Originally posted by Centiment
Would anyone here really prefer been called "stupid" rather than "bitch" ?
Either way you are insulting for the swake of insulting, so it's the same thing.
They are already existing mixed-lodges, as someone just told me elsewhere.
They aren't official, or recognized.
There is an authority that decides this.
If all jurisdictions vote, there's an authority that decide what matters are to be voted for.
All jurisdictions vote on matters that affect that particular jurisdiction. For example, the Grand Lodge of Texas would not vote on Grand Lodge of
Arizona issues, and so on. The "authority" that decides what gets voted on is, again, the membership, by way of motions and seconds, if I understand
>>>>There is no governing body for the whole of Freemasonry.
Than why are mixed-lodges non-officialized ?
Who officializes a lodge ????
In order for a lodge to be recognized, it must have a charter from the Grand Lodge for the jurisdiction in which it is Working.
>>>to represent them at Grand Lodge.
Ok...thanks for finally answering the "right" way.
I answer honestly, to the best of my ability. If that is the wrong way, well then OK. Whatever. It seems to me when you don't like an answer, then
that is the "wrong" way.
>>>antagonize, poke fun, and insult a Fraternity which it is obvious you >>>know little about.
I've read lots. They are things that make sense and some that don't.
I criticize the lack of self-criticism in masonry.
There is plenty of self-criticism in Masonry. Just check out the Masonic discussion forums and see for yourself.
Just because there might not be the same criticisms you are making doesn't mean there aren't any. Frankly, the criticisms you make are rather
Some masons believe that masonry is fraternity.
That is the first idea that get to them.
Some others think of masonry as the esoteric knowledge
they get from it. That is the first idea that get to them.
Some believe that one and the other are inseparable.
That masonry knowledge (what you are finally able
to understand once you got rid of the symbols,
when you are able to signify their meanings) is
loosing all meaning once it is outside the masonry.
I'm not quite sure what you are getting at... It has been maintained that Masonry is different things to different people. No one has denied this.
You get out of Masonry what you put into Masonry. Get it?
I think a "buddhist" can be "buddhist"
without being a "buddhist".
If you can decipher what I mean:
take the philosophy and knowledge but reject
the dogmas related to iconography, traditions,
nouns, laws, and history.
I also believe that a "mason" can be "mason"
without being a "mason".
I would have to agree with this assertion.
That is why I believe in a school
that kills the...I repeat...iconography (symbols),
traditions, nouns, laws, and history.
And still respect the knowledge
and its application.
It's about tradition, I think. The Mysteries have ALWAYS been conveyed and taught using symbols. Furthermore, anyone inclined to look can find the
Truth on their own, without the help of Fraternal Orders or symbolism.
>>>> the materials you (*ahem* illegally) obtained...
Illegally ? Where are you coming with that ?
Not really. The esoteric library was
I mean that you are not initiated, and as far as the Order itself is concerned, you "illegaly" obtained the materials you have... i.e. you did not
acquire them in the traditional way, by initiation.
>>>> more respect for institutions such as Masonry
I would already prefer if masons worked by invitation only.
Why? Why do you care?
Masons become masons not knowing what is up.
. Going into something without knowing what you are getting yourself into isn't smart.
Rosis know what they are getting into.
How? In this regard, I think all Fraternal Orders are the same. You can learn enough from the outside to know what you are getting in to, but that's
it. The knowledge and rituals of the orders are reserved for Initiates.
I sound like I despise masonry, but in fact I like
the best stuff about it, that means, what is left once
you get rid of secrets, oaths, and the dubious
social insurgence of fraternity.
Then you like Knowledge. Nothing wrong with that, but why must you denigrate the way others choose to work with that Knowledge?
Accepting everything as facts is not
trusting people's power to change things.
Not sure what you mean here... Could you please clarify?