by whatever Denominations or Persuasions they may be distinguish'd; whereby Masonry becomes the _Center_ of _Union,_ and the Means of conciliating true Friendship among Persons that must have remain'd at a perpetual Distance.


CGMNA is succinct:


Adherence to the Ancient Landmarks – specifically, a Belief in God, the Volume of Sacred Law as an indispensable part of the Furniture of the Lodge, and the prohibition of the discussion of politics and religion.


----------



## Glen Cook

David612 said:


> “yet 'tis now thought more expedient only to oblige them to that Religion in which all Men agree, leaving their particular Opinions to themselves”


Numerous jurisdictions though haven’t accepted this in practice, with varying requirements from a belief in the immortality of the soul to Christianity.


----------



## hanzosbm

LK600 said:


> Mackey took liberties in 1858, but it was a nice effort.  Still, enumeration and nonexistence are not the same thing.  Some "landmarks" run deep regardless what they are called.
> Anderson’s _Constitutions_ of 1723
> I. _Concerning_ GOD _and_ RELIGION.
> A _Mason_ is oblig'd by his Tenure, to obey the moral Law; and if he rightly understands the Art, he will never be a stupid Atheist nor an irreligious *Libertine*. But though in ancient Times Masons were charg'd in every Country to be of the Religion of that Country or Nation, whatever it was, yet 'tis now thought more expedient only to oblige them to that Religion in which all Men agree, leaving their particular Opinions to themselves; that is, to be _good_ Men _and true,_ or Men of Honour and Honesty, by whatever Denominations or Persuasions they may be distinguish'd; whereby Masonry becomes the _Center_ of _Union,_ and the Means of conciliating true Friendship among Persons that must have remain'd at a perpetual Distance.


I think this is a perfect example. Your bolding of the term Libertine shows that by the Landmarks, only adherents to "established" religions (whatever that means) are acceptable.
So, belief in a Supreme Being is not enough. 

Do we conform to this Landmark, or do we fail to apply it uniformily?


----------



## hanzosbm

Brother JC said:


> Instant vision of Michael Keaton springing to mind!


I am, an ass.


----------



## David612

You know what I love-
I, a “regular” mason am excluded from numerous “regular” orders as I’m not a Christian.


----------



## Bloke

David612 said:


> I think it’s a flimsy argument as there are other obligations we take in life and violation of those dosnt result in being expelled.
> Additionally- there are faiths represented in the craft that don’t really conform to the monotheistic framework we have for ourselves but a blind eye is turned to that.


But even polytheistic religions will tend to have a "Supreme Being" , hence the number of Hindus among our ranks. Freemasonry does not require a belief in monotheism - only  a belief in a Supreme Being - they are different. A good example of this which might be accessible to many is Trinitarian Christianity.


----------



## Mike Martin

David612 said:


> The divergence of “Regular” masonry and that of the Grand Orient is an interesting bit of history, at this point it seems to be the dug in heels of our past that keeps the two sides seperate which is a shame as being able to unite under the one banner would really be a beautiful thing and given the context of the time it’s all very understandable.


To be fair, it's not just a small "divergence" in 1877 the Grand Orient of France removed one of the rules (no atheists) that has existed since the beginning of Freemasonry, it then went on to fully immerse itself in the political scene of France (a second transgression) and most recently it has now welcomed women into meetings of its Lodges. The only step remaining is to actually begin Initiating women and its transformation into another Co-masonry will be complete.

However, at the death, the GOdF took a decision to be different, its membership who voted on this knew exactly what it would lead to with the rest of the Masonic world. So I fail to see why individual members (who have chosen to join that GO although other obediences are available) feel that they should suggest that Grand Lodges need to take any action with regard to GOdF. If you wish to fraternise more widely join a Grand Lodge recognised by more Grand Lodges around the world.



David612 said:


> That said much like Prince Hall masonry I’m sure the Grand Orient has a flavour all it’s own, it would really be beneficial to get to a point where we could operate in the same way we do with the OES.


Prince Hall Lodges were never irregular, they were ostracised because of the political climate of the US and sadly had to wait 200 years until that climate changed enough for mainstream Grand Lodges to soften their stance against them.

The OES is not Freemasonry it was modelled, by Rob Morris, on the French "Rite of Adoption" which was also not Freemasonry, here in England it was not accepted due to its requirement to have a Freemason present at all meetings acting in his capacity as a Freemason. Are you thinking of Le Droit Humain?


----------



## Warrior1256

Mike Martin said:


> To be fair, it's not just a small "divergence" in 1877 the Grand Orient of France removed one of the rules (no atheists) that has existed since the beginning of Freemasonry, it then went on to fully immerse itself in the political scene of France (a second transgression) and most recently it has now welcomed women into meetings of its Lodges. The only step remaining is to actually begin Initiating women and its transformation into another Co-masonry will be complete.


Exactly. Bottom line....this is as irregular as it gets and, IMHO, fraternization with it is, as it should be, forbidden.


----------



## Winter

David612 said:


> You know what I love-
> I, a “regular” mason am excluded from numerous “regular” orders as I’m not a Christian.



Completely  separate issue.  Trust me, I have argued that one as well being a non-Christian Mason myself.  The discussions have never gone in my favor.



David612 said:


> “yet 'tis now thought more expedient only to oblige them to that Religion in which all Men agree, leaving their particular Opinions to themselves”



But they must be have some form of religion.  Atheists need not apply.  I have sat on investigation committees where the Cn. did not belong to an established religion but was able to articulate a faith in a Supreme Being. And that was good enough for us.  The Landmark barring atheists , whether codified or unwritten, is a foundation of our Order.


----------



## CLewey44

The term "libertine" is a little loose.


----------



## Glen Cook

CLewey44 said:


> The term "libertine" is a little loose.


Pun intended?


----------



## CLewey44

Glen Cook said:


> Pun intended?


----------



## hanzosbm

CLewey44 said:


> The term "libertine" is a little loose.


Libertine, yes.  Irreligious...less so.


----------



## dfreybur

Bloke said:


> But even polytheistic religions will tend to have a "Supreme Being" , hence the number of Hindus among our ranks. Freemasonry does not require a belief in monotheism - only  a belief in a Supreme Being - they are different. A good example of this which might be accessible to many is Trinitarian Christianity.



Asking a Buddhist or Taoist or Confucian - well outside our buildings and after being friends for years - tends to lead to an interesting discussion about "exist". The Dharma Padha doesn't mention deity.

Asking a polytheist - well outside our buildings and after being friends for years - tends to lead to an interesting discussion about "supreme". Among Neo-Hellenics it can be easy. Zeus is supreme, all finished. Among Asatru it can be a struggle. Is Odin in charge or just one member of the council? And what about the king function of Tyr? I puzzled over this question for about a year before I asked for a petition.

But going even further, the "belief" part is fun. Before Christianity no religion ever seems to have demanded belief. Both belief and disbelief were common and at peace. Look up cultural Jew, ethnic Hindu, small boat Buddhist and so on. Yet the term insurance Christian gets used as an insult. Our requirement for belief definitely shows our Christian roots. we are universal in accepting members of every religion we have ever heard of as well as all of them we have never heard of. Yet we insist on belief even though most religions in the world are about practice not about belief.  Christian missionaries tend to bash other religions that many of their members don't believe, yet belief isn't a requirement in religions outside of the Abrahamic family or members of the family older than Christianity.

On an obligation not being binding on an atheist, that's openly nonsense. But our founders believed (or at least asserted) it so it's a part of our cute antique charm. In fact, having such a glaring deviation from fact be a part of our degrees helps show how our entire system is veiled in allegory. Sure enough we even state in our lectures that Masonry is a system veiled in allegory!

An allegory is a fictional story that teaches a truth. The fictional part is that an obligation is not binding on an atheist. The truth part is that being men of faith who actively chose to join an order of men of faith is one of the features that binds us together so effectively.


----------



## Keith C

I find it interesting the discussion of the Obligation.  Do other Jurisdictions, outside of Pennsylvania, refer to what is sworn as simply an "Obligation?"

Here all of what is sworn by Candidates in Initiation, Passing and Raising, by Officers at Installation and at Visitors at Examination are termed an "Oath and Obligation."  All the promises to do or not do specific things and how to behave are the "Obligation" but they are ALWAYS followed on by an "Oath" namely "So Help Me G-d..."  The Obligation is what you personally agree to on your own.  The Oath binds that promise to G-d.  One can certainly swear an Obligation with no reference to Deity, but it is the Oath that is essential to have all bound to the same entity and thus on the Level.  At least here in PA!


----------



## hanzosbm

Keith C said:


> I find it interesting the discussion of the Obligation.  Do other Jurisdictions, outside of Pennsylvania, refer to what is sworn as simply an "Obligation?"
> 
> Here all of what is sworn by Candidates in Initiation, Passing and Raising, by Officers at Installation and at Visitors at Examination are termed an "Oath and Obligation."  All the promises to do or not do specific things and how to behave are the "Obligation" but they are ALWAYS followed on by an "Oath" namely "So Help Me G-d..."  The Obligation is what you personally agree to on your own.  The Oath binds that promise to G-d.  One can certainly swear an Obligation with no reference to Deity, but it is the Oath that is essential to have all bound to the same entity and thus on the Level.  At least here in PA!


I've been a member of jurisdictions that refer to it as the oath and obligation, my current jurisdiction very intentionally refers to it solely as an obligation.  The verbiage in question is identical between the two and I agree with your definitions.  I have my opinions regarding the reasoning, but prudence would dictate that I keep those opinions to myself, or at the least, off of a public forum.


----------



## Bloke

dfreybur said:


> Asking a Buddhist or Taoist or Confucian - well outside our buildings and after being friends for years - tends to lead to an interesting discussion about "exist". The Dharma Padha doesn't mention deity.
> 
> Asking a polytheist - well outside our buildings and after being friends for years - tends to lead to an interesting discussion about "supreme". Among Neo-Hellenics it can be easy. Zeus is supreme, all finished. Among Asatru it can be a struggle. Is Odin in charge or just one member of the council? And what about the king function of Tyr? I puzzled over this question for about a year before I asked for a petition.
> 
> But going even further, the "belief" part is fun. Before Christianity no religion ever seems to have demanded belief. Both belief and disbelief were common and at peace. Look up cultural Jew, ethnic Hindu, small boat Buddhist and so on. Yet the term insurance Christian gets used as an insult. Our requirement for belief definitely shows our Christian roots. we are universal in accepting members of every religion we have ever heard of as well as all of them we have never heard of. Yet we insist on belief even though most religions in the world are about practice not about belief.  Christian missionaries tend to bash other religions that many of their members don't believe, yet belief isn't a requirement in religions outside of the Abrahamic family or members of the family older than Christianity.
> 
> On an obligation not being binding on an atheist, that's openly nonsense. But our founders believed (or at least asserted) it so it's a part of our cute antique charm. In fact, having such a glaring deviation from fact be a part of our degrees helps show how our entire system is veiled in allegory. Sure enough we even state in our lectures that Masonry is a system veiled in allegory!
> 
> An allegory is a fictional story that teaches a truth. The fictional part is that an obligation is not binding on an atheist. The truth part is that being men of faith who actively chose to join an order of men of faith is one of the features that binds us together so effectively.


Nice one Doug. "Belief" is an interesting word - I always say Freemasonry has no religious qualifications but only a qualification of faith. When it comes to the Supreme Being, we only "believe" because we have "faith" - where that faith comes from is multitude but still not really logical; that is the nature of faith - we are believing in something which cannot be proved, even if we claim to have seen it ourselves..


----------



## Bloke

Keith C said:


> I find it interesting the discussion of the Obligation.  Do other Jurisdictions, outside of Pennsylvania, refer to what is sworn as simply an "Obligation?"
> 
> Here all of what is sworn by Candidates in Initiation, Passing and Raising, by Officers at Installation and at Visitors at Examination are termed an "Oath and Obligation."  All the promises to do or not do specific things and how to behave are the "Obligation" but they are ALWAYS followed on by an "Oath" namely "So Help Me G-d..."  The Obligation is what you personally agree to on your own.  The Oath binds that promise to G-d.  One can certainly swear an Obligation with no reference to Deity, but it is the Oath that is essential to have all bound to the same entity and thus on the Level.  At least here in PA!


We call it an "obligation" and it is titled as such in our Ritual Books. However as you suggest, that does not quite reflect the wording of it, indeed we "promise and swear" (does that make a double commitment?) and we do it with "So Help Me Almighty G-d"... still, regardless if I take and Oath, Obligation or make a promise, I am going to do all I can to keep it. Promises from me are very rare - with the exception to "Do my best to..." but getting into the details is not something I am keen on in an open forum. However whether I make a promise on my honour or before God, it is still a promise and needs to be kept - so the point for me is do not make them unless you can keep them, and there is nothing unreasonable in any of my Masonic Obligations that I have taken (perhaps except Loyalty to the GL when being Obligated Master - but that is only for 12 months so I had a get out of jail card.. but Doug, like you puzzling before asking for a petition, I puzzled on that before I accepted the position of Master of a Lodge... but I also had the advantage of being to hear, see, and read the WME obligation before taking it. Had I been able to do that as an applicant, FC or MM of those obligations  - I still would have taken those obligations knowing they were reasonable and viable promises.


----------



## Warrior1256

Winter said:


> The Landmark barring atheists , whether codified or unwritten, is a foundation of our Order.


Exactly!


----------



## Warrior1256

hanzosbm said:


> my current jurisdiction very intentionally refers to it solely as an obligation.


Same here.


----------



## LK600

hanzosbm said:


> I think this is a perfect example. Your bolding of the term Libertine shows that by the Landmarks, only adherents to "established" religions (whatever that means) are acceptable.
> So, belief in a Supreme Being is not enough.
> 
> Do we conform to this Landmark, or do we fail to apply it uniformily?



I didn't bold it... I was at work and a quick copy and paste was more prudent lol.   Besides that, I take its meaning in summation of the entire piece, which lends the definition of libertine in a different light.


----------



## dfreybur

Keith C said:


> I find it interesting the discussion of the Obligation.  Do other Jurisdictions, outside of Pennsylvania, refer to what is sworn as simply an "Obligation?"



Different sections of the ritual give different answers to that question. Sometimes it's just the obligation. Other times it's a solemn oath or obligation. With slight variations on that wording among my jurisdictions.


----------



## Center

Welcome to the forum, a marvelous place of real universal freedom for everybody, I wish you always more light


----------



## David612

Yeah cheers.


----------



## wufilas

Dear all,

I am sorry for replying so sporadically. Due to work I am not able to check this forum on a daily basis.

I am surprised and delighted that my post has sparked such a discussion. After reading all posts here I realize that the biggest issue you see is that the GOdF accepts atheists. Well, I have to say that I have seen atheists which are in a higher moral standing than most of the faithful I have met. Being a moral being has nothing to do with religion or your personal faith. You can stand by an oath even tho you do not believe in anything. If a G:.O:. accepts atheists and does not inquire about your religious beliefs in an official manner, this doesn`t mean that 1. We are just atheists in the R:.L:. and 2. We accept "immoral libertines".

To tell you the truth, all this regular vs. irregular story reminds me of one thing: The Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church. Some Catholics are so extreme that they do not recognize other christian denominations as really being christian... the same goes for the Orthodox christians. But those people, thank G-d, are in a minority. Most of the catholics go into orthodox churches and vice versa (I left protestants out of this story on purpose). In the same manner I have witnessed dialogue between Grand Lodges and Orients. I have been a lot around this beautiful world and I hope my physical journey will not end very soon. And in most countries I have visited R:.L:. Even in the US. I have witnessed open dialogue between regulars and irregulars not in a Ritual setting, but in an open discussion manner. Even inside Lodges (I am referring to the building). I am not the one who will fix this rupture for sure, but as same as in the case of Christianity, I believe that if we want to survive into the next century, we will have to find common grounds.  Charles Darwin said that the organism that will successfully survive natural selection is not the strongest one but the one that is more adaptable. For sure the teachings of F:.M:. will never die as long as the human race still exists, but F:.M:. may die as an organization. Just compare the number of members you had 30 years ago with the numbers you have now. And the decrease is exponential. Moreover, if we shun each other like some do, where is the difference between those radical Christians and us?  Where's the tolerance we learn about?

Truth is my Dear Br:., people change, society changes. And these changes were brought in part by us. The declaration of human rights, freedom of expression, universal suffrage, equality between sexes, banishment of slavery.... This has caused society to be more open to the new and more closed to the old. We are being consumed by our own work...It`s like Perillos of Athens who perished in his own bronz bull.

So if we want to survive as an organization, we need to change also. Otherwise, c`est fini ....

PS:
There was a Br:. who commented on the GOdF and blamed it for interfering with French politics. Why do you see the straw in the others eye and do no see the beam in yours? I don`t think that a F:.M:. from the USA can criticize any other masonic body for interfering in politics, as the Masonic interference in American politics was the most pregnant in history. You even had an Anti-Masonic Party at some point for G-d`s sake...


----------



## David612

I think it’s more an intellectual issue than anything, at the end of the day we won’t unite and really we shouldn’t in the same way Prince Hall masonry shouldn’t be assimilated, there’s history there that would be lost if we try to fit square pegs into the regular round hole.
As far as the anti Masonic party goes it wasn’t the anti regular Masonic party additionally that’s one example in one country.. the craft extends well beyond the United States.


----------



## Winter

wufilas said:


> Well, I have to say that I have seen atheists which are in a higher moral standing than most of the faithful I have met. Being a moral being has nothing to do with religion or your personal faith.



You are absolutely right. I know some amazing individuals who are secular humanists that are as moral and upright people as you could find.  I would never imply that a person could not be upstanding without religion.



wufilas said:


> Just compare the number of members you had 30 years ago with the numbers you have now. And the decrease is exponential.



Many, myself included, see the decrease as a good thing as our membership numbers go through a correction to a more realistic number.



wufilas said:


> So if we want to survive as an organization, we need to change also. Otherwise, c`est fini ....



I both agree and disagree.  While certain adaptations must be embraced as society changes, such as our method of communication, or how we raise and use funds for our Lodges. The principal foundations of Freemasonry, such as only admitting men who who profess a belief in Deity must be adhered to if we are to remain a Brotherhood of men under the Fatherhood of G-d.  To remove such a core principal from the Order means that it ceases to be Freemasonry.  It may look like it, act like it, and be an association of some of the finest individuals that humanity has to offer. But it is not Freemasonry.



wufilas said:


> I don`t think that a F:.M:. from the USA can criticize any other masonic body for interfering in politics, as the Masonic interference in American politics was the most pregnant in history. You even had an Anti-Masonic Party at some point for G-d`s sake...



You may want to check your facts on that.  We haven't had a Masonic President since the late 1970's when Gerald Ford was in office.  And the Anti-Masonic Party was a political party dedicated to fighting against Freemasonry as an organization as a direct result of the Morgan affair.  That whole debacle was a mess and Brothers who were involved were in obvious violation of their Ob. as well as the civil laws. Which is again un-Masonic. 

The whole debate isn't going to be solved here no matter how many words we throw at it.  The GOdF will continue to justify admitting atheists and mainstream Masonry will continue to not recognize them for it.  I don't see that changing any time soon.


----------



## Warrior1256

David612 said:


> at the end of the day we won’t unite and really we shouldn’t in the same way Prince Hall masonry shouldn’t be assimilated, there’s history there that would be lost if we try to fit square pegs into the regular round hole.


Good point....I hadn't looked at it this way before. We're Brothers regardless.


Winter said:


> The whole debate isn't going to be solved here no matter how many words we throw at it. The GOdF will continue to justify admitting atheists and mainstream Masonry will continue to not recognize them for it. I don't see that changing any time soon.


Agreed.


----------



## CLewey44

wufilas said:


> My Dear Br:.
> 
> I was initiated in the Grand Orient de France and am now integrated in the Grand Orient de Roumanie.
> I would like to send you all my Triple Fraternal Accolade.
> 
> I registered on this forum because I would like to have debates with "regular" Br:. on the topic of regular vs. irregular in the sense of UGLE vs. GODF (dogmatic vs. adogmatic).
> 
> T:.A:.F:.


Maybe you can answer this, was Mustapha Kemal Ataturk a member of the Grand Orient de France in the country of Macedonia?


----------



## Elexir

To me its no so much the obligation but rather the actual ritual worked here that dont leave room for atheists as much of it is focused on a spiritual journey and not just moral teachings.

There are moral and upright atheist as well, my father is one.

In reality, the whole recognised/regular vs. unrecognised/irregular dont bother me. Its nice to visit other lodges around the world but I wouldnt care if it was diffrent.


----------



## Bloke

wufilas said:


> ...After reading all posts here I realize that the biggest issue you see is that the GOdF accepts atheists. Well, I have to say that I have seen atheists which are in a higher moral standing than most of the faithful I have met. Being a moral being has nothing to do with religion or your personal faith. You can stand by an oath even tho you do not believe in anything. If a G:.O:. accepts atheists and does not inquire about your religious beliefs in an official manner, this doesn`t mean that 1. We are just atheists in the R:.L:. and 2. We accept "immoral libertines"..


,,

I think it is a big issue for us, but completely agree that the moral character of people who are atheists can be very high, that is not what is in question, it is how the value of faith in a Supreme Being permeates our type of Freemasonry. 




wufilas said:


> ......There was a Br:. who commented on the GOdF and blamed it for interfering with French politics. Why do you see the straw in the others eye and do no see the beam in yours? I don`t think that a F:.M:. from the USA can criticize any other masonic body for interfering in politics, as the Masonic interference in American politics was the most pregnant in history. You even had an Anti-Masonic Party at some point for G-d`s sake...


&



Winter said:


> ...You may want to check your facts on that.  We haven't had a Masonic President since the late 1970's when Gerald Ford was in office.  And the Anti-Masonic Party was a political party dedicated to fighting against Freemasonry as an organization as a direct result of the Morgan affair....



Moreover, we don't stop members from being involved in any legal activity, including politics, but as individuals, our regular version of Freemasonry is supposed to be apolitical and areligious... As you and I appreciate Winter, there is a big difference between a Masonic Politician and a Politician who is a (regular) Freemason


----------



## Warrior1256

Bloke said:


> completely agree that the moral character of people who are atheists can be very high, that is not what is in question, it is how the value of faith in a Supreme Being permeates our type of Freemasonry.


Agreed.


Bloke said:


> there is a big difference between a Masonic Politician and a Politician who is a (regular) Freemason


Also agreed.


----------



## Glen Cook

wufilas said:


> Dear all,......,..
> 
> PS:
> There was a Br:. who commented on the GOdF and blamed it for interfering with French politics. Why do you see the straw in the others eye and do no see the beam in yours? I don`t think that a F:.M:. from the USA can criticize any other masonic body for interfering in politics, as the Masonic interference in American politics was the most pregnant in history. You even had an Anti-Masonic Party at some point for G-d`s sake...



The issue is organised Freemasonry intruding into politics. I would be interested in a citation as to where this has occurred in the US. 

The anti-Masonic party was not Freemasonry as an organisation involved in politics. To the contrary, Freemasonry was the victim. 

Note, many of us have taken obligations and instruction regarding the use of the name of Deity. Please be sensitive to that.


----------



## David612

Glen Cook said:


> Note, many of us have taken obligations and instruction regarding the use of the name of Deity. Please be sensitive to that.



It sounds like the people who have taken the obligation need to be sensitive to the use of the name of deity.
Those that haven’t can do what they want as it isn’t their obligation.


----------



## CLewey44

I wish the U.S. govt was ran by Masons. There would be a lot more peace, friendship and brotherly love in the world.


----------



## CLewey44

David612 said:


> It sounds like the people who have taken the obligation need to be sensitive to the use of the name of deity.
> Those that haven’t can do what they want as it isn’t their obligation.


You're correct but thats a bit of a combative statement there, no?


----------



## David612

CLewey44 said:


> You're correct but thats a bit of a combative statement there, no?


Ummm no, no it’s not.
It’s simply a statement pointing out that it’s not reasonable to expect others to uphold the obligations you enter into..


----------



## Glen Cook

David612 said:


> It sounds like the people who have taken the obligation need to be sensitive to the use of the name of deity.
> Those that haven’t can do what they want as it isn’t their obligation.


Oh, it wasn’t an expectation of him fulfilling an obligation he hadn’t taken, but simply a request for respect for the sensitivities of others.


----------



## Warrior1256

Glen Cook said:


> Oh, it wasn’t an expectation of him fulfilling an obligation he hadn’t taken, but simply a request for respect for the sensitivities of others.


Just common courtesy.


----------



## wufilas

CLewey44 said:


> Maybe you can answer this, was Mustapha Kemal Ataturk a member of the Grand Orient de France in the country of Macedonia?



I am sorry but I don`t know for sure. It is said that he was a Br:. in a F:.M:. R:.L:. that belonged to the GOdF from Thessaloniki, present day Greece. Did not do any specific research on this subject so I cannot tell. But if I remember correctly, Irène Mainguy wrote something on this subject (https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irène_Mainguy) who is the Head of the Library of the Grand Orient de France (which is quite an extensive library). She is the author of numerous books on Freemasonry History and Ritual. I am sure she is known to a lot of Br:. here.



Glen Cook said:


> The issue is organised Freemasonry intruding into politics. I would be interested in a citation as to where this has occurred in the US.
> 
> The anti-Masonic party was not Freemasonry as an organisation involved in politics. To the contrary, Freemasonry was the victim.
> 
> Note, many of us have taken obligations and instruction regarding the use of the name of Deity. Please be sensitive to that.



I regret if I offended anyone. As stated by the others, I do not have the same Obligations. Leaving F:.M:. aside, if you are all mostly Christian, neither do you (Mark 10:17-31). Jesus did not leave out four commandments because he simply forgot about them...

Still, I was using my last statement as a figure of speech which is commonly used in anglo-saxon countries, not  with the intention to take G-d's name in vain. If it offends, I will abstain from using it.

We are thought to be tolerant to others, regarding their beliefs. I am talking about beliefs now, not about clericalism. I do admit that the GOdF was always a bit anticlerical. But as we all know, faith and religion are two different things. And as we all know, at least in Continental Europe, the Catholic Church has always had it's fingers in the political honey pot. So the anticlericalism of the GOdF is understandable.

I am sure most of you have heard about the R:.L:. Liberté Chérie. It was one of the very few R:.L:. of which the lights were ignited inside a concentration camp in Nazi Germany. It was founded by seven brothers from the Grand Orient of Belgium. As a side note, I have a personal project on which I work (to my shame not so much in the last months) through which I would wish to gather enough info to write a book on F:.M:. inside concentration camps.... Liberté Chérie was not the only one, but the most well known.
Well, in this R:.L:., while our Br:. were having their meetings, guess who was keeping watch so that SS guards don`t catch them? Catholic priests which were also inmates due to their beliefs (or because of their appurtenance to the anti-German resistance). The favor was returned by our Br:. They were also keeping watch while the priests held their Mass .... For me this is a beautiful story of mutual respect and tolerance.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberté_chérie


----------



## David612

Warrior1256 said:


> Just common courtesy.





Glen Cook said:


> Oh, it wasn’t an expectation of him fulfilling an obligation he hadn’t taken, but simply a request for respect for the sensitivities of others.


Common courtesy in your culture-
It’s not reasonable to expect people outside of your culture to observe your customs.


----------



## Glen Cook

David612 said:


> Common courtesy in your culture-
> It’s not reasonable to expect people outside of your culture to observe your customs.


Even when politely explained?  I endeavour to do so, and I should hope most who identify as Masons would do so.


----------



## David612

Glen Cook said:


> Even when politely explained?  I endeavour to do so, and I should hope most who identify as Masons would do so.


I’m sorry but your religious preference isn’t relevant in an open Masonic forum-
If this was a church forum sure but it’s inappropriate for people if various faiths to start applying rules o those who don’t profess to be of that faith.

Out of curiosity why is there no issue with the line “In God we trust” being printed on currency?


----------



## Glen Cook

David612 said:


> I’m sorry but your religious preference isn’t relevant in an open Masonic forum-
> If this was a church forum sure but it’s inappropriate for people if various faiths to start applying rules o those who don’t profess to be of that faith.
> 
> Out of curiosity why is there no issue with the line “In God we trust” being printed on currency?


I would invite your attention to my first post which referenced Masonic, and not religious preference. However, I would certainly hope those who identify as Masons would be sensitive to others’ religious beliefs.

Again, no one is applying a rule. It was a polite request, to which the individual kindly acceded.

I hadn’t referenced the dollar bill motto. In any case, it’s used as a motto, and not an expletive.


----------



## David612

Glen Cook said:


> I would invite your attention to my first post which referenced Masonic, and not religious preference. However, I would certainly hope those who identify as Masons would be sensitive to others religious beliefs.
> 
> Again, no one is applying a rule. It was a polite request, to which the individual kindly acceded.
> 
> I hadn’t referenced the dollar bill motto. In any case, it’s used as a motto, and not an expletive.


What I’m saying is that it is inappropriate for you or anyone to request that others modify their behaviour to align with your religious preferences in a Masonic context.
I hope that those who identify as masons wouldn’t push their religious preferences onto others when in a Masonic arena as it isn’t appropriate.
In regards to the currency question-
I asked it... because I’m curious if your mint gets mail asking if they could please amend the currency in the name of common courtesy.


----------



## Warrior1256

Glen Cook said:


> Even when politely explained? I endeavour to do so, and I should hope most who identify as Masons would do so.


Same here.


----------



## Winter

David612 said:


> What I’m saying is that it is inappropriate for you or anyone to request that others modify their behaviour to align with your religious preferences in a Masonic context.
> I hope that those who identify as masons wouldn’t push their religious preferences onto others when in a Masonic arena as it isn’t appropriate.
> In regards to the currency question-
> I asked it... because I’m curious if your mint gets mail asking if they could please amend the currency in the name of common courtesy.



Nobody is requiring or demanding anyone to modify their behavior.  If you travel to a foreign country, wouldn't you consider it polite to refrain from behavior that may offend the residents there even if it those actions or words are perfectly acceptable in your own country? With Brothers from so many different backgrounds here, wouldn't it also be considered polite and courteous to refrain from posts that may offend some Brothers, regardless of Ob's?  It just seems Brotherly to want to behave that way.  It shouldn't need to be mandated.

As for the currency issue that contains the motto, "In God We Trust", it only dates to 1956 when the US sought to distinguish ourselves from the atheist communists in Soviet Russia during the Cold War.  And it has received several legal challenges citing the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.  But it has been upheld under the Doctrine of Accommodationism.  Personally, I could care less since I carry cash exactly once a month because my barber only accepts cash.


----------



## David612

Winter said:


> Nobody is requiring or demanding anyone to modify their behavior.  If you travel to a foreign country, wouldn't you consider it polite to refrain from behavior that may offend the residents there even if it those actions or words are perfectly acceptable in your own country? With Brothers from so many different backgrounds here, wouldn't it also be considered polite and courteous to refrain from posts that may offend some Brothers, regardless of Ob's?  It just seems Brotherly to want to behave that way.  It shouldn't need to be mandated.
> 
> As for the currency issue that contains the motto, "In God We Trust", it only dates to 1956 when the US sought to distinguish ourselves from the atheist communists in Soviet Russia during the Cold War.  And it has received several legal challenges citing the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.  But it has been upheld under the Doctrine of Accommodationism.  Personally, I could care less since I carry cash exactly once a month because my barber only accepts cash.


That’s exactly what I’m saying-




But my barber takes cards.


----------



## jermy Bell

I'm as regular as you can get. Lol !


----------



## Glen Cook

David612 said:


> What I’m saying is that it is inappropriate for you or anyone to request that others modify their behaviour to align with your religious preferences in a Masonic context.
> I hope that those who identify as masons wouldn’t push their religious preferences onto others when in a Masonic arena as it isn’t appropriate.
> In regards to the currency question-
> I asked it... because I’m curious if your mint gets mail asking if they could please amend the currency in the name of common courtesy.


Let me try again: it isn’t a religious issue. Avoiding casual use of the name of Deity is a common masonic requirement in Preston Webb, AASR SJ and Rectified Rite. 
Yes, the mint does get such mail and even litigation, as referenced byBr Winter

I think our points are made now and it’s late ( and hot) here in  Panama.


----------



## Glen Cook

jermy Bell said:


> I'm as regular as you can get. Lol !


I use prunes


----------



## David612

Im 29-


I can skip coffee and still get wins by 9am.


This thread has gone odd.

Love ya gang


----------



## Warrior1256

David612 said:


> This thread has gone odd.
> 
> Love ya gang


Lol....same back at ya Brother. Let's move on.


----------



## MasonicHermit

David612 said:


> At the end of the day we may not be able to converse masonically but it dosnt stop us from conversing.


I don't understand this statement. If he's initiated why can't y'all have a Masonic conversation?

Sent from my LG-M153 using My Freemasonry mobile app


----------



## Winter

MasonicHermit said:


> I don't understand this statement. If he's initiated why can't y'all have a Masonic conversation?
> 
> Sent from my LG-M153 using My Freemasonry mobile app


If they are initiated into a body not recognized as Regular then Masonic discussion is prohibited. 

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## MasonicHermit

Winter said:


> If they are initiated into a body not recognized as Regular then Masonic discussion is prohibited.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


Ah OK, good to know.

Sent from my LG-M153 using My Freemasonry mobile app


----------



## dfreybur

David612 said:


> Out of curiosity why is there no issue with the line “In God we trust” being printed on currency?



There is issue. I'm a big fan of the George Washington stance on the issue. But it's politics.


----------



## LK600

David612 said:


> Ummm no, no it’s not.
> It’s simply a statement pointing out that it’s not reasonable to expect others to uphold the obligations you enter into..





David612 said:


> It sounds like the people who have taken the obligation need to be sensitive to the use of the name of deity.
> Those that haven’t can do what they want as it isn’t their obligation.



Maybe I've missed to much in this thread, but I don't understand the relevance.  Of course they (meaning irregular) have no duty to uphold our (regular) obligations... nor am I aware of a situation in which it would be necessary (accept out of politeness since we have nothing Masonically to do with each other).  They are irregular, and thus a separate organization than ours.  Their obligation is their business, and the only bearing it has for me is not as a Mason but a human, and therefore I would not want to cause any form of harm to them whether I agree with them or not.


----------



## Brother JC

David612 said:


> Im 29-I can skip coffee and still get wins by 9am.



I haven’t been able to skip coffee since I was 15, and it has nothing to do with regularity. Blood, pure lifeblood.


----------



## LK600

Brother JC said:


> I haven’t been able to skip coffee since I was 15, and it has nothing to do with regularity. Blood, pure lifeblood.


Yes.... nothing before coffee matters.  The older I get the more true it becomes.


----------



## wufilas

I dunno bros, but by the looks of it (read and replies to this thread), you really don`t despise them irregulars that much.

I am truly happy to see that. 

I am sending you all my Triple Fraternal Accolade.


----------



## Glen Cook

wufilas said:


> I dunno bros, but by the looks of it (read and replies to this thread), you really don`t despise them irregulars that much.
> 
> I am truly happy to see that.
> 
> I am sending you all my Triple Fraternal Accolade.


I should hope we don’t use the word “despise.”  Disagree?  Even dispute?  Sure. But that’s a strong enough emotion for me.


----------



## David612

Might just be me but really I don’t have enough time to travel to regular lodges let alone to others.


----------



## Glen Cook

David612 said:


> Might just be me but really I don’t have enough time to travel to regular lodges let alone to others.


One of the great benefits of Freemasonry is traveling. You really are missing out if unable to do so.


----------



## MasonicHermit

Glen Cook said:


> One of the great benefits of Freemasonry is traveling. You really are missing out if unable to do so.


The MM I met with told me the exact same thing! 

Sent from my LG-M153 using My Freemasonry mobile app


----------



## dfreybur

Brother JC said:


> I haven’t been able to skip coffee since I was 15, and it has nothing to do with regularity. Blood, pure lifeblood.



I call coffee "morning holy water". Some people take this as a joke. Others have seen me pray before taking my first sip so they take it as an explanation. I rather like that both groups get my approach right. The fact that I pray over my coffee does not make the term "morning holy water" not a joke.


----------



## David612

Glen Cook said:


> One of the great benefits of Freemasonry is traveling. You really are missing out if unable to do so.


Meh- the six lodges here keep me busy enough when I want a Masonic kick but being a community as close as we are I have no idea who belongs to which lodge.


----------



## Sigma

Dear All,
I'm a 35 years engineer from Lebanon already i have opened a threads for more info in other section. I was happy to found this post becaus I'm facing a problem in lebanon regarding the regular and irregular bodies here.
I'm not able to contact a regular lodges and it's easy to contact irregular or fraud one. I don't want to take a false step after waiting all these years before contacting lodges.
I'm active in my community and in my Church, I was happy reading about all points regarding freemasonry here and in other places.
Please accept my hunger for information
Best regards


----------



## Winter

Sigma said:


> Dear All,
> I'm a 35 years engineer from Lebanon already i have opened a threads for more info in other section. I was happy to found this post becaus I'm facing a problem in lebanon regarding the regular and irregular bodies here.
> I'm not able to contact a regular lodges and it's easy to contact irregular or fraud one. I don't want to take a false step after waiting all these years before contacting lodges.
> I'm active in my community and in my Church, I was happy reading about all points regarding freemasonry here and in other places.
> Please accept my hunger for information
> Best regards


The list Grand Lodges there that are Regular and Recognized should be easy to find. Making contact with them may be a more difficult process. In many middle eastern countries Freemasonry must be very circumspect out of necessity due to a history of persecution. Make sure you are contacting the right body and be patient. The process can be very slow, especially in a world that focuses so much on instant gratification now.  

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## Sigma

Winter said:


> The list Grand Lodges there that are Regular and Recognized should be easy to find. Making contact with them may be a more difficult process. In many middle eastern countries Freemasonry must be very circumspect out of necessity due to a history of persecution. Make sure you are contacting the right body and be patient. The process can be very slow, especially in a world that focuses so much on instant gratification now.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


Thank you very much for all of you, i think this might be the issue i couldn't found contacts.
I will keep patient and try to search more. 
Thx again


----------



## Love of Truth

In common with almost everyone here, I have been raised to the Sublime Degree within a constituent lodge of a Grand Lodge that is recognized as regular.  In the process of becoming a MM, I received a charge to uphold the Ancient Landmarks, and, specifically, I assumed the obligation to - without using the exact words in the obligation - to avoid irregular Masonry and clandestinely-made Masons.  So, I recognize that nothing we are going to say or do on this chat board is going to change the GLs we all belong to one iota.

Since this discussion is simply fantasizing regarding "what if," I would like to propose a suggestion to guide the conversation.   Forget personal comfort zones when answering.   Do not pay your comfort zone any attention, and do not worry about what someone else may or may not be comfortable with.  Instead, think of how our GLs and those Grand Lodges in France and elsewhere that either admit women or do not recognize a Supreme Being or do not have the VoSL upon the A..r, may come into a state of amity some day.   We don't need to articulate why it cannot be so.  That is already the position, and it has been articulated many, many times long before I was born.   If things do not change, it will still be articulated peridically long after I am dead.  When I advise to not consider comfort zones, I am not encouraging anyone to go out of their way to be rude, or obnoxious.  I am simply saying if you have something worthy of thought - based upon Masonic Law, or principles inculcated into ritual, please share it.  Ultimately, if and when change comes in this area, it will happen, and those making the decision will not consult you or me to ask us if we are "comfortable" with the change.  I don't envision that such a drastic change may happen in the future without the leadership "feeling the pulse" of those they serve, and such changes would certainly involve voting all the Brethren assembled at an annual GL meeting, and there will - prior to such a vote in each GL - be passionate speeches in both directions. 

And, that is my point:  It should be a passion-free discussion; or, at least, one with very subdued passions.  The voting members at GL are supposed to be Smooth Ashlars.  They should be capable of COMFORTABLY discussing in a very passion-subdued manner those subjects that, once upon a time (when they were only rough ashlars), they could not.

So, having said the forgoing by way of "stage-setting," let me share my 2-cents worth (and, perhaps, I am inflating the value of my contribution!).

1)  I look forward to the day when the UGLE and the Grand Orient de France kiss and make up. 

2)  I look forward to the other GLs following suit.

3)  I look forward to the day when Le Droit Humane and Universal Co-Masonry heal their differences, and to the day when we recognize them as regular.  As well, I look forward to the day when the few women-only GLs of Freemasonry are fully seen as regular, and recognized as peer organizations. 

Both the Regular GLs and the "Irregular" GLs will have to change to make this happen.   One of the first things that must happen before any of this may occur is agreement on which list is the complete and full list of "Ancient Landmarks."   That, frankly, should have happened 200 years ago, on a world-wide basis.  It might have prevented the schism between UGLE and GOdF.

GOdF - They should re-employ language recognizing the GAOTU, and place the VSL on the A..r (even if it is simply a copy of their GL Constitution).   Personally, I am fine with atheists being Masons so long as they are not "stupid."  I am against any man (believer or not) being a Freemason if he is stupid.   By stupid, I mean stubbornly simple-minded to the point where he interprets everything literally, and cannot see past the end of his nose.  I am not saying that everyone admitted to the degrees of Masonry needs to have an IQ over 150.  I am saying they need to be patient enough to keep an open mind about all of this symbolism; recognizing that what they don't see today, they may see plainly tomorrow.  If they cannot be that patient - again, regardless of whether the person believes in a SB or not - then I do not consider that man (or woman) a fit candidate for the degrees of Freemasonry.   Lastly, while I favor women receiving the degrees (if it is their heart's desire), I do believe in the separation of the sexes for Masonic service.  I think organizations such as GOdF would need to form men's and women's chapters out each lodge or groupings of lodges.  In practice, I think they can meet together as one lodge for business/stated communications, but degrees should be worked on a segregated basis.  Lastly, the GOdF (and similar GLs) must not meddle in political affairs / no discussion of politics or religion in lodge.   We offer a peculiar system of morality:  Not a political prescription.

Regular GLs - I think from reading the, above, you can predict the concessions I would like to see one day in our GLs:  Admission of women (and men's and women's chapters formed - perhaps on a lodge or regional basis); recognize the GLs we don't recognize today if they make concessions like I mentioned above; allow intervisitation from Masons from these GLs (even if they are atheists).

Universal Co-Masonry and Le Droit Humane:  First of all, these two need to kiss and make up.  Then, I would like to see them be as compliant as I envision GOdF someday.  So, yes, men and women segregated for degrees, but together for business.  Lastly, they would need to cede to York Rite and to Scottish Rite those degrees that are theirs.  

In the USA, we have plenty of Christian churches in each town:  Roman Catholic, Greek Orthodox, Lutheran, Presbyterian, Baptist, Methodist, and the list goes on.  I happen to be a Mormon, and - while a number of the foregoing churches do not recognize us Mormons as Christian, they do not challenge our right to exist as a church (nor do we, them).  In each state we have a GL and a PHA GL.   And, in all but about 7 states, both are seen as regular.   While I think the landmark of one Grand Lodge recognized in each non-overlapping jurisdiction may have fit well in 18th Century England (it didn't....viz  Antients and Moderns), it is not a good fit in our day and time, and, frankly, it has not been a good fit for much of the history of the United States of America.  So long as we "regulars" persist in an "us and them" mentality toward a huge number of Masons we see as irregular, how will we ever get to just one GL per non-overlapping jurisdiction?   It is impossible.  Speculative Freemasonry existed prior to 1717.  We know that - at one time - the MM degree did not exist, at all.  When the Antients and the Moderns finally became UGLE, they agreed that the MM degree was not complete without the HRA.  Where and when did HRA come into being?   It was not around (that we can document) in 1717.  My point is if we can go from 2 degrees, to 3 degrees, to "4 degrees as 3," then there is quite a bit of flexibility in defining what the hell Freemasonry actually is.  I think the Freemasons on the earth today, collectively, have the power to decide if an "ancient landmark" is too ancient and needs to be retired. 

For the institution of Freemasonry to empower its disciples to, each, successfully make the house not made with hands, it must be a living, breathing, nurturing educational institution:  Not a shrine to the purity of ages past; not a museum, and not a cemetery.  The day I was raised a MM, I took pride in receiving the same degree that George Washington once received.  I was cognizant of the fact that degrees vary from GL to GL, and I knew that my MM degree was largely based on Smith-Webb (who did his work long after George Washington received his MM degree).  I know that there is no way the degree I received is identical to what Washington received.  Still, in my heart, I know that I am a MM, and I recognize the Father of the USA as a MM, as well.   There certainly are many similarities between what I received in 2016, and what George Washington received in 1753.  I feel bound to him, and I trust that each of you do, as well.  I am all for Tradition.  One of those traditions is the Brethren of the Fraternity occasionally change the Tradition.  Plenty of such changes happened in the 18th Century.


----------



## Glen Cook

Small clarification: there must be territorial sovereignty absent treaty or agreement. Thus, we have jurisdictions with multiple grand lodges working.


----------



## CLewey44

Great points, but isn't the '4th' degree only the Mark Master Degree or was it required to receive the entire HRA degree system at one time? Also, wasn't George Washington under the legal age at that time in that GL therefore he would be considered 'irregularly made' a MM? If this is true, we do tend to cherry pick sometimes perhaps. Crowley fans may want to say he was a MM when in fact he was but right before his initiation (or being raised, can't remember) that lodge was no longer considered regular.


----------



## Warrior1256

Everyone is entitled to their opinion and the points are interesting concerning recognizing women Masons and admitting them into regular Masonry. BUT.... as I have stated before....I DON'T want to "bury the hatchet" and recognize lodges that admit women let alone admit women to our ranks. One of the main reasons that I joined Masonry was that it is a fraternity. The day that we admit women to our ranks will be the same day that I demit.


----------



## Glen Cook

And the feminine GLs value their single sex environment.  Isn’t there just a tinge of chauvinism in claiming they should give that up?


----------



## CLewey44

I genuinely can't say one way or the other on this. If I was the deciding vote, I'd vote to keep it as is I suppose. It is certainly a little chauvinistic and also self-serving so we can sleep at night knowing 'we included everyone' in our club.  We require a MM at OES meetings which I find odd. Or at least two or so in the officer line. I think at the end of the day, it's best to keep as is simply because (dare I say) that's how it's always been. It is a tradition and should stay that way.

Keeping women out of masonry does not 'hold them back' or 'hold them down' as far as life success.  It also does not spiritually hold them back in any way. They can read all the books, Google, whatever all day and have the same knowledge masons have. The only difference would be they don't know a few sgn, stp, tks, de gds or wrs. That's not going to secure their salvation, gain them any financial advantage or be more intelligent in any way.


----------



## Glen Cook

CLewey44 said:


> I genuinely can't say one way or the other on this. If I was the deciding vote, I'd vote to keep it as is I suppose. It is certainly a little chauvinistic and also self-serving so we can sleep at night knowing 'we included everyone' in our club.  We require a MM at OES meetings which I find odd. Or at least two or so in the officer line. I think at the end of the day, it's best to keep as is simply because (dare I say) that's how it's always been. It is a tradition and should stay that way.
> 
> Keeping women out of masonry does not 'hold them back' or 'hold them down' as far as life success.  It also does not spiritually hold them back in any way. They can read all the books, Google, whatever all day and have the same knowledge masons have. The only difference would be they don't know a few sgn, stp, tks, de gds or wrs. That's not going to secure their salvation, gain them any financial advantage or be more intelligent in any way.


Well, the status quo is that women already have Freemasonry, and have for over a hundred years. That would be keeping it as is. 

My comment was directed toward merger and taking away that single sex  space.


----------



## CLewey44

Glen Cook said:


> Well, the status quo is that women already have Freemasonry, and have for over a hundred years. That would be keeping it as is.
> 
> My comment was directed toward merger and taking away that single sex  space.



True, I see what you're saying. I should specify 'regular' masonry as keeping it as it is myself.


----------



## Warrior1256

Glen Cook said:


> And the feminine GLs value their single sex environment. Isn’t there just a tinge of chauvinism in claiming they should give that up?


Agreed!


CLewey44 said:


> If I was the deciding vote, I'd vote to keep it as is I suppose.





CLewey44 said:


> Keeping women out of masonry does not 'hold them back' or 'hold them down' as far as life success. It also does not spiritually hold them back in any way.


Also agreed.


----------



## Bill Lins

CLewey44 said:


> We require a MM at OES meetings


WE do or THEY do?


----------



## CLewey44

Bill Lins said:


> WE do or THEY do?


We as I'm a member of both actually.


----------



## Warrior1256

CLewey44 said:


> We require a MM at OES meetings which I find odd.


I can understand this since, please correct me if I'm wrong, OES was created primarily as a means to allow Masonic wives a more direct participation in a Masonic type of organization.


----------



## dfreybur

Love of Truth said:


> In common with almost everyone here, I have been raised to the Sublime Degree within a constituent lodge of a Grand Lodge that is recognized as regular.  In the process of becoming a MM, I received a charge to uphold the Ancient Landmarks, and, specifically, I assumed the obligation to - without using the exact words in the obligation - to avoid irregular Masonry and clandestinely-made Masons.



The exact words of the obligation matter because when you look at the exact words what each of us promised is to not go past the Tiler to attend a tiled meeting of any such organization.

That is totally different from avoiding them. As long as you don't discuss the stuff that let's you go past a tiler, you can have all the contact you like.

In the case of clandestine jurisdictions, having more contact is usually better. It helps the guys realize they were duped into joining an imitation.


----------



## Warrior1256

dfreybur said:


> In the case of clandestine jurisdictions, having more contact is usually better. It helps the guys realize they were duped into joining an imitation.


Excellent point! I hadn't looked at it this way before.


----------



## CLewey44

Warrior1256 said:


> I can understand this since, please correct me if I'm wrong, OES was created primarily as a means to allow Masonic wives a more direct participation in a Masonic type of organization.


Thats my understanding as well. Daughters too. I think the "requirement" part is why I find it a bit vexing.


----------



## Bill Lins

I'm still a bit confused- is it Masonry or OES who has the requirement that a MM must be present @ OES meetings?


----------



## Elexir

Bill Lins said:


> I'm still a bit confused- is it Masonry or OES who has the requirement that a MM must be present @ OES meetings?



OES has that requirment. If Im not misstaken this is one of the reason UGLE does not allow its members to join. @Glen Cook do I understand it correctly?


----------



## Glen Cook

Elexir said:


> OES has that requirment. If Im not misstaken this is one of the reason UGLE does not allow its members to join. @Glen Cook do I understand it correctly?



“The Board is also aware that there exist other bodies not directly imitative of pure antient Masonry, but which by implication introduce Freemasonry, such as the Order of the Eastern Star. Membership of such bodies, attendance at their meetings, or participation in their ceremonies is incompatible with membership of this Grand Lodge.”


----------



## CLewey44

Bill Lins said:


> I'm still a bit confused- is it Masonry or OES who has the requirement that a MM must be present @ OES meetings?


That's really a good question. I would venture to say Freemasonry would require it since a MM is required in every appendant body as far as I know. I could be wrong as there are the Rainbow, Job's Daughters, Daughters of Isis and Daughters of Mokanna etc that I know absolutely nothing about. They may only require OES members as adults.  Organization of Triangles in New York has a MM officer/position, OES has at least two. I think it helps GLs sleep at night that way at least a MM has their hands in something and it doesn't turn into something too far out in left field that wouldn't jive with masonry.


----------



## Glen Cook

CLewey44 said:


> That's really a good question. I would venture to say Freemasonry would require it since a MM is required in every appendant body as far as I know. I could be wrong as there are the Rainbow, Job's Daughters, Daughters of Isis and Daughters of Mokanna etc that I know absolutely nothing about. They may only require OES members as adults.  Organization of Triangles in New York has a MM officer/position, OES has at least two. I think it helps GLs sleep at night that way at least a MM has their hands in something and it doesn't turn into something too far out in left field that wouldn't jive with masonry.


Though one step removed through an appendant order, Beauceant, LOS, and Nile do not require a KT or Shriner’s presence.


----------



## CLewey44

Glen Cook said:


> Though one step removed through an appendant order, Beauceant, LOS, and Nile do not require a KT or Shriner’s presence.


I was wondering about that actually. Appendant bodies of appendant bodies.


----------



## Bill Lins

CLewey44 said:


> That's really a good question. I would venture to say Freemasonry would require it since a MM is required in every appendant body as far as I know. I could be wrong as there are the Rainbow, Job's Daughters, Daughters of Isis and Daughters of Mokanna etc that I know absolutely nothing about. They may only require OES members as adults.  Organization of Triangles in New York has a MM officer/position, OES has at least two. I think it helps GLs sleep at night that way at least a MM has their hands in something and it doesn't turn into something too far out in left field that wouldn't jive with masonry.


As a former Rainbow Assembly board member, I can state that the presence of a MM is NOT required @ their meetings- dunno about the other groups.


----------

