# A Brother Asks: Why Is Excluding Women Legitimate?



## coachn

*Seeking Light*




*A Brother Asks: *Is there any legitimate reason why women aren't allowed to be Freemasons, or does it just stem from the acting troupe rules of the 16th century?
*Coach: *Before I respond to your question, let me point out the not so obvious.  

*Brother:* Okay.  Go ahead.
*Coach:* Females _are_ allowed to be Freemasons; just not “male” Freemasons. And the reason why they are not allowed to be “male” Freemasons is that they are _not male_.

*Brother:  *Okay.  Yes.  I’ve heard of Co-Freemasonry, and women's lodges and the like. 
*Coach:* Okay, and you believe they are not Freemasonic?

*Brother:* I am talking about the rules governing all "regular" lodges.
*Coach: *And these female Freemasons and their lodges _are_ Regular my Brother.

*Brother:*  They can’t be!
*Coach:*  I disagree.  They sure can.

*Brother:*  Okay, how so?
*Coach:* Regularity is set by the governing Grand Lodge of a jurisdiction.  

*Brother:* Okay...
*Coach: *Since these Female centric Lodges are deemed Regular by their Female centric Grand Lodge, they are indeed Regular to it.  They are simply not considered Regular to Male centric Freemasonry.
*
Brother:* Well, yes. That's not what I meant.
*Coach:* Then what did you mean?

*Brother:* I meant to say they're not Recognized Freemasons and Freemasonic Lodges.

*Finalizing the Question*

*Coach:* Yes.  Thanks.  They are not Recognized by Male centric Lodges.  They are Recognized within their own network of lodges though.  
*Brother:* Okay, I'm trying to get to a point.  I'm having a difficult time finding the right words.

*Coach: *Finding the right words is important.
*Brother:* Agreed.  What do you think I'm trying to ask?

*Coach: *I think you're asking the following... _Why can't male freemasonry admit and accept females into their organization?_
*Brother:  *Yes.  That’s it!  That’s the question!

*Coach: *Okay.  Thanks.  I believe you’ll find that every last response that you get from anyone trying to answer this question will be either made up or offered as an excuse.  It won't be the obvious one that provides the underlying reason.
*Brother:* What’s that obvious reason?

(Continue reading here: http://buildinghiram.blogspot.com/2018/08/a-brother-asks-why-is-excluding-women.html )


----------



## dfreybur

We are the home of healthy masculinity.


----------



## CLewey44

To us, UGLE recognition is paramount however to non-Masons it means nothing. A woman asked me if she could be a Mason. I said 'Sure, there are avenues for that but it's considered irregular.' I added 'The United Grand Lodge of England does not recognize them as regular, "legit" Masons'. She said "Who the hell cares what the United Grand Lodge of England thinks?" I thought, as a non-Mason, she's right.


----------



## hfmm97

I'm a male - can I join DAR? (Daughters of the American Revolution) 


Sent from my iPhone using My Freemasonry mobile app


----------



## hfmm97

Tyranny of the minority


Sent from my iPhone using My Freemasonry mobile app


----------



## Warrior1256

When I'm asked this question I simply say that "The Freemasonry that I belong to is a fraternity". If they ask again I simply repeat the same answer. Works for me.


----------



## EddieGee

Agree with what others have said. Freemasonry is a fraternity. It is a brotherhood. It doesn't "exclude women" in order to be unfair to them, discriminate against them, etc.; rather, its essence is to be a men's organization. To put it another way: the purpose of the American Kennel Club is to promote the proper and humane breeding / raising / training / health of dogs, not to "exclude cats."


----------



## hfmm97

EddieGee said:


> Agree with what others have said. Freemasonry is a fraternity. It is a brotherhood. It doesn't "exclude women" in order to be unfair to them, discriminate against them, etc.; rather, its essence is to be a men's organization. To put it another way: the purpose of the American Kennel Club is to promote the proper and humane breeding / raising / training / health of dogs, not to "exclude cats."



Not to be sexist or hypocritical, but I know that there exist organizations whose membership was limited to females for very legitimate historical reasons. Some women who have challenged me as to why women cannot be Masons still do not want men in their organizations...


Sent from my iPhone using My Freemasonry mobile app


----------



## coachn

hfmm97 said:


> ... Some women who have challenged me as to why women cannot be Masons still do not want men in their organizations...


But they can be Freemasons, just not in the male organization.


----------



## hfmm97

They WANTED to be members of the MALE organization...oh snap I cannot be in the DAR because most of my family (even my European) was here before there was a USA...


Sent from my iPhone using My Freemasonry mobile app


----------



## hfmm97

Besides, the only "masonic" lodge that I knew of (because I went to a fund-raiser BBQ and almost joined) was co-ed, did not require a belief in Deity (they took their obligations on a blank book representing the conscience of the brother/sister) they worked in Spanish and were part on an irregular GL in South Texas


Sent from my iPhone using My Freemasonry mobile app


----------



## hfmm97

Only "masonic" lodge that I knew of that admitted women in Houston...


Sent from my iPhone using My Freemasonry mobile app


----------



## Warrior1256

hfmm97 said:


> Some women who have challenged me as to why women cannot be Masons still do not want men in their organizations...


Very true.


coachn said:


> But they can be Freemasons, just not in the male organization.


Also true.


----------



## Bloke

A little story. We recently buried our beloved JW in his 50's. At the funeral, I watched our WM openly weeping and a PM sitting beside him. Both are in their 50's. The PM sat there holding the WM's hand and comforting him. Not for a moment, but often through the ceremony. Half the men present would have been Brothers and we filled the back two rows. Where else in Western Society other than Freemasonry would it be seen as completely normal and acceptable (and approved) that two grown heterosexual men can sit publicly holding each others hands ? Such is the bond of fraternalism and such is the secure "authentic " character of these two men that the focus was mutual support rather than public (Masonically) profane opinion.


----------



## Warrior1256

Bloke said:


> I watched our WM openly weeping and a PM sitting beside him. Both are in their 50's. The PM sat there holding the WM's hand and comforting him. Not for a moment, but often through the ceremony.


Beautiful gesture!


----------



## Bro Book

coachn said:


> *Seeking Light*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *A Brother Asks: *Is there any legitimate reason why women aren't allowed to be Freemasons, or does it just stem from the acting troupe rules of the 16th century?
> *Coach: *Before I respond to your question, let me point out the not so obvious.
> 
> *Brother:* Okay.  Go ahead.
> *Coach:* Females _are_ allowed to be Freemasons; just not “male” Freemasons. And the reason why they are not allowed to be “male” Freemasons is that they are _not male_.
> 
> *Brother:  *Okay.  Yes.  I’ve heard of Co-Freemasonry, and women's lodges and the like.
> *Coach:* Okay, and you believe they are not Freemasonic?
> 
> *Brother:* I am talking about the rules governing all "regular" lodges.
> *Coach: *And these female Freemasons and their lodges _are_ Regular my Brother.
> 
> *Brother:*  They can’t be!
> *Coach:*  I disagree.  They sure can.
> 
> *Brother:*  Okay, how so?
> *Coach:* Regularity is set by the governing Grand Lodge of a jurisdiction.
> 
> *Brother:* Okay...
> *Coach: *Since these Female centric Lodges are deemed Regular by their Female centric Grand Lodge, they are indeed Regular to it.  They are simply not considered Regular to Male centric Freemasonry.
> *
> Brother:* Well, yes. That's not what I meant.
> *Coach:* Then what did you mean?
> 
> *Brother:* I meant to say they're not Recognized Freemasons and Freemasonic Lodges.
> 
> *Finalizing the Question*
> 
> *Coach:* Yes.  Thanks.  They are not Recognized by Male centric Lodges.  They are Recognized within their own network of lodges though.
> *Brother:* Okay, I'm trying to get to a point.  I'm having a difficult time finding the right words.
> 
> *Coach: *Finding the right words is important.
> *Brother:* Agreed.  What do you think I'm trying to ask?
> 
> *Coach: *I think you're asking the following... _Why can't male freemasonry admit and accept females into their organization?_
> *Brother:  *Yes.  That’s it!  That’s the question!
> 
> *Coach: *Okay.  Thanks.  I believe you’ll find that every last response that you get from anyone trying to answer this question will be either made up or offered as an excuse.  It won't be the obvious one that provides the underlying reason.
> *Brother:* What’s that obvious reason?
> 
> (Continue reading here: http://buildinghiram.blogspot.com/2018/08/a-brother-asks-why-is-excluding-women.html )


Good stuff my Brother

Sent from my RCT6973W43 using My Freemasonry mobile app


----------



## hfmm97

john s nagy could it be that all lodges (whether UGLE recognizes them or not) consider themselves regular?


Sent from my iPhone using My Freemasonry mobile app


----------



## coachn

hfmm97 said:


> john s nagy could it be that all lodges (whether UGLE recognizes them or not) consider themselves regular?


And there in lay the challenge faced when you use the word "regular".


----------



## Bloke

hfmm97 said:


> john s nagy could it be that all lodges (whether UGLE recognizes them or not) consider themselves regular?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using My Freemasonry mobile app


As Bro John alludes - I would assert that "regular" is a subjective word.

Hands down the best short piece I have read on that is by "Bro Karen Kidd" and I have posted on it here before.

From Freemasons for Dummies
"One of the news items concerns the international call for papers by the UK's Internet Lodge No. 9659, sponsored by the United Grand Lodge of England's Pro-Grand Master, Lord Northampton. Of the 77 papers from 16 countries, judged by an international panel, two of the three winning entries were by Americans.....The World Award prize went to Karen Kidd for her paper "I am Regular." Ms Kidd is a member of Shemesh Lodge No. 13 under the Honourable Order of American Co-Masonry in Seattle. "

The above is from http://freemasonsfordummies.blogspot.com/2008/04/imakegarb-makes-good-in-ugle.html 

The concept is caught in the last lines of Karen's paper 

*This means a Brother is Regular by virtue of being so recognized within his/her own jurisdiction. No Brother upon the Earth requires recognition by any other jurisdiction to be Regular. Each Brother is as Regular within their own jurisdiction as any other Brother is Regular within their own jurisdiction.


So I speak a truth – and for some, a mystery – when I say, “I am regular”.
*
It is getting harder to find this paper now.

Here it is 

_I am Regular. I know this to be true, though I’ve heard otherwise. That because various Masonic jurisdictions (such as the United Grand Lodge of England, the US Malecraft Grand Lodges and etc.) are not in amity with my jurisdiction, and because I’m a woman, I can’t possibly be Regular. I’ve also been counseled that, slander though this be, I should take it in good part and be grateful my Malecraft brethren speak to me at all.   And yet I know myself to be Regular because the Ritual and Masonic jurisprudence say that I am. So I am. By way of explanation, and within the context of this paper, I am about to use a word many find most unpalatable. I mean it in its legal sense.  I am no one’s bastard brother. I was conceived in the same place as are all the Brethren. Our progenitor is the same. I was properly prepared. I was received upon the same point. I was made in the b*dy of a L*dge J*st, P*rfect and R*gular. I meet the criteria Bro. Albert Mackey, and others, set down long ago: – I am acknowledged as a Free and Accepted Mason – I was initiated into our mysteries in that “certain manner” – I was made with the assistance of, and under the superintendence of, seven (and more) Master Masons – I share in common, with all Brothers, “the ready use of those signs and words which are used by the other brethren.”  This all occurred within my jurisdiction which, like all Masonic jurisdictions, claims no binding authority over the Freemasons in any other jurisdiction. Indeed, I have poured over the books and I can find no instance in which *any* Freemasonic grand lodge, supreme council or other supreme body ever claimed authority over any other such body. It is commonly accepted that no such body can make any pronouncement that is at all binding on any other such body. Logically, this includes any pronouncements about regularity. Any Masonic supreme body may enter into amity agreements with other such bodies. And they also may declare that they consider, within their own jurisdiction, those bodies not in amity with them to be “clandestine” and even “irregular”. This is their right.  However, their pronouncements about regularity outside their jurisdictions do not mean that those other Freemasons in other jurisdictions are, in fact, irregular. Indeed, the only Brothers any of these supreme bodies may accurately declare irregular are those in lodges within their own sphere of authority.  This means a Brother is Regular by virtue of being so recognized within his/her own jurisdiction. No Brother upon the Earth requires recognition by any other jurisdiction to be Regular. Each Brother is as Regular within their own jurisdiction as any other Brother is Regular within their own jurisdiction.   So I speak a truth – and for some, a mystery – when I say, *“I am regular”*._


----------



## CLewey44

I may be wrong and it may be a long time but it's only a matter of time before females will be allowed to join and be considered regular. It'll probably begin with recognition of Continental, Le Droit Humain or whoever. It may be 10 years from now or 80 years but I think it'll happen. Nobody would have ever dreamed the gay or trans thing would be on the table but it is.edit:- Before that it was PHA recognition.- On the bright side, it's one less "I fmr prm ad swr...." lol.


----------



## LK600

Bloke said:


> As Bro John alludes - I would assert that "regular" is a subjective word.



I have to disagree, but only in so much as it applies to the usage by our fraternity.  In that regard I think it is extremely specific.  Anyone can form a group (even if it is based upon another) and call themselves regular, or whatever they wish.  And, it might be accurate within that specific group.  The problem is... that has nothing to do with our group in which they remain irregular.


----------



## coachn

LK600 said:


> I have to disagree, but only in so much as it applies to the usage by our fraternity.


Which is specific only to our organization, as it should be since that's the whole reason behind it.


LK600 said:


> In that regard I think it is extremely specific.


Yes.  See previous comment.


LK600 said:


> Anyone can form a group (even if it is based upon another) and call themselves regular, or whatever they wish.


Yes, because regularity is defined BY the group determining what applies and what doesn't _to their group and with whom they want to mingle._


LK600 said:


> And, it might be accurate within that specific group.


There is no "might".  It IS accurate within that specific group, as it should be since it was made up FOR that specific group.


LK600 said:


> The problem is... that has nothing to do with our group in which they remain irregular.


Why is that a problem?


----------



## LK600

coachn said:


> Which is specific only to our organization, as it should be since that's the whole reason behind it.



Yes, agreed.



coachn said:


> Yes. See previous comment.



Agreed.



coachn said:


> Yes, because regularity is defined BY the group determining what applies and what doesn't _to their group and with whom they want to mingle._



Exactly, yes.



coachn said:


> There is no "might". It IS accurate within that specific group, as it should be since it was made up FOR that specific group.



There could be, at least in the way I was meaning.  As long as those people are fully in line with whatever groups laws and by-laws they are attempting to associate with, then yes, they could be regular to that specific group (was not referring to us in that statement).  



coachn said:


> Why is that a problem?



It's not, unless those people in question are trying to associate themselves with us... then it becomes a problem (for them).


----------



## coachn

LK600 said:


> ...There could be, at least in the way I was meaning.  As long as those people are fully in line with whatever groups laws and by-laws they are attempting to associate with, then yes, they could be regular to that specific group (was not referring to us in that statement).


And, just as we handle those out of compliance, they will be subject to rule infraction measures when they don't tow the line.


LK600 said:


> It's not, unless those people in question are trying to associate themselves with us... then it becomes a problem (for them).


Yes!  Absolutely!


----------



## Warrior1256

CLewey44 said:


> I may be wrong and it may be a long time but it's only a matter of time before females will be allowed to join and be considered regular.


You may be right but hopefully I'll be dead and gone before that day comes.


----------



## Bloke

LK600 said:


> I have to disagree, but only in so much as it applies to the usage by our fraternity.  In that regard I think it is extremely specific.  Anyone can form a group (even if it is based upon another) and call themselves regular, or whatever they wish.  And, it might be accurate within that specific group.  The problem is... that has nothing to do with our group in which they remain irregular.


In some ways "Regular" is akin to the words "illegal" or "legal" - is smoking marijuana, having more than one wife, owning a machine gun or drinking beer illegal ? It depends on the legal jurisdiction. You are not breaking the law where such actitivity is legal. You are where it is. Regularity is the same, you are regular sitting in lodge with a woman  or atheist within a jurisdiction where that is permitted yet committing a masonic offense for doing the exact same thing in other systems.


----------



## CLewey44

Warrior1256 said:


> You may be right but hopefully I'll be dead and gone before that day comes.


Lol i hear you, Brother


----------



## Bloke

JamestheJust said:


> This topic exemplifies why Freemasonry is commonly regarded as speculative and not a science


Yep. Many people might dismiss your comment James, but you are spot on.


----------



## coachn

Bloke said:


> James said: ↑
> This topic exemplifies why Freemasonry is commonly regarded as speculative and not a science
> 
> 
> 
> Yep. Many people might dismiss your comment James, but you are spot on.
Click to expand...

It's dismissed because the statement confuses the organization, "Freemasonry", with the science the organization points its members toward practicing, "Masonry".


----------



## LK600

Bloke said:


> In some ways "Regular" is akin to the words "illegal" or "legal" - is smoking marijuana, having more than one wife, owning a machine gun or drinking beer illegal ? It depends on the legal jurisdiction. You are not breaking the law where such actitivity is legal. You are where it is. Regularity is the same, you are regular sitting in lodge with a woman or atheist within a jurisdiction where that is permitted yet committing a masonic offense for doing the exact same thing in other systems.



I do not think the two can be compared Bloke, apples and oranges.  Regular is very specific, especially to the person / organization using it.  There is no over arching organization binding all of the sub groups together in any shape or form; only that which is accepted as regular and irregular.  The question I suppose is, how and by what standard does each of us Judge (for ourselves or even by GL) what is a Mason, regardless of regularity.


----------



## hfmm97

should we close the lodges first?


Sent from my iPhone using My Freemasonry mobile app


----------



## Warrior1256

JamestheJust said:


> When I first considered joining Masonry I went and sat outside a temple. I noticed that it had a wobbly line of pale blue light from the Blazing Star. I took that as a sign of regularity.


Huh? Seriously?


----------



## Bloke

LK600 said:


> I do not think the two can be compared Bloke, apples and oranges.  Regular is very specific, especially to the person / organization using it.  There is no over arching organization binding all of the sub groups together in any shape or form; only that which is accepted as regular and irregular....


We must agree to disagree Bro LK - I think they "Regular" and "Legal" are two very similar words because they are subjective. I think you are thinking like a local cop rather than an international lawyer, and hence I would argue (and we are arguing a point rather than being in an argument ) your "no over arching organsisation" comment supports my view rather than yours. Hence Bro Karen Kidd is completely regular within her own jurisdiction, but not in mine and not in yours. Again, using a legal logic, her passport as a Freemason (the secrets she possesess) is recognised in her own obedience an other obedience where her passport is recognised, but declined in ours where they are not.



LK600 said:


> ...The question I suppose is, how and by what standard does each of us Judge (for ourselves or even by GL) what is a Mason, regardless of regularity.



That's two different questions;


_how and by what standard does each of us Judge by GL what is a Mason_
&

_how and by what standard does each of us Judge for ourselves what is a Mason, regardless of regularity_

h_ow and by what standard does each of us Judge by GL what is a Mason_
As our own, and only our own GLs set the standard of "Regularity"  - what is proscribed and prescribed is set.  We cannot judge. All we could do is move a motion in our own Grand Lodge and abide by the decision and its consequences.

_how and by what standard does each of us Judge for ourselves what is a Mason, regardless of regularity_
That is a personal question. I have often been invited to sit in a local lodge which has women (Le Driot) but do not do it as I see it as perhaps breaking my obligation., certainly the spirit of it, and it is certainly breaking my Constitution. However, my personal view is I respect the members of that organisation as Freemasons, much like I respect other Denominations of my Religion and indeed other religions.  I can hold any view I like, but I am not Free to both remain a Freemason in good standing and visit such a lodge. Moreover, as a great believer of the Masonic Tradition I belong to as a Fraternity, I would not want to see that change, but nor do I personally feel to do any thing other than respect other Masonic Traditions which have branched out in different ways, yet I hold no desire to participate in them.


----------



## LK600

Bloke said:


> We must agree to disagree Bro LK



lol... I'm not even sure at this point what the subject is.  

Okay, here's what I'm saying (hopefully).  There is only one "regular" that matters to me.  It's that which is deemed regular by our Craft/system.  There is no other regular that pertains to me.  Obviously, any group can make a set of rules/bylaws and those within that group are functionally regular to themselves.  But that has no relevance nor consequence to mine.  We are not one group with different regularities (meaning what I said earlier... no overarching organization binding us together as anything - regular and irregular).  

I to, cannot sit with them in Lodge for I would be breaking my obligation(s) at minimum.  Nor can I communicate with them in reference to specific Masonic subjects.  Nor can I accept them as a Brother.  I would wager, all of these things that apply to me would also apply to you as well.  I'm saying that anyone can be regular to their own group based upon their own rules, but that changes nothing in reference to the Craft and who is deemed regular or not.  

I believe Brother, you are thinking with your heart, and I admire you for that. 




Bloke said:


> I personally feel to do anything other than respect other Masonic Traditions which have branched out in different ways,



And that's where we disagree on this point.  I fully respect other organizations regardless, but one of the bigger problems is many of those irregular organizations did not follow Masonic traditions and decided to create their own.  This is completely fine, it just makes them not part of our Craft anymore (by choice).


----------



## Bloke

LK600 said:


> ...Okay, here's what I'm saying (hopefully).  There is only one "regular" that matters to me.  It's that which is deemed regular by our Craft/system.  There is no other regular that pertains to me.  Obviously, any group can make a set of rules/bylaws and those within that group are functionally regular to themselves.  But that has no relevance nor consequence to mine.



Exactly, there is more than one kind of "regular" and only one kind matters to each Freemason 



LK600 said:


> ...I believe Brother, you are thinking with your heart, and I admire you for that...



Thanks, but again I am not sure I agree, "Regularity" is a jurisprudence concept, and while it might be emotional, it is also underpinned rules which are facts, even when we allow our emotion shapes those rules; and interesting thing to ponder !


----------



## Warrior1256

JamestheJust said:


> I have just retested that lodge and the stream from the Blazing Star is now largely repelled by the lodge.


Uh......er.......O.K.


----------



## Glen Cook

hfmm97 said:


> john s nagy could it be that all lodges (whether UGLE recognizes them or not) consider themselves regular?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using My Freemasonry mobile app


As an aside, I’d clarify that even within “regular “ Freemasonry, UGLE is not the sole arbiter.


----------



## Bloke

Glen Cook said:


> As an aside, I’d clarify that even within “regular “ Freemasonry, UGLE is not the sole arbiter.


Do you think UGLE's Recognition might be at risk because of its Guidelines on Transgender Bro Glen ?


----------



## Glen Cook

Bloke said:


> Do you think UGLE's Recognition might be at risk because of its Guidelines on Transgender Bro Glen ?


Good question. I don’t know. The summer national meetings are over. KYCH meets in September. CGMNA in February. Perhaps a better feel then.


----------



## LK600

Bloke said:


> Exactly, there is more than one kind of "regular" and only one kind matters to each Freemason



I understand now the point we disagree on, and it isn't regularity.  It's back to the concept of an "overarching" organization where all groups regular, irregular etc are Freemasons.  You appear to believe that exists whereas I do not.


----------



## Bloke

LK600 said:


> I understand now the point we disagree on, and it isn't regularity.  It's back to the concept of an "overarching" organization where all groups regular, irregular etc are Freemasons.  You appear to believe that exists whereas I do not.


Sound like a fair assessment. I think Freemasonry is a very broad term which picks up a lot of organisations and "Regular" is a subjective term,  but also critical to the boundaries of where and what we can experience as "Regular" Freemasons.


----------



## Warrior1256

Bloke said:


> "Regular" is a subjective term, but also critical to the boundaries of where and what we can experience as "Regular" Freemasons.


Very much agree.


----------



## Glen Cook

Bloke said:


> Sound like a fair assessment. I think Freemasonry is a very broad term which picks up a lot of organisations and "Regular" is a subjective term,  but also critical to the boundaries of where and what we can experience as "Regular" Freemasons.


 We have objective criteria to determine if a lodge is regular.


----------



## Bloke

Glen Cook said:


> We have objective criteria to determine if a lodge is regular.


We do, but they are not the same as other Masonic Groups like LDH.


----------



## LK600

Bloke said:


> Sound like a fair assessment. I think Freemasonry is a very broad term which picks up a lot of organisations and "Regular" is a subjective term,  but also critical to the boundaries of where and what we can experience as "Regular" Freemasons.



I understand the point of view, but would disagree that Regularity is subjective.  "Regular" is objective,  unless you form a group that chooses it's own set of rules that differ... then those would be subjective (again, there is nothing wrong with that).  Those groups are just as much rightful organizations as we are, but that doesn't make them connected to us in any way.


----------



## dfreybur

The discussion has been objective versus subjective.  I think that misses by a bit.  It should be relative versus absolute.  Noting that nothing in the human world is absolute so it's position on a spectrum not an either-or.

Of course everyone who takes their degrees figures their own lodge is regular.  That's relative to their own lodge.  For all I know there are lodges out there that are completely independent without even a Grand Lodge they report to.  But every lodge I've heard of does report to a grand lodge and that grand lodge considers itself regular.

Because grand lodge Masonry created itself in 1717, lineage claims are always subject to interpretation.  This makes claims of "clandestine" foundation iffy at times.  To us some guy doesn't get to go out and found jurisdictions once expelled, but Masonry is not copyrighted so we don't get to stop them.  It has happened many times.  Lineage is by far the most unclear of the regularity criteria.  The fact that the PHA family remained loyal to the Premier Grand Lodge of England from before the 1812 Union very much helped with their lineage issue for example.

If we go with regularity being relative, some jurisdictions can say that being a man means being human.  And *to their own members* that's regular.  While *to our members* they are not.  Let's see what happens if ships with Star Wars or Star Trek aliens so up and request membership!

Mention of women is in the wording of what I swore, but that was only about being present.  And I can see a viewpoint where that wording gets changed and a new generation grows up with different wording.  I would very likely vote against changing the wording like that, but I can imagine how that evolution of wording and rules could happen.

There is some outside enforcement that is definitely going to happen - The Shrine now solicits the general public for charitable contributions.  The means that the Shrine Hospital Foundation is going to have non-discrimination policies forced upon it.  The separation of Shrinedom and the Shrine Hospital Foundation is going to be pierced at some point.  The Shrine will have to become a non-discriminating organization.  At which point the separation between the Shrine and Arkansas become moot.  The Shrine will eventually have to exit Masonry because of the commercials they current run on TV.

The issue of admitting women is coming at us from multiple directions for multiple reasons.

It is valid to exclude women because women are free to form and join organizations that exclude men.  That's the ultimate justification.  But staying discriminatory comes with a long list of prices that we will eventually have to pay.

Consider the separation of the Girl Scouts from the Boy Scouts about gender and religion.  The Girl Scouts sell cookies and so they are a business enterprise.  As such they had non-discrimination rules pushed onto them by some states.  Now the Boy Scouts sell popcorn.  And sure enough, before it gets forced upon them they are stepping back from their discriminatory policies.

It might not matter that we are a fraternity.


----------



## Glen Cook

Bloke said:


> We do, but they are not the same as other Masonic Groups like LDH.


Ahh. Got it.


----------



## Symthrell

dfreybur said:


> The issue of admitting women is coming at us from multiple directions for multiple reasons.
> It might not matter that we are a fraternity.



In this day and age of Political Correctness run amok, you can bet that the day will come that this issue will become a hot-button item for some group out there. They will demand that the government step in and force the Mason's to accept female members or they will lose 501c3 status. (Did I get that status right?)


----------



## Bloke

LK600 said:


> I understand the point of view, but would disagree that Regularity is subjective.  "Regular" is objective,  unless you form a group that chooses it's own set of rules that differ... then those would be subjective (again, there is nothing wrong with that).  Those groups are just as much rightful organizations as we are, but that doesn't make them connected to us in any way.


Thanks LK. I think this is a very good conversation because we need to understand what "Regular" is. Some will scream it means "NON ATHEIST , MALE ONLY, VSL PRESENT, NO RELIGION OR POLITICS, LEGITIMATE LINEAGE" where that is not the case for some of who I consider my masonic Brothers and Sisters, but I would also expect them to respect me when I bar their entry to the lodge or decline to sit in theirs. That's all about me, not them. (oh and to the capital words before, some GLs append things like being Christian or white or not being communist, poor, gay or owning a  bar..)


----------



## Glen Cook

Bloke said:


> Thanks LK. I think this is a very good conversation because we need to understand what "Regular" is. Some will scream it means "NON ATHEIST , MALE ONLY, VSL PRESENT, NO RELIGION OR POLITICS, LEGITIMATE LINEAGE" where that is not the case for some of who I consider my masonic Brothers and Sisters, but I would also expect them to respect me when I bar their entry to the lodge or decline to sit in theirs. That's all about me, not them. (oh and to the capital words before, some GLs append things like being Christian or white or not being communist, poor, gay or owning a  bar..)


No GLs of which I’m aware have a constitutional prohibition based on colour.


----------



## Bloke

Glen Cook said:


> No GLs of which I’m aware have a constitutional prohibition based on colour.


Agree, but rules and precedent do not always match.

Sent from my SM-G920I using My Freemasonry mobile app


----------



## LK600

Bloke said:


> Thanks LK. I think this is a very good conversation because we need to understand what "Regular" is. Some will scream it means "NON ATHEIST , MALE ONLY, VSL PRESENT, NO RELIGION OR POLITICS, LEGITIMATE LINEAGE" where that is not the case for some of who I consider my masonic Brothers and Sisters, but I would also expect them to respect me when I bar their entry to the lodge or decline to sit in theirs. That's all about me, not them. (oh and to the capital words before, some GLs append things like being Christian or white or not being communist, poor, gay or owning a  bar..)



I agree, it's a fundamental discussion more Brother's should brush up on, But it's only half of the necessary topic.  Defining what is "regular" and how the term "regular" only applies to one's specific (to use your term) lineage could assist many to understand every group (in this case "Masons") have their own laws, rules and regulations which are true and appropriate to those specific organizations.  The other aspect, and the one I believe most people take issue with is the notion that all groups calling themselves Freemasons are linked under some form of a Masonic banner where we are one society with many shades/branches.  I would submit that most Freemasons do not feel this is accurate.  Those screaming  "NON ATHEIST , MALE ONLY, VSL PRESENT, NO RELIGION OR POLITICS, LEGITIMATE LINEAGE" are among that group ( who believe the Landmarks have true meaning and aren't disposable), but only the vocal portion of the same, and they're citing of the Landmarks is appropriate and accurate, in reference to their regularity.  The issue is not really regularity alone but the argument that while each organization under the sun has the right and ability to define what regularity means to themselves, is there anything that links all organizations calling themselves Masons to each other.  That is where the dichotomy exists in these expressed differences.


----------



## Warrior1256

LK600 said:


> believe most people take issue with is the notion that all groups calling themselves Freemasons are linked under some form of a Masonic banner where we are one society with many shades/branches. I would submit that most Freemasons do not feel this is accurate.


I certainly don't feel it is accurate.


LK600 said:


> Those screaming "NON ATHEIST , MALE ONLY, VSL PRESENT, NO RELIGION OR POLITICS, LEGITIMATE LINEAGE" are among that group ( who believe the Landmarks have true meaning and aren't disposable),


This is the group that I belong to.


LK600 said:


> The issue is not really regularity alone but the argument that while each organization under the sun has the right and ability to define what regularity means to themselves, is there anything that links all organizations calling themselves Masons to each other. That is where the dichotomy exists in these expressed differences.


Agreed.


----------



## Brother_Steve

I have another question:

When was the last time anyone on this board has seen a woman's only organization attacked for not allowing men?

This is not rhetorical. It is an honest inquiry. Data mining if you will.


----------



## LK600

JamestheJust said:


> If Masonry is a science then all that needs to be proved is competence in the science.



_"Speculative Masonry (which is but another name for Freemasonary in its modern acceptation) may be briefly defined as the scientific application and the religious consecration of the rules and principles, the language, the implements and materials of operative Masonry to the veneration of God, the purification of the heart, and the inculcation of the dogmas of a religious philosophy."_     - Albert G. Mackey, The Symbolism of Freemasonry [1882]


----------



## Warrior1256

Brother_Steve said:


> When was the last time anyone on this board has seen a woman's only organization attacked for not allowing men?


Exactly!


LK600 said:


> _"Speculative Masonry (which is but another name for Freemasonary in its modern acceptation) may be briefly defined as the scientific application and the religious consecration of the rules and principles, the language, the implements and materials of operative Masonry to the veneration of God, the purification of the heart, and the inculcation of the dogmas of a religious philosophy."_ - Albert G. Mackey, The Symbolism of Freemasonry [1882]


Excellent!


----------



## LK600

Brother_Steve said:


> When was the last time anyone on this board has seen a woman's only organization attacked for not allowing men?



I vaguely remember something about a certain organization that sells unholy delicious cookies (Samoas are akin to crack) that is girls only catching some flack, but it's been awhile.  Beyond that, nothing comes to mind.


----------



## Bloke

Brother_Steve said:


> I have another question:
> 
> When was the last time anyone on this board has seen a woman's only organization attacked for not allowing men?
> 
> This is not rhetorical. It is an honest inquiry. Data mining if you will.


I have an interest in this sort of thing and it has happened twice here that I have noticed.
1 - a woman only Muslim bathing group who had exclusive use of a public pool for a limited time (a couple of hours i think).
2 - a female only gym which is a commercial business.

Another good example is now no one is attacking the First Nations of Australia for still honouring and holding their male only initiation rites.


----------



## CLewey44

Brother_Steve said:


> I have another question:
> 
> When was the last time anyone on this board has seen a woman's only organization attacked for not allowing men?
> 
> This is not rhetorical. It is an honest inquiry. Data mining if you will.


Probably not many. I'd say it's a simple example of gynocentrism and demonization of being a man.


----------



## dfreybur

Brother_Steve said:


> I have another question:
> 
> When was the last time anyone on this board has seen a woman's only organization attacked for not allowing men?
> 
> This is not rhetorical. It is an honest inquiry. Data mining if you will.



If the Girls Scouts had given up their cookie selling business enterprise, they would still be able to exclude boys.  I would not call it an attack.  They are a business enterprise doing business with the general public therefore non-discrimination laws applied to them.  In specific the most restrictive state non-discrimination laws were applied rather than the national organization splintering to have different details state to state.

As long as a women's organization remained private, I have never heard of one attacked.


----------



## Warrior1256

CLewey44 said:


> I'd say it's a simple example of gynocentrism and demonization of being a man.


I'd say that you are right.


----------



## streeter

How were you received into the Lodge?
On the point of a xxxxx presented to my naked left xxxxx
And that's one historical reason why from the 1813 London Emulation Ritual.
OOOOOOOPS


----------



## CLewey44

Hmmm


----------



## Keith C

streeter said:


> How were you received into the Lodge?
> On the point of a xxxxx presented to my naked left xxxxx
> And that's one historical reason why from the 1813 London Emulation Ritual.
> OOOOOOOPS



Not quite sure how that is a reason.  Do you know that Lodges that admit women do not follow this practice?


----------



## Glen Cook

streeter said:


> How were you received into the Lodge?
> On the point of a xxxxx presented to my naked left xxxxx
> And that's one historical reason why from the 1813 London Emulation Ritual.
> OOOOOOOPS


I think you mean 1816, if not 1823.  I would need to see that edition of the ritual, noting it would be a much later ritual and perhaps contrived. 

In any case, given the obesity of many candidates, I’m not sure one could tell the difference. (That comes across a little harsh, doesn’t it?).


----------



## CLewey44

Glen Cook said:


> ....In any case, given the obesity of many candidates, I’m not sure one could tell the difference. (That comes across a little harsh, doesn’t it?).



I just threw up a little...


----------



## LK600

Glen Cook said:


> In any case, given the obesity of many candidates, I’m not sure one could tell the difference. (That comes across a little harsh, doesn’t it?).



I found myself torn between being offended, trying to control a chuckle, and nausea at the mental images.


----------



## Warrior1256

Glen Cook said:


> In any case, given the obesity of many candidates, I’m not sure one could tell the difference.


Oooooooooohhhhhhhhhh!!!! (snicker snicker)


LK600 said:


> I found myself torn between being offended, trying to control a chuckle, and nausea at the mental images.


Lol!!! Same here!


----------



## streeter

Keith C said:


> Not quite sure how that is a reason.  Do you know that Lodges that admit women do not follow this practice?


I do not.


----------



## streeter

Glen Cook said:


> I think you mean 1816, if not 1823.  I would need to see that edition of the ritual, noting it would be a much later ritual and perhaps contrived.
> 
> Very interesting and I admit to not being certain of the precise date.
> However the Lodge of Reconciliation which [as far as I know] only lasted for two years. For the new [at that time] Ritual System. Being 1813 - 1816. And so that was the period to which I was referring.
> 
> I would hasten to add respectfully to all readers that this is as far as I know the only reference to sex in Masonic Ritual. SMIB


----------



## Warrior1256

We are a FRATERNITY....period. As far as I am concerned no further explanation or justification need be given.


----------



## CLewey44

Warrior1256 said:


> We are a FRATERNITY....period. As far as I am concerned no further explanation or justification need be given.


This is true...


----------



## coachn

Warrior1256 said:


> We are a FRATERNITY....period. As far as I am concerned no further explanation or justification need be given.


Specious.  That's circular reasoning.  The discourse in the link addresses this.  Fraternity is a classification, not a reason.

The male centric organization of Freemasonry _has chosen to be male centric_ and therefor is all male in its core workings.  Because it is all male, it is referred to as a fraternity.

This same goes for the female centric organization of Freemasonry which _has chosen to be female centric_ and therefor is all female in its core workings.  Because it is all female, it is referred to as a sorority.

We are the male centric organization and classified as a frat because we have chosen to be just that.  As long as we continue to chose that way, we will remain a frat.  But don't foolishly argue we are a frat and therefor cannot have females.  We can chose differently and therefor change our fraternal designation.

That being said, until we chose differently, we remain classified as a frat, but only because we chose to be one; not because we won't allow females, but only because we choose continuously not to.


----------



## Keith C

coachn said:


> We are the male centric organization and classified as a frat because we have chosen to be just that.  As long as we continue to chose that way, we will remain a frat.  But don't foolishly argue we are a frat and therefor cannot have females.  We can chose differently and therefor change our fraternal designation.
> 
> That being said, until we chose differently, we remain classified as a frat, but only because we chose to be one; not because we won't allow females, but only because we choose continuously not to.



Just to introduce a little levity.

When I joined a fraternity in college I was told:

"NEVER call a Fraternity a "Frat."  Would you call your Country a "C^#t"?"


----------



## coachn

Keith C said:


> Just to introduce a little levity.
> 
> When I joined a fraternity in college I was told:
> 
> "NEVER call a Fraternity a "Frat."  Would you call your Country a "C^#t"?"


----------



## Warrior1256

Keith C said:


> "NEVER call a Fraternity a "Frat." Would you call your Country a "C^#t"?"


LOL!


----------



## hfmm97

coachn said:


> View attachment 6324



No not at all:  you look healthy!


Sent from my iPhone using My Freemasonry mobile app


----------



## Thomas Stright

CLewey44 said:


> I may be wrong and it may be a long time but it's only a matter of time before females will be allowed to join and be considered regular.



Hopefully that is long after I’m gone. 


Sent from my iPhone using My Freemasonry mobile app


----------



## CLewey44

With current negative trajectories in membership, according to TMR from this week, the whole fraternity will possibly be gone in the next 25 years. Who knows?


----------



## Warrior1256

Thomas Stright said:


> Hopefully that is long after I’m gone.


My sentiments exactly. If the day comes before this I will simply demit. One of the main reasons that I joined Masonry is because it is a fraternity.


CLewey44 said:


> With current negative trajectories in membership, according to TMR from this week, the whole fraternity will possibly be gone in the next 25 years. Who knows?


Certainly a possibility. Hopefully not. In my opinion the extinction of Masonry would be a real loss to society.


----------



## Bloke

CLewey44 said:


> With current negative trajectories in membership, according to TMR from this week, the whole fraternity will possibly be gone in the next 25 years. Who knows?


Well Brother, let's assume that is true and it is up to us, each and every Freemason, so change it. That's not just about signing up members, but being that person folk talk about " Mr X is amazing and  Freemason" in the one sentence - because the next leap people tend to make is, follows that "Freemasonry is amazing"

(waits for Coach to jump on that).


----------



## CLewey44

Absolutely and not only our actions outside the lodge but in the lodge as well among potential and current masons.


----------



## coachn

CLewey44 said:


> With current negative trajectories in membership, according to TMR from this week, the whole fraternity will possibly be gone in the next 25 years. Who knows?


TMR?


----------



## CLewey44

coachn said:


> TMR?


Sorry, yes, the Masonic Roundtable. It's a podcast on YouTube.


----------



## LK600

coachn said:


> TMR?



never mind, already answered.


----------



## Bevan Jones

coachn said:


> *Seeking Light... *



Having read through most of this thread, albeit briefly, it seems the focus shifted to regularity and that we have chosen to be a fraternity. I would humbly suggest instead looking at why Masonry exists, as well as what it represents to many. As to why it exists, let us consider the three great principles of Brotherly Love, Relief and Truth.

Firstly, I understand Brotherly Love to be represented by Aristotle's Philia, or Philos, for which the great city of Philadelphia was so aptly named. It typically refers to affectionate regard and friendship, amongst equal brothers. The earlier story of the two brethren at the funeral is indicative. Unfortunately, us men tend to revert to our baser instinctual natures around the fairer sex. However, the happily married man can typically subdue his Eros as it evolves toward Pragma, the longstanding love between a couple. Yet, I would like to believe that we could relate to women as well with brotherly love, without Eros getting in the way. Perhaps our brotherly love needs to evolve to Agape, the highest form of love, charity. I'm not sure we're ready for that though and I doubt Masonry has enough gas in its tank to get us there....

Secondly, Relief or charity itself. This is clearly a win for mixed Masonry. I'm not sure about you gents but in my experience females are far more inclined to charity than men are. Of course I'm generalising and the times may be changing, but I believe that many more females still work in charitable pursuits than men do.

Third, Truth or the seeking of Light. To my mind this is once again a win for mixed Masonry. Clearly this is simply a vestige from the past, where only men were allowed to discuss the serious topics. And our world is likely the poorer for it.

I fully understand the notion that men need to escape sometimes. Masonry provides a path of initiation, of becoming a man, that us men lost a long time ago when we left our caves, and started the long journey to our urban boxes. Women still retain some of their initiatic processes in life, childbirth clearly being one of them. However, intellectually speaking I'm having a very hard time squaring the concept of not allowing women in anymore. Freemasonry has some real gems within it, which have stood the test of time. But we are entering a more enlightened age now and I feel the Regular Craft will be left behind.


----------



## Elexir

JamestheJust said:


> The Anglican church allowed women priests when it ran out of men, but Freemasons are made of sterner stuff.
> 
> In my view the primary problem of post-1717 Freemasonry is that it never knew that Master Masons had real work - other than making more MMs.



Considering that pre-1720s masonry didnt have MMs it was hard for 1717s masons to make MMs.


----------



## Elexir

Bevan Jones said:


> However, intellectually speaking I'm having a very hard time squaring the concept of not allowing women in anymore. Freemasonry has some real gems within it, which have stood the test of time. But we are entering a more enlightened age now and I feel the Regular Craft will be left behind.



That would depend. 
I honestly feel that the only way freemasonry will have any justification to exist is if it firmly cements itself outside of the trends of society as much as it can, otherwise what can masonry offer thats any diffrent then any other organisation?


----------



## Warrior1256

Elexir said:


> I honestly feel that the only way freemasonry will have any justification to exist is if it firmly cements itself outside of the trends of society as much as it can, otherwise what can masonry offer thats any diffrent then any other organisation?


Bravo!


----------



## coachn

Elexir said:


> Considering that pre-1720s masonry didnt have MMs it was hard for 1717s masons to make MMs.


Why must insist upon clouding a good discussion with reality?


----------



## coachn

Bevan Jones said:


> Having read through most of this thread, albeit briefly, it seems the focus shifted to regularity and that we have chosen to be a fraternity.


Yes.  Did you take the time to read the link material in the OP also?  The issue is excluding women and doing so legitimately.  Everything else is a distraction off the base of the topic's focus.


Bevan Jones said:


> I would humbly suggest instead looking at why Masonry exists, as well as what it represents to many. As to why it exists, let us consider the three great principles of Brotherly Love, Relief and Truth.


The issue is NOT why Masonry exists.  The issue is why a Male Centric Organization exists.


Bevan Jones said:


> Firstly, I understand Brotherly Love to be represented by Aristotle's Philia, or Philos, for which the great city of Philadelphia was so aptly named. It typically refers to affectionate regard and friendship, amongst equal brothers. The earlier story of the two brethren at the funeral is indicative. Unfortunately, us men tend to revert to our baser instinctual natures around the fairer sex. However, the happily married man can typically subdue his Eros as it evolves toward Pragma, the longstanding love between a couple. Yet, I would like to believe that we could relate to women as well with brotherly love, without Eros getting in the way. Perhaps our brotherly love needs to evolve to Agape, the highest form of love, charity. I'm not sure we're ready for that though and I doubt Masonry has enough gas in its tank to get us there....


Thanks, not on topic.


Bevan Jones said:


> Secondly, Relief or charity itself. This is clearly a win for mixed Masonry. I'm not sure about you gents but in my experience females are far more inclined to charity than men are. Of course I'm generalising and the times may be changing, but I believe that many more females still work in charitable pursuits than men do.


Relief is what occurs when a Brother divests himself of his vices and superfluities; a different issue than the OP topic.  Charity is an entirely different issue from relief and the OP topic focus as well.


Bevan Jones said:


> Third, Truth or the seeking of Light. To my mind this is once again a win for mixed Masonry. Clearly this is simply a vestige from the past, where only men were allowed to discuss the serious topics. And our world is likely the poorer for it.


The truth is, you're off topic.


Bevan Jones said:


> I fully understand the notion that men need to escape sometimes.


The issue is NOT escape.  It is being in a male centric environment to receive Male Centric Nurturing!


Bevan Jones said:


> Masonry provides a path of initiation, of becoming a man, that us men lost a long time ago when we left our caves, and started the long journey to our urban boxes. Women still retain some of their initiatic processes in life, childbirth clearly being one of them. However, intellectually speaking I'm having a very hard time squaring the concept of not allowing women in anymore.


That's because it is NOT an intellectual exercise.  It is a spiritual exercise that requires masculine focus and nurturing; females cannot provide this.  There's a HUGE difference!


Bevan Jones said:


> Freemasonry has some real gems within it, which have stood the test of time. But we are entering a more enlightened age now and I feel the Regular Craft will be left behind.


I call shenanigans!  Every generation faces the exact same challenge, no matter what "age" you may claim we are in.  That challenge: *Maturing its Youths.* And that requires us to know that males and females come to maturity differently and to assure they each have the proper support systems in place to make that occur.


----------



## LK600

Bevan Jones said:


> Secondly, Relief or charity itself. This is clearly a win for mixed Masonry. I'm not sure about you gents but in my experience females are far more inclined to charity than men are. Of course I'm generalising and the times may be changing, but I believe that many more females still work in charitable pursuits than men do.



The word Charity (it's usage in this setting) has little to do with Charitable pursuits.  It is being used in regard to kindness and tolerance in judging others.  Once seen in that light, it changes the entire equation.  But, you appear to fully support the notion that men and women are different in many ways and being so, require varying things.  



Bevan Jones said:


> Third, Truth or the seeking of Light. To my mind this is once again a win for mixed Masonry. Clearly this is simply a vestige from the past, where only men were allowed to discuss the serious topics. And our world is likely the poorer for it.



There is no winner because the dichotomy does not exist.  Seeking light is universal, and has nothing to do with whether a specific group is male centric or female centric, or having any impact on reason(s) why.


----------



## Bevan Jones

coachn said:


> 0
> The issue is NOT why Masonry exists.  The issue is why a Male Centric Organization exists.



Let's deal with that issue alone then. Freemasory, as a Male Centric Organisation exists because that was what society was like at the time of its formation and growth. It was frowned on for women to get involved in philosophical matters, business, politics... basically anything to do with the male run order of the world for the last several hundred years. Freemasonry has always been a pillar of colonialism and the British establishment, and that included the fact that women should "know their place". First, send in the military, then the Freemasons to establish social structures. But even the military allow females these days and the Queen lifted the requirement on male line inheritance in 2013 already.

I like the point about Masonry surviving purely for contrarian reasons only, but not sure about the sort of people that would attract going forward. Lack of membership is a crucial issue facing club life in general, and Masonry in particular, and yet I completely understand why many feel passionately about preserving a male-centric organisation only. Just not sure it bodes well for our future survival.

I recently discovered that Julian Rees, a noted British Masonic author, has joined co-masonry and written a book on it titled "More Light". I haven't heard if he's resigned from regular UGLE Masonry but I would imagine he would have had to. I imagine there are many more thinking along the same lines.  So whilst it may of course be legitimate to exclude women, referencing our own internal rules, it might not be prudent for our survival going forward.


----------



## Bevan Jones

coachn said:


> ..... That challenge: *Maturing its Youths.* And that requires us to know that males and females come to maturity differently and to assure they each have the proper support systems in place to make that occur.



That last point is well made, although it requires a certain maturity and length of explanation that the media and soundbites cannot capture. I would suggest that male-centric Masonry focuses on this point alone, and stand its ground on it. There is nothing preventing women from having their own maturing organisations. I once thought Wicca was that organisation but even that has had the fingerprints of male Masons such as Gardner on it.


----------



## coachn

Bevan Jones said:


> Let's deal with that issue alone then. Freemasory, as a Male Centric Organisation exists because that was what society was like at the time of its formation and growth.


Conjecture - there were other similar organizations at the time that had females.


Bevan Jones said:


> It was frowned on for women to get involved in philosophical matters, business, politics... basically anything to do with the male run order of the world for the last several hundred years.


Conjecture - yes, and they engaged anyway.


Bevan Jones said:


> Freemasonry has always been a pillar of colonialism and the British establishment, and that included the fact that women should "know their place".


Conjecture - Freemasonry was not Anglo-centric, although they did establish many lodges worldwide.


Bevan Jones said:


> First, send in the military, then the Freemasons to establish social structures. But even the military allow females these days and the Queen lifted the requirement on male line inheritance in 2013 already.


Red herring - not relevant to the post


Bevan Jones said:


> I like the point about Masonry surviving purely for contrarian reasons only, but not sure about the sort of people that would attract going forward.


Not relevant.


Bevan Jones said:


> Lack of membership is a crucial issue facing club life in general, and Masonry in particular, and yet I completely understand why many feel passionately about preserving a male-centric organisation only. Just not sure it bodes well for our future survival.


Males who want male-centric initiation rite will seek things like it out.


Bevan Jones said:


> I recently discovered that Julian Rees, a noted British Masonic author, has joined co-masonry and written a book on it titled "More Light". I haven't heard if he's resigned from regular UGLE Masonry but I would imagine he would have had to.


Not relevant.


Bevan Jones said:


> I imagine there are many more thinking along the same lines.  So whilst it may of course be legitimate to exclude women, referencing our own internal rules, it might not be prudent for our survival going forward.


Opinion.


Bevan Jones said:


> That last point is well made, although it requires a certain maturity and length of explanation that the media and soundbites cannot capture.


yes. yes.


Bevan Jones said:


> I would suggest that male-centric Masonry focuses on this point alone, and stand its ground on it.


Good suggestion!  Kudos!


Bevan Jones said:


> There is nothing preventing women from having their own maturing organisations.


Yes. They have them.


Bevan Jones said:


> I once thought Wicca was that organisation but even that has had the fingerprints of male Masons such as Gardner on it.


Not relevant.


----------



## Bevan Jones

Wow "_coach_". You seem to very quickly dismiss any rational discussion here, cutting it short with technicalities. I've been a Mason for 15 years now with Past Grand Rank "_yadda yadda_", as well as several of the side degrees. Rarely do I remembering encountering such intellectual "_superiority_". Nevertheless it's your thread (as well as much of this bulletin board it would appear) so I will withdraw and leave you to it. My insights are clearly not needed here. Just do me a favour: List a similar organisation to Freemasonry in 1717, outside of a University, that had female members please. Or is that simply conjecture on your part? To my knowledge, women were allowed to attend Royal Society meetings in the late 1600's, but not join as members.


----------



## Elexir

Bevan Jones said:


> . Freemasonry has always been a pillar of colonialism and the British establishment.



Sorry but no. Infact english freemasonry was thrown out of sweden becuse they failed to see that it already existed a french inspired freemasonry here.
In fact one of the largest rites today came from France originaly as well as masonic templarism. Freemasonry has never been purley for the english.


----------



## Elexir

coachn said:


> Conjecture - Freemasonry was not Anglo-centric, although they did establish many lodges worldwide.



Fair point. French freemasonry is in one form highly popular in the US.


----------



## Bevan Jones

Elexir said:


> Sorry but no. Infact english freemasonry was thrown out of sweden becuse they failed to see that it already existed a french inspired freemasonry here. In fact one of the largest rites today came from France originaly as well as masonic templarism. Freemasonry has never been purley for the english.



Yes, the "_Auld Alliance_" being reaffirmed by John de Balliol, and King Phillip IV of France going after the Flemish wool traders, was a key reason why many Flemish Templars fled to Scotland, even before their excommunication in 1307. It is also why they chose to side with de Brus, meeting at Icolmkill. But the rites you mention, I'm assuming the ones made famous by Chevalier Ramsay (a Scot living in France around the time of the emergence of speculative masonry in Scotland) and supported by the Atholl Lodges, are speculative. Of course Freemasonry has never been for the English only. I'm of Scots descent living in South Africa. The English just formalised it, being the great civil servants that they are well known for. But I fear we digress completely off piste now. I've posted some thoughts on the emergence of speculative Freemasonry in the history section if anyone's interested.


----------



## Bloke

Bevan Jones said:


> Wow "_coach_". You seem to very quickly dismiss any rational discussion here, cutting it short with technicalities. I've been a Mason for 15 years now with Past Grand Rank "_yadda yadda_", as well as several of the side degrees. Rarely do I remembering encountering such intellectual "_superiority_". Nevertheless it's your thread (as well as much of this bulletin board it would appear) so I will withdraw and leave you to it. My insights are clearly not needed here. Just do me a favour: List a similar organisation to Freemasonry in 1717, outside of a University, that had female members please. Or is that simply conjecture on your part? To my knowledge, women were allowed to attend Royal Society meetings in the late 1600's, but not join as members.


Nunneries


----------



## Bloke

Bevan Jones said:


> Wow "_coach_". You seem to very quickly dismiss any rational discussion here, cutting it short with technicalities. I've been a Mason for 15 years now with Past Grand Rank "_yadda yadda_", as well as several of the side degrees. Rarely do I remembering encountering such intellectual "_superiority_". Nevertheless it's your thread (as well as much of this bulletin board it would appear) so I will withdraw and leave you to it. My insights are clearly not needed here. Just do me a favour: List a similar organisation to Freemasonry in 1717, outside of a University, that had female members please. Or is that simply conjecture on your part? To my knowledge, women were allowed to attend Royal Society meetings in the late 1600's, but not join as members.


As long as the emotional temperature in the thread does not get too hot, I recommend debating Coach, if you are into that sort of thing, but realise he is not having a loose discussion, he is vigorously applying logic and rhetoric from a position. 

However, I would also comment I have an email on my desk, and it reads something like "I was really interested in becoming a Freemason until I exprerienced the hostility on social media that Masons show each other". We always need to keep that in mind. The world watches.


----------



## Bevan Jones

Bloke said:


> Nunneries



He, he. Touché, although do you really imagine nuns were running around in 1717 exploring the hidden mysteries of Nature and Science?


----------



## Bevan Jones

Bloke said:


> As long as the emotional temperature in the thread does not get too hot, I recommend debating Coach, if you are into that sort of thing, but realise he is not having a loose discussion, he is vigorously applying logic and rhetoric from a position.



Indeed. Unfortunately this is an emotional topic for many.  I was simply pointing out that at least 2 out of 3 points of the grand principles on which our order is founded, viz. "_Brotherly Love, Relief and Truth_", do not exclude women. Clearly the focus here is on the first and I get that. Statistically speaking, many others won't.


----------



## coachn

Bevan Jones said:


> Wow "_coach_". You seem to very quickly dismiss any rational discussion here, cutting it short with technicalities.


Not "seem".  I am.  The devil's in the details.  When I recognize speciousness, there is no need to draw things out.


Bevan Jones said:


> I've been a Mason for 15 years now with Past Grand Rank "_yadda yadda_", as well as several of the side degrees.


Don't make me pull it out so we can compare.  This is not a contest.


Bevan Jones said:


> Rarely do I remembering encountering such intellectual "_superiority_".


LOL!  Nice try.  Not going to bite.  Your comment is ad hominem.  Red herring.


Bevan Jones said:


> Nevertheless it's your thread (as well as much of this bulletin board it would appear)


Yes, and no - another ad hominem.


Bevan Jones said:


> ...so I will withdraw and leave you to it.


Fair enough.


Bevan Jones said:


> My insights are clearly not needed here.


Don't belittle your contribution.  They do serve a good training purpose for those who want to learn specious arguments.


Bevan Jones said:


> Just do me a favour: List a similar organisation to Freemasonry in 1717, outside of a University, that had female members please.


Do the work Bro.  I'll let you know if our research matches.


Bevan Jones said:


> Or is that simply conjecture on your part?


Do the work...


Bevan Jones said:


> To my knowledge, women were allowed to attend Royal Society meetings in the late 1600's, but not join as members.


Do the work...


----------



## Bloke

Bevan Jones said:


> Indeed. Unfortunately this is an emotional topic for many.  I was simply pointing out that at least 2 out of 3 points of the grand principles on which our order is founded, viz. "_Brotherly Love, Relief and Truth_", do not exclude women. Clearly the focus here is on the first and I get that. Statistically speaking, many others won't.



I think one of the great errors people make is because Regular Freemasonry is a Fraternity, it is somehow misogynistic whereas we (should) know to misogyny is unmasonic behaviour. Further, as a MM, we all know we actually have special duties to look after the welfare of a Brother's Wife and Child. I hold that my Freemasonry should remain a Fraternity, partly because of what Coach says, but also because it is a good to have a space which should be void of sexual politics and attraction (I am sure my valued gay brothers would understand my statement and hope it does not upset them)..  I respect woman's rights to create spaces without men such as gyms and birthing circles, These things are not for everyone, but I value and draw a lot from having a single sex space. Further, that while woman are not admitted into a Masonic meeting, they are often  actually very valuable and valued members of our Masonic Community. Some of the strongest advocates I have in my life for Regular Freemasonry are women who have attended our meetings (dinners and socials and indeed certain non-typled ceremonial events) and understand the good we do for the individual and can do for society at large.


----------



## Bloke

Bevan Jones said:


> He, he. Touché, although do you really imagine nuns were running around in 1717 exploring the hidden mysteries of Nature and Science?



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

While not on science, this woman's story tells one of how the Church saw women and I would say in such a strong patriarchy (we are not a Patriarchy , we're a Fraternity) I wold imagine what some nuns were up to would be..... esoteric 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juana_In%E9s_de_la_Cruz


----------



## Bevan Jones

coachn said:


> Don't belittle your contribution.  They do serve a good training purpose for those who want to learn specious arguments.



Ad hominem. To which I will respond that your arrogance appears to know no bounds. 

To the others, whilst of course there have been many individual women philosophers, alchemists etc. dating back to ancient Greece even, I still have yet to see an example of a formal institution that supported them. Nunneries did not publically support this type of investigation.

Simply saying "do the work" is a complete cop-out and helps disguise the fact that the emperor has no clothes.


----------



## Glen Cook

Bloke said:


> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hildegard_of_Bingen
> 
> ...While nI would say in such a strong patriarchy (we are not a Patriarchy , we're a Fraternity)...



I wonder if, with the various female appendant bodies (OES, Amaranth, Rainbow,  Job’s , LOS, Nile), the North American fraternity has taken on the quality of a patriarchy.


----------



## coachn

Bevan Jones said:


> Don't belittle your contribution. They do serve a good training purpose for those who want to learn specious arguments.
> 
> 
> 
> Ad hominem. To which I will respond that your arrogance appears to know no bounds.
Click to expand...

LOL!  Can't stop yourself, can you?


Bevan Jones said:


> ...Simply saying "do the work" is a complete cop-out and helps disguise the fact that the emperor has no clothes.


<sigh>  yep, can't stop yourself...


----------



## Warrior1256

coachn said:


> Why must insist upon clouding a good discussion with reality?


LOL! coachn at it again!


----------



## Warrior1256

Bloke said:


> I think one of the great errors people make is because Regular Freemasonry is a Fraternity, it is somehow misogynistic whereas we (should) know to misogyny is unmasonic behaviour. Further, as a MM, we all know we actually have special duties to look after the welfare of a Brother's Wife and Child. I hold that my Freemasonry should remain a Fraternity, partly because of what Coach says, but also because it is a good to have a space which should be void of sexual politics and attraction (I am sure my valued gay brothers would understand my statement and hope it does not upset them).. I respect woman's rights to create spaces without men such as gyms and birthing circles, These things are not for everyone, but I value and draw a lot from having a single sex space. Further, that while woman are not admitted into a Masonic meeting, they are often actually very valuable and valued members of our Masonic Community. Some of the strongest advocates I have in my life for Regular Freemasonry are women who have attended our meetings (dinners and socials and indeed certain non-typled ceremonial events) and understand the good we do for the individual and can do for society at large.


BRAVO!


----------



## Rifleman1776

I am astounded this thread even exists much less how much angst it has generated.  It is what it is. Men are men, women are women. Viva la difference. If women were allowed in, I would leave. Part of what I enjoy about Masonry is the ability to get away from women for a while.


----------



## LK600

Bevan Jones said:


> However, intellectually speaking I'm having a very hard time squaring the concept of not allowing women in anymore.



Intellectually speaking, you have been conflating apples to oranges.  While I truly mean no disrespect, many of those arguments amount to what is termed, strawman.


----------



## Warrior1256

Rifleman1776 said:


> f women were allowed in, I would leave.


I've said this myself more than once. If regular Masonry, as I know it, ever admits women I'm gone.


----------



## Bloke

Glen Cook said:


> I wonder if, with the various female appendant bodies (OES, Amaranth, Rainbow,  Job’s , LOS, Nile), the North American fraternity has taken on the quality of a patriarchy.


Interesting question, but I don't know because I have no first had knowledge, but from what I understand, OES always seemed a bit strange that men seemed so strongly involved in the qualification process for a what I understand is a female focused group, but I would be interested in understanding what you are saying Bro Glen with a further clarification Bro Glen.


----------



## Bloke

Bevan Jones said:


> ....To the others, whilst of course there have been many individual women philosophers, alchemists etc. dating back to ancient Greece even, I still have yet to see an example of a formal institution that supported them. Nunneries did not publically support this type of investigatio,,.



I would say they would be there, but written out of history because of its often patriarchal portrayal of history. That said, it would be naive to say anything other than women were deprived of rights and were often seen as goods in Western Culture, they certainly did not have the same legal rights nor social or economic opportunities. 

If a student of history and interested in Truth, it would be interesting to see if we can find one. I cant really think of one and women like Elizabeth 1 were and St Hildebrand rather outliers than peak examples of  a trajectory open to most women (and we are ignoring class in this, very important in the Medieval West. One leveler was military conquest - certainly not generally open to any women). I think examples like these 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_education#Medieval_period are counter culture - but they still existed which is something which should be noted. One thing for sure, if I was a woman - I would definitely pick being born in a Western Society as close to today as possible. (mind you, I would say the same for being born male).

That's all interesting, but I must further add, I do not see that women not being admitted as members of Regular Freemasonry has anything to do with "woman's rights". Woman have access to Masonic experiences if they want it, and it is up to organisations like LDH to work to provide that is woman want it, just like we work to build malecentric regular Freemasonry.


----------



## coachn

JustJames said:
			
		

> If only we...


Who is this "we" of whom you speak?


			
				JustJames said:
			
		

> ...had the genuine secrets...


Okay... I get it.  *You don't have these genuine secrets* which most everyone has who does the Work that is pointed toward by each degree.  

"If only" you did this Work too perhaps you would stop your incessant "If only..." whine acting like the rest of us don't.


			
				JustJames said:
			
		

> ...we would know for sure whether ...


There's that royal "we" again.  Seriously, you need to speak for yourself dude.  You certainly do NOT speak for the rest of us.


			
				JustJames said:
			
		

> ...women have a role in Masonic Science.


Spurious argument. Red Herring.   Not on topic. The issue is not whether women have a role in "Masonic Science".  The issue is male centric societies excluding them legitimately!


			
				JustJames said:
			
		

> Here are the male and female founders of China with S&C and hand over back


EWWWWWWW!!!!!!  THEY HAVE A S&C!  THEY MUST BE ILLUMINATTI FREEMASONS!!!!!!!  

Your statement is spurious and off topic.  The picture and comment you shared depicts Chinese *mythology.*  It has nothing to do with the topic.

You also neglected to mention the plumb-bob next to the square.  "If only" you did the Work...

(source: http://www.templestudy.com/2008/09/17/nuwa-and-fuxi-in-chinese-mythology-compass-square/)


----------



## coachn

JustJames said:
			
		

> I apologize for upsetting you


<chuckle> ... much like many of your posts, you assume much here as well.


----------



## acjohnson53

I would refer them to my sister Chapter of the OES, that is about as close they will get, and we got flying GOATS in there, wouldn't want nobody to get hurt in there, insurance won't cover it. and the darn thing bite...LOL


----------



## Glen Cook

acjohnson53 said:


> I would refer them to my sister Chapter of the OES, that is about as close they will get, and we got flying GOATS in there, wouldn't want nobody to get hurt in there, insurance won't cover it. and the darn thing bite...LOL


But, of course, that is not Freemasonry if that is their  goal


----------



## ERHansen

Glen Cook said:


> I wonder if, with the various female appendant bodies (OES, Amaranth, Rainbow,  Job’s , LOS, Nile), the North American fraternity has taken on the quality of a patriarchy.



As someone with firsthand knowledge in both a youth group and OES, my response to this is: Yes.


----------



## Todd M. Stewart

Not sure if this has already been brought up but one question worth examining regarding 'regularity' is cross-jurisdictional recognition.  While one jurisdiction may not have any authority over another, it certainly can refuse to recognize someone when visiting another Lodge or petitioning for a transfer/dual/plural membership.  While jurisdictions are independent, Masonry is an international fraternity and as such there should be some common means of recognizing a Brother across those jurisdictions that is meaningful.


----------



## Glen Cook

Todd M. Stewart said:


> Not sure if this has already been brought up but one question worth examining regarding 'regularity' is cross-jurisdictional recognition.  While one jurisdiction may not have any authority over another, it certainly can refuse to recognize someone when visiting another Lodge or petitioning for a transfer/dual/plural membership.  While jurisdictions are independent, Masonry is an international fraternity and as such there should be some common means of recognizing a Brother across those jurisdictions that is meaningful.


Not entirely sure of your point, but “recognise “ is best used to describe the process of jurisdictions recognising one another. 

Yes, many jurisdictions state lodges can deny entry to a visiting mason, and must do so if his jurisdiction is not recognised. 

We do have common means of determining if a visitor is a member of a recognised jurisdiction. 

Or did I completely miss your point?


----------



## Todd M. Stewart

I guess what I'm trying to say is that there are certain expectations on a personal level (outside the tiled Lodge), that a Brother has of Masonry and visa versa.  I expect that when I travel anywhere in the world I will be accepted by other members of the Craft, and that if the need so arises my Brothers will come to my aid. I in turn, took an obligation that specifically prohibited me from making a woman a Mason, and from communicating Masonically with a clandestine Mason _'knowing them to be such'_.  I am also obligated to come to the aid of Brother Masons, their Widows and orphans.  If there isn't some way that we can personally be at least somewhat sure that someone claiming to be a 'regular' Mason is indeed that, we put our Brothers in a difficult position. Obviously in my case it would be easy to make the determination that a woman is not a regular Mason, but Masons are told when they join that they can expect Brothers will welcome them and to come to their aid in times of need.  For a woman that believes she is a regular Mason she may be seriously disappointed when she travels outside her home jurisdiction and encounters members of the Craft that do not recognize her as such.  In addition it becomes more difficult for someone such as I when dealing with a male brother who has in my view, violated the obligation by making a woman a Mason and therefore considered to be clandestine.  While technically I am not violating my obligation in communicating with him if I do not know he is considered clandestine by my jurisdiction, it wouldn't make me feel any better about doing so.  So while it's fine to speak about the strict jurisdictional aspect of this issue, I think it's more important to speak of how it impacts the Craft on a Mason to Mason level.


----------



## Keith C

Todd M. Stewart said:


> I guess what I'm trying to say is that there are certain expectations on a personal level (outside the tiled Lodge), that a Brother has of Masonry and visa versa.  I expect that when I travel anywhere in the world I will be accepted by other members of the Craft, and that if the need so arises my Brothers will come to my aid. I in turn, took an obligation that specifically prohibited me from making a woman a Mason, and from communicating Masonically with a clandestine Mason _'knowing them to be such'_.  I am also obligated to come to the aid of Brother Masons, their Widows and orphans.  If there isn't some way that we can personally be at least somewhat sure that someone claiming to be a 'regular' Mason is indeed that, we put our Brothers in a difficult position. Obviously in my case it would be easy to make the determination that a woman is not a regular Mason, but Masons are told when they join that they can expect Brothers will welcome them and to come to their aid in times of need.  For a woman that believes she is a regular Mason she may be seriously disappointed when she travels outside her home jurisdiction and encounters members of the Craft that do not recognize her as such.  In addition it becomes more difficult for someone such as I when dealing with a male brother who has in my view, violated the obligation by making a woman a Mason and therefore considered to be clandestine.  While technically I am not violating my obligation in communicating with him if I do not know he is considered clandestine by my jurisdiction, it wouldn't make me feel any better about doing so.  So while it's fine to speak about the strict jurisdictional aspect of this issue, I think it's more important to speak of how it impacts the Craft on a Mason to Mason level.



I understand your point, but when do you ever have a discussion including that which we are bound to keep secret with someone you have a chance encounter with whether or not you are convinced they are a "regular" Mason?  What aid would you give a distressed person you just encountered who you were confident was a "regular" Mason that you wouldn't provide to a non Mason?

To me, the issue of regularity only comes into play when someone seeks admittance to a Tyled Lodge meeting.

I meet people all the time who see the S&C on my hat or shirt.  They usually great me with a "Hello Brother..." and proceed to tell me their Lodge information and jurisdiction, and I share mine.  I have never had that type discussion lead into a discussion of ritual or esoteric work, nor would I engage in that type discussion outside a Lodge.  If a car is broken down on the side of the road, I do not look for a S&C or stop and question the driver to determine if they are a Mason before helping, I just stop and offer assistance.


----------



## Todd M. Stewart

Very good points indeed. In terms of Masonic communication, I think you're entirely correct in that it's extremely unlikely to occur outside the Tyled Lodge. This discussion does cause one to do a lot of think upon our obligation, what it means Brother to Brother, and Brother to the World.  Is there anything in terms of assistance we would give a Brother Mason that we would not extend to any person? I suppose that is a question each one of us must answer for themselves.    I am the son and grandson of Law Enforcement Officers and was a firefighter myself.  Service to others is something taught from a very early age in my family.  I have been trained in lifesaving and in tactical use of a sidearm.  I believe that I would not hesitate to use either skill to render aid to anyone.  So perhaps you're correct in that the issue of 'regularity' should only impact entry into a Tyled Lodge.  But that brings to mind the question is our obligation merely symbolic in some respects?  Certainly not all, but it should make for some introspection about it.


----------



## Brother JC

Todd M. Stewart said:


> I guess what I'm trying to say is that there are certain expectations on a personal level (outside the tiled Lodge), that a Brother has of Masonry and visa versa.  I expect that when I travel anywhere in the world I will be accepted by other members of the Craft, and that if the need so arises my Brothers will come to my aid. I in turn, took an obligation that specifically prohibited me from making a woman a Mason, and from communicating Masonically with a clandestine Mason _'knowing them to be such'_.  I am also obligated to come to the aid of Brother Masons, their Widows and orphans.  If there isn't some way that we can personally be at least somewhat sure that someone claiming to be a 'regular' Mason is indeed that, we put our Brothers in a difficult position. Obviously in my case it would be easy to make the determination that a woman is not a regular Mason, but Masons are told when they join that they can expect Brothers will welcome them and to come to their aid in times of need.  For a woman that believes she is a regular Mason she may be seriously disappointed when she travels outside her home jurisdiction and encounters members of the Craft that do not recognize her as such.  In addition it becomes more difficult for someone such as I when dealing with a male brother who has in my view, violated the obligation by making a woman a Mason and therefore considered to be clandestine.  While technically I am not violating my obligation in communicating with him if I do not know he is considered clandestine by my jurisdiction, it wouldn't make me feel any better about doing so.  So while it's fine to speak about the strict jurisdictional aspect of this issue, I think it's more important to speak of how it impacts the Craft on a Mason to Mason level.



If I hear a woman saying the “magic words” or giving the GHSoD I am going to jump as quickly as I would for a man. My obligation doesn’t say ignore them, and answering a cry for help is not “masonic conversation.” Any mason who would ignore that call based on gender needs to turn in their apron.


----------



## Todd M. Stewart

Agreed. Please read my reply to Kieth C.


----------



## CLewey44

I think there is a difference between aiding others (anyone) in a scenario of life or death and non-emergent. There is a bit different between  if I were driving down the road and a car with S&Cs was broke down on the shoulder and I decided to give them a lift to the next gas station or help change their tire. I can't stop for every car thats broke down I see or give money to every guy at an intersection holding a sign up everyday but for every rare life or death situation that may arise I can assist anyone then.


----------



## Warrior1256

Keith C said:


> I understand your point, but when do you ever have a discussion including that which we are bound to keep secret with someone you have a chance encounter with whether or not you are convinced they are a "regular" Mason? What aid would you give a distressed person you just encountered who you were confident was a "regular" Mason that you wouldn't provide to a non Mason?





Keith C said:


> I meet people all the time who see the S&C on my hat or shirt. They usually great me with a "Hello Brother..." and proceed to tell me their Lodge information and jurisdiction, and I share mine. I have never had that type discussion lead into a discussion of ritual or esoteric work, nor would I engage in that type discussion outside a Lodge.


Agreed.


Todd M. Stewart said:


> So perhaps you're correct in that the issue of 'regularity' should only impact entry into a Tyled Lodge. But that brings to mind the question is our obligation merely symbolic in some respects? Certainly not all, but it should make for some introspection about it.


Something to think about.


----------



## Warrior1256

CLewey44 said:


> There is a bit different between if I were driving down the road and a car with S&Cs was broke down on the shoulder and I decided to give them a lift to the next gas station or help change their tire.


True.


----------



## Brother JC

Todd M. Stewart said:


> Agreed. Please read my reply to Kieth C.



Ah, noted.

As to another question you asked “is our obligation merely symbolic in some respects?”
I’ve debated the fine points of my own obligation before, it is very specific on what I can’t do with a woman in regards to the Craft; I can’t attend their Degrees, I can’t sit in Lodge with them, and I can’t discuss active (as opposed to archived) ritual with them. That’s it. In other words I am free to accept their claim as legitimate in every other way. Excellent discussion about myriad topics may ensue and we could embroider each other’s aprons if we wished.
I don’t believe it is our obligation that needs to be questioned but instead the perception that has been handed down to us.

#my2p


----------



## Warrior1256

Brother JC said:


> I can’t attend their Degrees, I can’t sit in Lodge with them, and I can’t discuss active (as opposed to archived) ritual with them. That’s it. In other words I am free to accept their claim as legitimate in every other way. Excellent discussion about myriad topics may ensue and we could embroider each other’s aprons if we wished.


Good point!


----------



## Rifleman1776

Reading this thread is like listening to "Who's on first?".
The answer is simple. It is a private organization that sets it's own rules. Not complicated.


----------



## Warrior1256

Rifleman1776 said:


> The answer is simple. It is a private organization that sets it's own rules. Not complicated.


Sounds good to me. Like I say..."It's a fraternity".


----------



## LK600

Brother JC said:


> In other words I am free to accept their claim as legitimate in every other way.



And they are legitimate, because they are their own organization which as nothing to do with Regular Freemasonry / PHA.  They are legitimate the same way the Moose, Elks, VFW, etc are also legitimate.  A private organization can set it's own rules and use whatever terms they wish, but they are not "Brothers".   



Rifleman1776 said:


> It is a private organization that sets it's own rules.



Yes sir, exactly.  



JamestheJust said:


> We are told that a Freemason's lodge extends from E to W and N to S and from the center of the Earth to the Heavens. If this is true, then a Freemason's lodge already includes all the women.



I've been taught that a Lodge is not a building, structure or location, but the members within it.  A Lodge can take place in a field, a garage, a room, or anywhere else because what constitutes a Lodge is nothing more than it's members.


----------



## coachn

LK600 said:


> And they are legitimate, because they are their own organization which as nothing to do with Regular Freemasonry / PHA.


Correct, except, they are Regular unto themselves; just not Male-craft Freemasonry in total.

Using the term, "Regular Freemasonry" to denote "Recognized Male-craft Freemasonry" in its various forms is incorrect, but all too often used and that adds to the god-awful miserable confusion.


LK600 said:


> They are legitimate the same way the Moose, Elks, VFW, etc are also legitimate.


No. They are legitimate unto themselves.  The same way Recognized male-craft is legitimate - _because Recognized male-craft Freemasonry say so._


LK600 said:


> A private organization can set it's own rules and use whatever terms they wish,...


Yep.


LK600 said:


> ... but they are not "Brothers".


Incorrect.  The term, "Brother", is a title that has nothing to do with what lives and swings behind each apron.  They are "Brothers", because that's what their organization uses as titles to denote its members.


LK600 said:


> I've been taught that a Lodge is not a building, structure or location, but the members within it.  A Lodge can take place in a field, a garage, a room, or anywhere else because what constitutes a Lodge is nothing more than it's members.


You have been taught well.


----------



## LK600

coachn said:


> Correct, except, they are Regular unto themselves; just not Male-craft Freemasonry in total.
> 
> Using the term, "Regular Freemasonry" to denote "Recognized Male-craft Freemasonry" in its various forms is incorrect, but all too often used and that adds to the god-awful miserable confusion.



Agreed, they absolutely are regular unto themselves.  No argument there.  As far as the term "Regular", I'm just using the vastly recognized nomenclature.  



coachn said:


> No. They are legitimate unto themselves. The same way Recognized male-craft is legitimate - _because Recognized male-craft Freemasonry say so._



Yes, but anything is legitimate unto themselves.  I could form a group tomorrow and call it the "one true freemasonry", and it would be legitimate unto itself.  



coachn said:


> Incorrect. The term, "Brother", is a title that has nothing to do with what lives and swings behind each apron. They are "Brothers", because that's what their organization uses as titles to denote its members.



Somewhat, but not entirely.  Again, in my fake organization, our title might be "Brother" or "King" etc, but that has no baring nor significance to Mainstream Freemasonry.  If you want to call me King... I won't stop you, but it is not protocol, nor out of obligation or even recognition.  



coachn said:


> You have been taught well.



Thank you, and I am very much still learning!


----------



## coachn

LK600 said:


> Agreed, they absolutely are regular unto themselves.  No argument there.  As far as the term "Regular", I'm just using the vastly recognized nomenclature.


Yep.  And in doing so, it adds to the usual god-awful fuzziness


LK600 said:


> Yes, but anything is legitimate unto themselves.  I could form a group tomorrow and call it the "one true freemasonry", and it would be legitimate unto itself.


Hence the comment 

When we use the word "legitimate", we add to the fuzziness and re-enforce it.  We are legitimate because we made up the rules for legitimacy within our Craft.  So did they.


LK600 said:


> Somewhat, but not entirely.  Again, in my fake organization, our title might be "Brother" or "King" etc, but that has no baring nor significance to Mainstream Freemasonry.  If you want to call me King... I won't stop you, but it is not protocol, nor out of obligation or even recognition.


Yes, but that is a straw man argument.  The fact is, they have an organization and the term "Brother" is a title used within that organization.  They are "Brothers" and they should be respectfully treated as such, regardless of our recognizing them.

This is no less respectful then calling a man "Father" who is a priest or a woman "Sister"  who is a nun within a religious organization of which you do not belong.  

We belong to a Freemasonic Order, and so do they! To not show respect and expect respect in return is a double standard to which we should not abide nor support.


LK600 said:


> Thank you, and I am very much still learning!


As are we all!


----------



## LK600

coachn said:


> We belong to a Freemasonic Order, and so do they! To not show respect and expect respect in return is a double standard to which we should not abide nor support.



Personally, I do not expect respect in return because I would see no reason for anyone outside of Mainstream / PHA Freemasonry to call me anything other than my name.   Women have no  option available to them (in reference to Mainstream Freeemasonry) so their formation of a separate Freemasonic organization(s) is valid (if they determine it to be so).  Anyone else, I'd gladly instruct them how to obtain an application in the jurisdiction they are.  

Having said all of this... by no means am I suggesting anyone leave whatever group they are in nor that they should care one bit whether I or anyone else recognizes them.   We should be respectful to all regardless of recognition, and whether your a "Brother" or not, you should be treated as a friend which in my world means more like family.  Regardless of who or what you are, how I act is a reflection of me... not the person I'm interacting with.


----------



## Todd M. Stewart

coachn said:


> As are we all!



And thus the purpose of our travels ‘From the West to the East’.


----------



## Warrior1256

coachn said:


> We belong to a Freemasonic Order, and so do they! To not show respect and expect respect in return is a double standard to which we should not abide nor support.


I certainly agree! I try to treat everyone with dignity and respect. It's just that any Masonic organization that allows women members is not "regular" Masonry according to the Masonic organization that I belong to and support. But that certainly doesn't mean that I would treat them in any sort of demeaning way.


----------



## Brother JC

LK600 said:


> They are legitimate the same way the Moose, Elks, VFW, etc are also legitimate.



This actually brings up a different question; why don’t we consider some of these animal fraternities to be clandestine to our cause? The Eagles used our lodge layout, our ritual, everything masonic to create their Aeries, but we don’t say a word. Some of us even join because they have cheap beer...


----------



## Glen Cook

Brother JC said:


> This actually brings up a different question; why don’t we consider some of these animal fraternities to be clandestine to our cause? The Eagles used our lodge layout, our ritual, everything masonic to create their Aeries, but we don’t say a word. Some of us even join because they have cheap beer...


 Because they don’t claim to make Masons.


----------



## David612

Masons®

I think some get too tied up in pointless politics


----------



## coachn

LK600 said:


> Personally, I do not expect respect in return because I would see no reason for anyone outside of Mainstream / PHA Freemasonry to call me anything other than my name.


Understood.  However, the statement was quite clear:  *To not show respect and expect respect in return* is a double standard to which we should not abide nor support. 

When you don't expect something, this would not apply.


LK600 said:


> Women have no  option available to them (in reference to Mainstream Freeemasonry) so their formation of a separate Freemasonic organization(s) is valid (if they determine it to be so).  Anyone else, I'd gladly instruct them how to obtain an application in the jurisdiction they are.


Yep!  And I'd gladly instruct anyone else in what to look for too, if within my ability and if available as an option.


LK600 said:


> Having said all of this... by no means am I suggesting anyone leave whatever group they are in nor that they should care one bit whether I or anyone else recognizes them.   We should be respectful to all regardless of recognition, and whether your a "Brother" or not, you should be treated as a friend which in my world means more like family.  Regardless of who or what you are, how I act is a reflection of me... not the person I'm interacting with.


Agreed!


----------



## LK600

Brother JC said:


> This actually brings up a different question; why don’t we consider some of these animal fraternities to be clandestine to our cause? The Eagles used our lodge layout, our ritual, everything masonic to create their Aeries, but we don’t say a word. Some of us even join because they have cheap beer...



My reply to this would be exactly what Brother Cook stated quoted below...



Glen Cook said:


> Because they don’t claim to make Masons.



This all day.


----------



## LK600

coachn said:


> Understood. However, the statement was quite clear: *To not show respect and expect respect in return* is a double standard to which we should not abide nor support.



I agree, and would suggest a Brother who does not recognize Irregular Masonic styled organization(s) *and yet* demands that they recognize him is quite confused.  The only recognition that should be expected is from within.


----------



## coachn

LK600 said:


> I agree, and would suggest a Brother who does not recognize Irregular Masonic styled organization(s) *and yet* demands that they recognize him is quite confused.  The only recognition that should be expected is from within.


AMEN!


----------



## Number4

Bloke said:


> Where else in Western Society other than Freemasonry would it be seen as completely normal and acceptable (and approved) that two grown heterosexual men can sit publicly holding each others hands ?



Among combat veterans mourning a fallen Brother in Arms.  It's no coincidence that many of the Craft are active or retired military - for my part Masonry is everything I like about my time in the army (without the 5 mile runs before breakfast!)


----------



## Warrior1256

Number4 said:


> or my part Masonry is everything I like about my time in the army (without the 5 mile runs before breakfast!)


Amen....lol!


----------



## Number4

"could it be that all lodges (whether UGLE recognizes them or not) consider themselves regular?"

That's like saying I consider my self a helicopter, but neither the FAA or the Air Force recognize me as such


----------



## coachn

Number4 said:


> "could it be that all lodges (whether UGLE recognizes them or not) consider themselves regular?"
> 
> That's like saying I consider my self a helicopter, but neither the FAA or the Air Force recognize me as such


As humorous as your comment is meant to be, it is fallacious.  Regularity is determined by the governing Grand Lodge.


----------



## Winter

JamestheJust said:


> Since a Freemason's lodge extends from E to W, N to S and from the center of the Earth to the Heavens, it is quite hard to exclude women.


By that logic, we should also admit rapists, murderers and pedophiles since they also fall within the boundaries you have listed. 

Transmitted via R5 astromech using Tapatalk Galactic


----------



## coachn

Just James said:
			
		

> Since a Freemason's lodge extends from E to W, N to S and from the center of the Earth to the Heavens, it is quite hard to exclude women.


Typical Logical Fallacy... changing the meaning of a word to suit your argument...  Metaphor and reality are two entirely different directions with entirely different foundations.


----------



## coachn

JustJames said:
			
		

> What then is the value in pointing out to the EA the extent of a Freemason's lodge?


To introduce them to metaphor...


----------



## Pointwithinacircle3

Perhaps one aspect of Freemasonry as practiced in the American Grand Lodge system is (or should be if done correctly)  to teach Mature Masculinity in a world where most people have forgotten what it looks like.  Just an idea.


----------



## Elexir

JamestheJust said:


> What then is the value in pointing out to the EA the extent of a Freemason's lodge?



"Metaphors just point the way
Towards untouchable ideas
Fixating on the finger
Missed the point, dull the point as well"

( https://g.co/kgs/FuwcTZ )

Sometimes words are like pictures and hold a deeper meaning then you will understand when you first hear it.


----------



## TheThumbPuppy

JamestheJust said:


> Since a Freemason's lodge extends from E to W, N to S and from the center of the Earth to the Heavens, it is quite hard to exclude women.



I thought women were from Venus


----------



## coachn

Pointwithinacircle3 said:


> Perhaps one aspect of Freemasonry as practiced in the American Grand Lodge system is (or should be if done correctly)  to teach Mature Masculinity in a world where most people have forgotten what it looks like.  Just an idea.


AMEN!


----------



## Warrior1256

Pointwithinacircle3 said:


> Perhaps one aspect of Freemasonry as practiced in the American Grand Lodge system is (or should be if done correctly) to teach Mature Masculinity in a world where most people have forgotten what it looks like. Just an idea.


Good one!


----------

