I've been watching closely an exchange if ideas in a Yahoo group I started some time back. For those not familiar with it, it is the Freemason Information Yahoo group.
The discussion recently has turned to the validity and ownership of the Fraternity itself. The position that "My Freemasonry is Freemasonry" seems to be a dominant theme.
Something interesting from this exchange is the different perceptions of the various disciplines. That each is uniquely Freemasonry, the individual being unique unto itself, and each being Freemasonry.
I don’t think there will ever be a one true discernment of what it truly is, as it is perceived differently by different groups. Even as you go through time, is the Freemasonry of today, charities and all, perceived by its membership in the same way it would have been 100 years ago, 200 years ago...? Is the Freemasonry of today, the Freemasonry it was then, truly?
Fundamentally, I think that it is OK to see if differently. But, it raises the specter of ownership. Who’s is better, which is how this may have become a my Masonry is not your Masonry discussion.
The fact remains that there are a variety of groups in existence that lay claim to some lineage to Freemasonry. Be it MWPHGL, the UGLE, or GoDF, the various state GL's in the U.S., or everything in between. With so many splinters from the same ashlar, each being different and unique, do they not come from the same of type of stone. Can they all be Freemasonry?
In their way, I would say yes. Do they differ in shape, texture, and size, yes. Is one better than the other? I can't make that call. Each appeals to a segment or group within society for what ever reason, and each contributes to the common stock. Why not share not learn from one another?
From the inside looking out perspective, I don’t see the need for fundamental acceptance of all nascent groups, otherwise, anyone could start their own splinter group and demand to be recognized. But, if a group has worked and proven its shape, then I see no reason to not at least entertain the notion of recognition to some degree. Be it to acknowledge the existence of, open lines of communication with, and perhaps even allow open individual visitation. I think that the prohibition of this is a fulcrum to leverage a position of dominance in the field. Its consequence however is a wholesale disregard for other splinters of the same stone.
Can we deny the fact that there exists something else that lays claim to the heritage that we hold so dear?
This is merely my opinion as a a Mason in the “regular” system knowing that other traditions exist under the same canopy of heaven.
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
My Freemasonry is Freemasonry.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Masonic Traveler, great saying: "With so many splinters from the same ashlar......"
That simple statements says so much!
Splinters from the same Ashlar!
And splinters from a splinter still come from the original ashlar!
I gues what some would hold open to debate would be: "What is the "original" Ashlar?"
Tenets?
Landmarks?
Charters?
A great topic to ponder along with the relation of all these "Splinters".
As a mason we are to subdue our passions and improve our selves in masonry and circumbscribe our desire's.... claiming "my" infront of masonry is being possessive and selfish. Is it a healthy motive for a mason to concentrate on this divisive, harmful ideal?
Thank you Brother for this post and a great masonic quote I know I will share with my Lodge and the symbolic meaning behind it!
Keep spreading the Light!
Frankly, the easy way to figure out what is Freemasonry is to see who the UGLE says is Freemasonry. If one looks into the splinter example, if the splinter is only a gossamer's thread thin, then it loses its resemblance to Masonry. Do I believe that a woman should be made a Mason? No. Do I believe an atheist should be made a Mason? No. If we say that the splinter is similar, then it is possible to recognize the original shape and feel of the stone. If it is a chip or even powdered, the essence is there but the reasons are lost. A cathedral can be built, but if it is demolished, the essence of the building may exist, but the reason is gone.
Nick
True, there is a standard from our early British origins. However, many US jurisdictions currently enjoy Masonic intercourse with other jurisdictions not recognized by the UGLE. Take the Grand Orient of Italy for example: it is recognized by most US jurisdictions but not by UGLE.
So, while I will, on a base level, tend to agree, we should have a better knowledge of this complex system of recognition and not only look to the UGLE as the sole arbiter since, in the so-called "mainstream" Masonry, the spectrum differs from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.
In short, it's not as easy as you say. Nevertheless, accepting anything that claims to be Freemasonry is foolhardy and much study and dialog is to be established before formal dialog is to begin. Think of how nations apply for diplomatic recognition, or how unions recognize others outside of their immediate jurisdictions though they may be of the same trade.
Is this a call for syncretism and abject acceptance of anything that has a trowel, sword, apron and "mystic" ceremonies that calls itself Masonic? Certainly not.
It is a call for examination, research and a movement away from the recent heated sorry excuse for debate where one's statement of power is wrongly and ignorantly compared with an educated opinion.
Fr. Rubelo
Thank you for that response Nick.
I am glad that nothing of masonic value existed before UGLE came along to put their foot down.
so many great masons existed long before a UGLE was ever heard of. Good thing we want to throw that history away and start in 1813 with what masonry really is.
Thank you for the clarity.
Who were those french men who helped us in 1776? Masons?
who did Ben Franklin sit wth in those Lodges in France?
Pre UGLE
UGLE is splinter itslef Nick, not the Ashlar of origin........?
Why should the splinter called UGLE be the end all and be all of masonry?
Post a Comment