Free Masons

reply to post by Masonic Light


I'd say that such innovation and evidence of divergence is eminently healthy, as compared to the current fixed and backward looking state of modern, so-called regular Freemasonry.

Why not admit atheists or agnostics? In this scientific age is it really too much to even contemplate a universe without a "supreme being" according to ideas from archaic ancient texts?

UGLE, and all constitutions that are in amity with it, are an anachronism in so many ways, a politically conservative dinosaur that won't admit women.
UGLE recognises no form of womens' Freemasonry officially, at best it's "at arm's length" bare acknowledgement to certain female Masonic bodies is a sop. This gray space that the issue of women's masonry exists vis-à-vis "regular" Freemasonry should be unacceptable in the modern era.

Originally posted by Extant Taxon
I'd say that such innovation and evidence of divergence is eminently healthy, as compared to the current fixed and backward looking state of modern, so-called regular Freemasonry.

In what manner is orthodox Freemasonry "backward looking"?

Why not admit atheists or agnostics?

Because to do so would show a complete lack of understanding of what Freemasonry actually is. This lack of understanding was demonstrated by the leadership of the Grand Orient of France, and is expressly the reason that those in the Grand Orient who did understand, left. It should be remembered that the Grand Orient changed its policy in this regard because they mistakenly believed that if they dropped religious connotations, the Roman Catholic Church would end its criticism of them as being a religion, and lift the ban on Freemasonry. They were, of course, wrong about the response of the Catholic Church, and wrong about other things as well.

The reason that Freemasonry does not admit atheists or agnostics is because Freemasonry is based upon theism, Hermetica, Kabalism, and ultimately, theurgy. Attempting to make a Mason of a man without belief in Deity is therefore analogous to attempting to make a pizza without cheese, dough, and pepperoni.

In this scientific age is it really too much to even contemplate a universe without a "supreme being" according to ideas from archaic ancient texts?

It is not, and I assume that most thoughtful people, which includes myself, have at times had such questions, and contemplated such a universe. In so doing, I have found it severely lacking in insight. Such a universe, for example, would have no moral absolutes, as morality would be only what is agreed upon by the majority. However, we instinctively know that this is not the case.

UGLE, and all constitutions that are in amity with it, are an anachronism in so many ways, a politically conservative dinosaur that won't admit women.

Again, no fraternities admit women, and no sororities admit men. In Freemasonry, there is also an esoteric reason that only men are admitted, namely, that Freemasonry is Osirian, not Isisian.

UGLE recognises no form of womens' Freemasonry officially, at best it's "at arm's length" bare acknowledgement to certain female Masonic bodies is a sop. This gray space that the issue of women's masonry exists vis-à-vis "regular" Freemasonry should be unacceptable in the modern era.

I am not under the obediance of the UGLE, and do not speak for their policies. However, I see no reason why women, if they want, cannot form their own societies to celebrate the mysteries. They do not need Freemasonry's help to do this. In fact, in some instances, they have already done this (Dianic Wicca, for example).

reply to post by Rockpuck


The Mason's responses have been very good so far.

In Florida one must believe in "One, Ever-living God." In my opinion that rules out Polytheists, but I can't think of any polytheist ever attempting to join?

Atheists are strictly and specifically forbidden. As others have said, Satanism has different flavors, and I think some flavors of satanism are very similar to Chrisitianity and only a matter of semantics, so those would probably be allowed to join, but not the atheist branches of satanism. We have many Jewish members, and there is one in my Lodge.

In general, Masonry is a product of its geography. There are many Mason lodges in Israel, and they are primarily Jewish. Here in the South we are primarily Christian/Baptist. I would suspect that wherever you find a Masonic Lodge you will find many members of the dominant religion in that area.

My personal belief is that all "moderates" are in fact "Deists" and Masonic system is perfect for a Deistic belief system. The underlying morals and ethics of religion pervade all the different religions and Masons rely on those universal aspects or "truths."

ETA:
Shrine Temples do not only use the Holy Bible as its "furniture," but also openly display the Quran and the Epic of Gilgamesh. I think that is a glaring example of our openness to all religions and our dedication to the underlying principles and morals that are more important than any singular religion.

Originally posted by Masonic Light

Originally posted by Extant Taxon
I'd say that such innovation and evidence of divergence is eminently healthy, as compared to the current fixed and backward looking state of modern, so-called regular Freemasonry.

In what manner is orthodox Freemasonry "backward looking"?

As mentioned previously, a politically conservative outlook typified by there being no concession to admit women and the religious absolutism that members have to believe in a supreme being - strange, as Freemasonry resolutely denies being a religion, and if they're not a religion (from "religare," to bind fast, in this case to the worship of a "supreme being," albeit any such entity) why hold to it?
Modern Freemasonry of the orthodox persuasion appears to be in a state of systemic entropy. It seems to be going nowhere fast. Whether continental Freemasonry such as the GOdF will go anywhere with such bold moves as political activism (harkening back to the more revolutionary, dynamic state of play in Freemasonry's history), the discarding of the demand of blind faith in a supreme being, and more ready admittance of women to the fold is open to question and remains to be seen.

But at least they are trying to move somewhere.

Originally posted by Masonic Light

Originally posted by Extant Taxon
Why not admit atheists or agnostics?

Because to do so would show a complete lack of understanding of what Freemasonry actually is. This lack of understanding was demonstrated by the leadership of the Grand Orient of France, and is expressly the reason that those in the Grand Orient who did understand, left. It should be remembered that the Grand Orient changed its policy in this regard because they mistakenly believed that if they dropped religious connotations, the Roman Catholic Church would end its criticism of them as being a religion, and lift the ban on Freemasonry. They were, of course, wrong about the response of the Catholic Church, and wrong about other things as well.

The reason that Freemasonry does not admit atheists or agnostics is because Freemasonry is based upon theism, Hermetica, Kabalism, and ultimately, theurgy. Attempting to make a Mason of a man without belief in Deity is therefore analogous to attempting to make a pizza without cheese, dough, and pepperoni.

Orthodox Freemasonry hardly seems to acknowledge such a basis for their philosophical and moral systems today though, do they? It used to be front and center not so long ago, the mystic aspect and all that. Now the conservatives rule the roost and and the institution is about as hermetic as a Tory Party Conference in Birmingham.
Freemasonry has ably demonstrated throughout its recent history the predisposition toward the very stereotype it is known for: cronyism, "nudge, nudge, wink, wink," I scratch your back, you scratch mine, and the maintenance of connections for purely mundane purposes amongst The Brotherhood.

Originally posted by Masonic Light

Originally posted by Extant Taxon
In this scientific age is it really too much to even contemplate a universe without a "supreme being" according to ideas from archaic ancient texts?

It is not, and I assume that most thoughtful people, which includes myself, have at times had such questions, and contemplated such a universe. In so doing, I have found it severely lacking in insight. Such a universe, for example, would have no moral absolutes, as morality would be only what is agreed upon by the majority. However, we instinctively know that this is not the case.

Most unfortunately reality does not conform to human instinct and has been shown to be resolutely counter-intuitive, in that the model of the world we produce is flawed and partial. We barely know the world outside of our skins, and even the world inside is a mystery.
The notion of there being moral absolutes emanating from a some universal metaphysical source is rather quaint and presumptuous. We, the human race, have absolutely no idea what is going on in the universe and perhaps one of the only true methods of open inquiry tending towards actual results, the scientific, is barely scratching the surface as to what is out there in the cosmos.
To resolutely refer to moral absolutism is to not be cognizant of human history. Societal mores and codes of conduct have always been relative to individual cultures, and this is still true today.
To apportion such a fallacy to the greatest part of reality we nothing of is ludicrous.

Reference to morality by majority rule is the very definition of religion, notions of "God," and the societies we live in. We don't live in "reality." We operate under the illusion called the consensus, by and large.

Notions of "God" and causally attributed moral absolutes usually come from an individual's, or a collective's, need for existential anchoring in the face of horrors we barely comprehend.

Originally posted by Masonic Light

Originally posted by Extant Taxon
UGLE, and all constitutions that are in amity with it, are an anachronism in so many ways, a politically conservative dinosaur that won't admit women.

Again, no fraternities admit women, and no sororities admit men. In Freemasonry, there is also an esoteric reason that only men are admitted, namely, that Freemasonry is Osirian, not Isisian.

The mention of sororities is a bit of a red herring here. Even if UGLE won't admit women directly, and wishes to maintain the gender division, at least official recognition of attendant female masonic bodies would be a judicial move, and evidence of progression, with a view to the future.
The longer that UGLE and all Freemasonic bodies in amity with it cultivate the current state of affairs as regards the exclusion/non-recognition of women the more it mires itself as the anachronism I mentioned earlier.
It's no good falling back on esoteric fancies as the basis for exclusion and non-recognition of women, this is flim-flam. Orthodox Freemasonry is today as about as esoteric as the The City of London's financial district; and the commonalities in materialist outlook and organisation with the latter don't end there either.

Originally posted by Masonic Light

Originally posted by Extant Taxon
UGLE recognises no form of womens' Freemasonry officially, at best it's "at arm's length" bare acknowledgement to certain female Masonic bodies is a sop. This gray space that the issue of women's masonry exists vis-à-vis "regular" Freemasonry should be unacceptable in the modern era.

I am not under the obediance of the UGLE, and do not speak for their policies. However, I see no reason why women, if they want, cannot form their own societies to celebrate the mysteries. They do not need Freemasonry's help to do this. In fact, in some instances, they have already done this (Dianic Wicca, for example).

They do, yes. Still, the main body of the organisation worldwide, UGLE, is a phallocentric beast. It harks back to a time when women were still basically chattel goods, second-class citizens, behoven to the dominant male. This is the backward paradigm the modern system of orthodox Freemasonry seeks to shield from the realities of what is the now.
It really wouldn't hurt for orthodox Freemasonry, UGLE in particular, to say, "Look, there should be an officially recognised form of women's masonry, but there are orders for women and orders for men. This is how it shall be ordered."
As the male form of Freemasonry is the original, the paternal form, acknowledgement would be akin to a good father's blessing to a daughter to make their way in life. Not that such a thing need be done as regards female organizations of the self-determined variety, but the very gesture would go a long way in terms of public relations alone.

By the way, and for the record, this is not just some run of the mill reactionary attack on Freemasonry. These are questions and points relating to my reading on the subject that have been on my mind for some time now. I find the history of masonry fascinating, and I enjoy reading on the topic, but there are things that don't square away with the type of answers that Freemasons give on this subject.


.

Originally posted by Extant Taxon

As mentioned previously, a politically conservative outlook typified by there being no concession to admit women and the religious absolutism that members have to believe in a supreme being - strange, as Freemasonry resolutely denies being a religion, and if they're not a religion (from "religare," to bind fast, in this case to the worship of a "supreme being," albeit any such entity) why hold to it?

I explained the religious requirement in my previous post. Since Freemasonry is apolitical, I do not know how it could be classed as "politically conservative" without some strenuous logical jousting. As for women being admitted, once again, fraternities admit men only, sororities admit women only.

Modern Freemasonry of the orthodox persuasion appears to be in a state of systemic entropy. It seems to be going nowhere fast.

It seems to me to be where it's always been, and where it always will be.

Whether continental Freemasonry such as the GOdF will go anywhere with such bold moves as political activism (harkening back to the more revolutionary, dynamic state of play in Freemasonry's history), the discarding of the demand of blind faith in a supreme being, and more ready admittance of women to the fold is open to question and remains to be seen.

Freemasonry does not require "blind faith". A man must have developed his faith before he comes to our doors. As to the pseudo-Masonry of the GOF, what they do or do not is their business, and I have little interest in it.

Orthodox Freemasonry hardly seems to acknowledge such a basis for their philosophical and moral systems today though, do they?

I would say yes, since the reading materials and monitors usually make this pretty clear, not to mention the ritual, especially in the higher degrees.

Freemasonry has ably demonstrated throughout its recent history the predisposition toward the very stereotype it is known for: cronyism, "nudge, nudge, wink, wink," I scratch your back, you scratch mine, and the maintenance of connections for purely mundane purposes amongst The Brotherhood.

This seems to be the opinion of many anti-Masons. Ironically, people who actually are Masons are practically universal in their testimony that such thing is fictitious.

Most unfortunately reality does not conform to human instinct and has been shown to be resolutely counter-intuitive, in that the model of the world we produce is flawed and partial. We barely know the world outside of our skins, and even the world inside is a mystery.
The notion of there being moral absolutes emanating from a some universal metaphysical source is rather quaint and presumptuous. We, the human race, have absolutely no idea what is going on in the universe and perhaps one of the only true methods of open inquiry tending towards actual results, the scientific, is barely scratching the surface as to what is out there in the cosmos.

I am in full and complete disagreement that man lacks the ability to acquire true knowledge of himself, the universe, and the Deity. Again, that is precisely what Hermetica and Magism is about.

It really wouldn't hurt for orthodox Freemasonry, UGLE in particular, to say, "Look, there should be an officially recognised form of women's masonry, but there are orders for women and orders for men. This is how it shall be ordered."

Why?

As the male form of Freemasonry is the original, the paternal form, acknowledgement would be akin to a good father's blessing to a daughter to make their way in life. Not that such a thing need be done as regards female organizations of the self-determined variety, but the very gesture would go a long way in terms of public relations alone.

Is it not rather patronizing to assume that a group of women should have the blessing of Freemasonry in order to organize their own society?

Originally posted by Masonic Light

Originally posted by Extant Taxon

As mentioned previously, a politically conservative outlook typified by there being no concession to admit women and the religious absolutism that members have to believe in a supreme being - strange, as Freemasonry resolutely denies being a religion, and if they're not a religion (from "religare," to bind fast, in this case to the worship of a "supreme being," albeit any such entity) why hold to it?

I explained the religious requirement in my previous post. Since Freemasonry is apolitical, I do not know how it could be classed as "politically conservative" without some strenuous logical jousting. As for women being admitted, once again, fraternities admit men only, sororities admit women only.

There's all kinds of politics. But I concede that I should have defined my terms previously.
The view of politics I take is ever so slightly more expansive than the one you refer to. I simply take the ancient Greek view of the term, the polis, referring to any body of people acting in community. In this case my view of modern orthodox Freemasonry is that it is socioculturally conservative, by and large, perhaps even regressive. I didn't refer to politics of the left/right theatrical kind, i.e. Labour/Conservative.
Orthodox Freemasonry helped build the greater part of society we know today in the West, their ideas and institutions - you know, that paragon of original scientific enquiry, the Royal Society, the many philosophies and empirical investigations that bore fruit and helped shape the world we know, all those revolutionary ideals - are now typified by internal political conservatism, mirrored externally in the society they helped create.
As an example, orthodox Freemasonry is as politically conservative as the Catholic Church, with some degree of high irony.

As for fraternities only admitting women, well, the GOdF has no problem there do they? Oh, wait; they're "irregular" and an example of "pseudo-Masonry" eh? There's more of that political conservatism for you and the old "kettle-pot-black"...

Originally posted by Masonic Light

Originally posted by Extant Taxon
Modern Freemasonry of the orthodox persuasion appears to be in a state of systemic entropy. It seems to be going nowhere fast.

It seems to me to be where it's always been, and where it always will be.

Conservatism defined.

Originally posted by Masonic Light

Originally posted by Extant Taxon
activism (harkening back to the more revolutionary, dynamic state of play in Freemasonry's history), the discarding of the demand of blind faith in a supreme being, and more ready admittance of women to the fold is open to question and remains to be seen.

Freemasonry does not require "blind faith". A man must have developed his faith before he comes to our doors. As to the pseudo-Masonry of the GOF, what they do or do not is their business, and I have little interest in it.

I'll give orthodox Freemasonry this, they are inclusive in terms of faith, irenic even. But faith of some kind is required before you enter the organization, it requires belief, the blind faith I referred to, as a prerequisite.
As for not caring about the "pseudo-Masonry of the GOF," well, you cared enough on the subject to keep condemn them as such and disparage any question of legitimacy as an order they may pose.

Originally posted by Masonic Light

Originally posted by Extant Taxon
Orthodox Freemasonry hardly seems to acknowledge such a basis for their philosophical and moral systems today though, do they?

I would say yes, since the reading materials and monitors usually make this pretty clear, not to mention the ritual, especially in the higher degrees.

My point is that the public face of the order today, especially in terms of public relations and to attract new members, has largely shied away from the more mystical, hermetic, and kabbalistic applications you mention. It's there in the history, sure, but now the organisation appears steadfastly materialist in reality; the metaphysical symbolism and philosophy almost seems like window dressing today.
I could be wrong then in one respect, maybe orthodox Freemasonry is moving somewhere (UGLE especially), moving away from what may be interpreted as irrational modes of thinking to what are viewed as rational - where all the iconography is merely metaphorical.
Then in that case the requirement for belief in a supreme being could merely be a token, emblematic of the need to believe in archaic notions like moral absolutes.
The Freemasons, on the whole, always struck me as a kind of "cult of rationalism" anyway, fitting for a group that helped advance the scientifc method so. Perhaps they should make some use of this faculty today.

Originally posted by Masonic Light

Originally posted by Extant Taxon
Freemasonry has ably demonstrated throughout its recent history the predisposition toward the very stereotype it is known for: cronyism, "nudge, nudge, wink, wink," I scratch your back, you scratch mine, and the maintenance of connections for purely mundane purposes amongst The Brotherhood.

This seems to be the opinion of many anti-Masons. Ironically, people who actually are Masons are practically universal in their testimony that such thing is fictitious.

Anti-Mason? Hardly. Only noting here certain propensities within the organization. I admire much of Freemasonry, am only noting certain niggly aspects to it, within certain stagnant quarters.
And it is very much not the case that such a view is "fictitious." It has been noted by many people I know, as well as from personal experience, how the network of Masonic Lodges in my area do indeed keep such things "among themselves," actively maintaining business connections only for other "brothers." Even chasing other non-mason start-up businesses out of town. The story keep repeating because of some germ of truth in it, however much it gets massively overblown by true evangelical anti-Masons.

Sad, but true.

Originally posted by Masonic Light

Originally posted by Extant Taxon
Most unfortunately reality does not conform to human instinct and has been shown to be resolutely counter-intuitive, in that the model of the world we produce is flawed and partial. We barely know the world outside of our skins, and even the world inside is a mystery.
The notion of there being moral absolutes emanating from a some universal metaphysical source is rather quaint and presumptuous. We, the human race, have absolutely no idea what is going on in the universe and perhaps one of the only true methods of open inquiry tending towards actual results, the scientific, is barely scratching the surface as to what is out there in the cosmos.

I am in full and complete disagreement that man lacks the ability to acquire true knowledge of himself, the universe, and the Deity. Again, that is precisely what Hermetica and Magism is about.

I never said that man (and woman, by any chance?) lacks the native ability to acquire deep knowledge of the cosmos. Just that we don't have it right now and that current methodologies have shown us just how wrong our intuitions can be. Therefore past knowledge gained that way is largely suspect, and has been consistently disproved by such processes we have today.
That central pillar to the current paradigm of today's culture pioneered by the early Freemasons, the scientific method, seems a better bet to gain such knowledge. But this very application shows how much we don't know right now, has obliterated the naive idea of moral absolutes, and is in a very nascent stage of development. I'd put more store in it than the scribblings of ancient man (most usually a man as well, devoid of the woman's perspective coincidentally) on their misconceptions of a great invisible father figure in the sky.

Originally posted by Masonic Light

Originally posted by Extant Taxon
It really wouldn't hurt for orthodox Freemasonry, UGLE in particular, to say, "Look, there should be an officially recognised form of women's masonry, but there are orders for women and orders for men. This is how it shall be ordered."

Why?

A nod to equal opportunities, a concession from the source that would do more for the image of UGLE and associated orthodox institutions than it would for female orders themselves. You know, it wouldn't bloody hurt.
Other than male pride, that is.

Originally posted by Masonic Light

Originally posted by Extant Taxon
As the male form of Freemasonry is the original, the paternal form, acknowledgement would be akin to a good father's blessing to a daughter to make their way in life. Not that such a thing need be done as regards female organizations of the self-determined variety, but the very gesture would go a long way in terms of public relations alone.

Is it not rather patronizing to assume that a group of women should have the blessing of Freemasonry in order to organize their own society?

It's more patronizing to do the kind of dance around the subject that UGLE and the institutions in amity with it currently perform, consigning an entire sex to a state of recognitional/non-recognitional limbo thats neither here nor there.

And I see no complaints from female members of Co-Freemasonry and women that are being initiated to the GOdF at the moment.


.

It really wouldn't hurt for orthodox Freemasonry, UGLE in particular, to say, "Look, there should be an officially recognised form of women's masonry, but there are orders for women and orders for men. This is how it shall be ordered."

You mean something like...

"There exist in England and Wales at least two Grand Lodges solely for women. Except that these bodies admit women, they are, so far as can be ascertained, otherwise regular in their practice. There is also one which admits both men and women to membership. They are not recognised by this Grand Lodge and intervisitaion may not take place. There are, however, informal discussions from time to time with the women's Grand Lodges on matters of mutual concern. Brethren are therefore free to explain to non-Masons, if asked, that Freemasonry is not confined to men (even though this Grand Lodge does not itself admit women).

Source

Mod Note : Don't forgot to add a source link for material quoted in external text .

...?

reply to post by OnTheLevel213


The bodies you refer to are regular in practice yet not formally recognised by UGLE due their inclusion of women. In other words, their practice of Freemasonry would be absolutely regular if only they didn't include that bothersome female gender.
This is that rather bizarre patronizing limbo state I referred to earlier when discussing UGLE's attitude towards women's Freemasonry.

Originally posted by Extant Taxon

As for fraternities only admitting women, well, the GOdF has no problem there do they? Oh, wait; they're "irregular" and an example of "pseudo-Masonry" eh? There's more of that political conservatism for you and the old "kettle-pot-black"...

The GOdF has long since ceased to practice Freemasonry. It has nothing to do with political conservatism.
.

I'll give orthodox Freemasonry this, they are inclusive in terms of faith, irenic even. But faith of some kind is required before you enter the organization, it requires belief, the blind faith I referred to, as a prerequisite.

You seem to confuse faith with "blind faith", which of course, are two completely different things (and are often opposed).

As for not caring about the "pseudo-Masonry of the GOF," well, you cared enough on the subject to keep condemn them as such and disparage any question of legitimacy as an order they may pose.

I do not condemn the GOdF. I simply state the fact that they, for whatever they are, they are not "Masonic" in the correct definition of the term. I have nothing personal against the organization or its members.

My point is that the public face of the order today, especially in terms of public relations and to attract new members, has largely shied away from the more mystical, hermetic, and kabbalistic applications you mention. It's there in the history, sure, but now the organisation appears steadfastly materialist in reality; the metaphysical symbolism and philosophy almost seems like window dressing today.

I agree with you on this, to a certain extent. Of course, there are also plenty of Masons who, although less vocal, certainly do understand the nature of the institution.

I could be wrong then in one respect, maybe orthodox Freemasonry is moving somewhere (UGLE especially), moving away from what may be interpreted as irrational modes of thinking to what are viewed as rational - where all the iconography is merely metaphorical.
Then in that case the requirement for belief in a supreme being could merely be a token, emblematic of the need to believe in archaic notions like moral absolutes.

Moral absolutes and the Infinite are not irrational. It was not for nothing that the Wise King Solomon pointed out that "the fool hath said in his heart there is no God." The idea of moral absolutes is certainly nothing "archaic": from Plato to Kant, the great minds of the human race have agreed upon the existence of not only moral absolutes, but of a Divine Governor. The fact that scoffers exist changes nothing.

I never said that man (and woman, by any chance?) lacks the native ability to acquire deep knowledge of the cosmos. Just that we don't have it right now and that current methodologies have shown us just how wrong our intuitions can be. Therefore past knowledge gained that way is largely suspect, and has been consistently disproved by such processes we have today.

I would agree that this is the case with "profane knowledge". However, the knowledge of the ancient sages and initiates is consistently affirmed. Consider the Corpus Hermeticum, or the Chaldean Oracles of Zoroaster ("God is he with the head of a hawk, having a spiral nature").

And I see no complaints from female members of Co-Freemasonry and women that are being initiated to the GOdF at the moment.

The GOdF have abandoned the Mysteries. So what exactly are its candidates "initiated" into?

Secular humanism. And while anyone has the right to be a secular humanist if they so desire, it has nothing to do with initiation into the mysteries or ancient Masonry.

Originally posted by Masonic Light

Originally posted by Extant Taxon
I'll give orthodox Freemasonry this, they are inclusive in terms of faith, irenic even. But faith of some kind is required before you enter the organization, it requires belief, the blind faith I referred to, as a prerequisite.

You seem to confuse faith with "blind faith", which of course, are two completely different things (and are often opposed).

Faith is by nature blind. Belief in an entity only "evidenced" by myraid conflicting ancient texts on the nature of this alleged divinity, which always seem to have been the amalgam projections of the faithful in question.

Originally posted by Masonic Light

Originally posted by Extant Taxon
As for not caring about the "pseudo-Masonry of the GOF," well, you cared enough on the subject to keep condemn them as such and disparage any question of legitimacy as an order they may pose.

I do not condemn the GOdF. I simply state the fact that they, for whatever they are, they are not "Masonic" in the correct definition of the term. I have nothing personal against the organization or its members.

You are entitled to your views on this, of course.

Originally posted by Masonic Light

Originally posted by Extant Taxon
My point is that the public face of the order today, especially in terms of public relations and to attract new members, has largely shied away from the more mystical, hermetic, and kabbalistic applications you mention. It's there in the history, sure, but now the organisation appears steadfastly materialist in reality; the metaphysical symbolism and philosophy almost seems like window dressing today.

I agree with you on this, to a certain extent. Of course, there are also plenty of Masons who, although less vocal, certainly do understand the nature of the institution.

As with just about every idea born of the minds of men, and women, there are opposing views. Orthodox Freemasonry has about as much right to say what is regular or not, in the final analysis, as the Catholic Church has to say on Christianity. I find the traditional Gnostic, mysteries-based aspect of Freemasonry fascinating, but perhaps even more fascinating is the move into the mysteries (the unknown) beyond the mystical roots of the institution that other groups, designated "irregular" (very much like heresy is to the Catholic Church, no?), aspire to. It's the true great unknown they are striving for, perhaps?

Originally posted by Masonic Light

Originally posted by Extant Taxon
I could be wrong then in one respect, maybe orthodox Freemasonry is moving somewhere (UGLE especially), moving away from what may be interpreted as irrational modes of thinking to what are viewed as rational - where all the iconography is merely metaphorical.
Then in that case the requirement for belief in a supreme being could merely be a token, emblematic of the need to believe in archaic notions like moral absolutes.

Moral absolutes and the Infinite are not irrational. It was not for nothing that the Wise King Solomon pointed out that "the fool hath said in his heart there is no God." The idea of moral absolutes is certainly nothing "archaic": from Plato to Kant, the great minds of the human race have agreed upon the existence of not only moral absolutes, but of a Divine Governor. The fact that scoffers exist changes nothing.

Belief in moral absolutes is a retrograde notion. Morals are arbitrary conventions according to individual cultures, shaped by the environment and its stresses. What is a moral absolute to bacterium? To a virus? To quantum entanglement? To a shark preying on a whale calf? Moral absolutes are further evidence of the anthropocentric hubris typified by ancient sacred texts where today empirically acquired data places humanity as just an insignificant blip in the cosmos, not the central anchor point of some hermetic microcosmic/macrocosmic relationship.
As for great minds such as Plato, his idea of moral absolutes differed greatly from today. Ancient Greek culture openly condoned pederasty as a social good, a rigid caste system, slavery, the female as chattel goods, etc. Why trust his intuition on the idealist plane, which only served to further the authority of the elite he wished to create, the philosopher-kings who he designated as the only beings morally justified to perceive the unseen qualities of divinity?
Kant's transcendental argument is proof of nothing in itself, other than that humans are most inventive in the attempt to confirm their beliefs.

But you shouldn't misunderstand me, I don't outright deny that powers beyond our comprehension exist in the cosmos, and beyond that plane as well; it's entirely possible. I just don't think a "sacred text" exists that correctly identifies or categorises such a thing. What's that oft-repeated quote? "Not only is the universe stranger than we imagine, it is stranger than we can possibly imagine!"

Originally posted by Masonic Light

Originally posted by Extant Taxon
I never said that man (and woman, by any chance?) lacks the native ability to acquire deep knowledge of the cosmos. Just that we don't have it right now and that current methodologies have shown us just how wrong our intuitions can be. Therefore past knowledge gained that way is largely suspect, and has been consistently disproved by such processes we have today.

I would agree that this is the case with "profane knowledge". However, the knowledge of the ancient sages and initiates is consistently affirmed. Consider the Corpus Hermeticum, or the Chaldean Oracles of Zoroaster ("God is he with the head of a hawk, having a spiral nature").

There is much metaphorical beauty and some truths in many sacred texts. Also much error. The simple idea of man being the fulcrum of the cosmos via the claimed microcosmic/macrocosmic relationship is a major one. We are small things who shall not become as gods, but hopefully one day attain the true understanding of our place in the universe, if we even survive into the next century that is.

Originally posted by Masonic Light

Originally posted by Extant Taxon
And I see no complaints from female members of Co-Freemasonry and women that are being initiated to the GOdF at the moment.

The GOdF have abandoned the Mysteries. So what exactly are its candidates "initiated" into?

Secular humanism. And while anyone has the right to be a secular humanist if they so desire, it has nothing to do with initiation into the mysteries or ancient Masonry.

Such "secular humanism" as evidenced by the GOdF, in this example, and other like organizations may be the first point of entry into true mystery, the abandoning of varnished illusion, a move toward inclusive striving between sexes, the disavowment of sectarianism, and other honest human endeavours. The GOdF is merely a very primitive and small example of the bigger picture then.


.

reply to post by Extant Taxon


I'm not sure you understand what you're asking for if that doesn't satisfy it. To say an obedience is "regular" is to say that any of its members can visit your lodges, work in your degree teams and even become your members should the opportunity to rise. To the extent that the UGLE, or any other mainstream Grand Lodge, grants full recognition to a mixed or feminine obedience, there cease to be "orders for men and orders for women".

reply to post by OnTheLevel213


I concede your point in that example.
Still, UGLE's recognition of women's Freemasonry is still in that limbo status I referred to earlier, merely as a result of gender. If you have a vagina, then no admittance to the boy's only club. I think the GOdF's example in fully allowing female members is the way to go in this modern age.
Not only that, it seems the GOdF are admitting transsexuals.There's some full on equal opportunities right there.

Grand Orient of France Opens To Women

I find the following excerpt from the GOdF's information page on freedom of belief more satisfying than so-called regular obediences:

www.godf.org... e-france-1

The Grand Orient de France, a humanist, initiatory and fraternal path

Three centuries of history

Modern Freemasonry is a product of the Age of Enlightenment. It is the outcome of the conversion, from 1645, of an old trade guild into an association of meetings and thoughts. In 1717 the first Grand Lodge was formed in London, the then “capital” of philosophical thinking. In continental Europe, the Grand Orient de France is the oldest and most significant Masonic order. It was founded in 1728 as the Première Grande Loge de France and adopted its current name and structure in 1773. Today, the Grand Orient comprises 47,000 members enrolled in more than 1,150 Lodges.

It offers a humanist, initiatory and fraternal path to contemporary men. In fact, to the Grand Orient de France, the advancement conferred upon the individual through the initiation process and Masonic approach imposes a duty upon Freemasons to also think about the problems of the world and social issues. It is one of its differentiating traits from other Masonic orders. Why improve a man – intellectually, morally or spiritually – if it does not lead him to take an interest in his “fellow man and his fate?”
The humanist way

In the Grand Orient de France tradition of research and freedom, the Masonic initiation must transform all the facets of man. It maintains the tenets proclaimed by Brother Chevalier de Ramsay in 1738: "Man is not simply characterized by the languages he speaks, the clothes he wears, the countries he inhabits, or the honours bestowed upon him. The whole world is but one huge Republic... It is to rekindle and share these essential values of human nature that society was established." Freemasons of the Grand Orient are amongst the main agents responsible for the introduction and deep rooting of the Republican ideal that now forms part of the

French identity.

Somehow they consider themselves as guardians and avant-gardes of the republican regime, the sole champion of individual prosperity in Liberty, Equality and Fraternity. The Grand Orient de France’s history is the succession of paths taken by its members aspiring to give substance to these values. Today the work of Masons is mainly focused on keeping these humanistic principles alive in a world that is continually changing and in search of new benchmarks.

The initiation

Refined over centuries, the symbolic language of rituals tends to universality and enables congregation away from the challenges of daily life and beyond usual divides. Masonic fraternity with the lodge as its crucible must be a forum for questioning and debates between men of goodwill regardless of their beliefs. In this light a clash of ideas aimed at understanding what unites humanity is one of the keys of initiation. The features of the initiatory path present the essential tool that enables masons to understand the raison d’être of their being and to fuse within this understanding the raison d’être of a freedom seeking humanity. Masonic rituals are experienced as tools that give access to wisdom.

Freedom of beliefs

Throughout the eighteenth century, Grand Lodges the world over commenced to recruit non-Christians. In the nineteenth century the Grand Orient de France pushed the boundaries further by offering Masonic initiation to all men who abided by the “moral laws” in accordance with the Anderson Constitution of 1723. In its faithful pursuit to become “the Centre of Union between people who otherwise would have forever remained distant,” in 1877, the Grand Orient de France abolished the requirement for its members to believe in God and the immortality of the soul thereby giving birth to the “liberal” and “non-dogmatic” Freemasonry; bringing together believers and non-believers alike and guaranteeing its members absolute freedom of conscience and research. The Grand Orient considers metaphysical concepts to be a purely personal matter. The lodges within the Grand Orient de France are therefore free to operate within the auspices of Universal Freemasonry or the glory of the Great Architect of the Universe. They follow a humanistic approach balanced between deliberation on the city and initiatory work.

The principal pillar of French Freemasonry

Since it was formed the Grand Orient de France has contended to be federator of French Freemasonry. In fact, up until World War II, almost two thirds of French Masons were united under its banner. Today, it is the only major traditional Masonic order that maintains brotherly relationships with all other Masonic orders including mixed and feminine, recognising their full Masonic legitimacy.

Originally posted by Extant Taxon

Faith is by nature blind.

Not at all. For example, I have faith that the sun will rise in the morning. This is not a "blind" faith but is instead based upon supporting phenomena.

Belief in an entity only "evidenced" by myraid conflicting ancient texts on the nature of this alleged divinity, which always seem to have been the amalgam projections of the faithful in question.

Why would you automatically assume that I (or anyone else) believe in God because it's only evidenced by texts? In fact, I don't remember ever saying anything about any texts having anything to do with faith.

As with just about every idea born of the minds of men, and women, there are opposing views. Orthodox Freemasonry has about as much right to say what is regular or not, in the final analysis, as the Catholic Church has to say on Christianity. I find the traditional Gnostic, mysteries-based aspect of Freemasonry fascinating, but perhaps even more fascinating is the move into the mysteries (the unknown) beyond the mystical roots of the institution that other groups, designated "irregular" (very much like heresy is to the Catholic Church, no?), aspire to. It's the true great unknown they are striving for, perhaps?

The examples are not analogous because the Gnostic Church did not derive from the Roman Church, but shared a common origin. Quite obviously, the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches are closer to primitive Christianity than, say, the modern mega-churches of the evangelicals.

Concerning groups like the GOdF, I do not consider them "heretical". It's just that for an organization to be Masonic it must abide by certain landmarks. I'm not saying that there's anything intrinsically wrong with the GOdF: only that it cannot, by definition, be classified as "Masonic" if by "Masonic" we mean organizations who preserve the ancient landmarks of the order.

Belief in moral absolutes is a retrograde notion. Morals are arbitrary conventions according to individual cultures, shaped by the environment and its stresses.

This notion was considered by the great philosophers mentioned, and rejected. I am in agreeance with them.

What is a moral absolute to bacterium? To a virus?

Bacteria and viruses do no meet the Kantian qualification of a "rational being". One subject to the absolute moral law must know and understand the difference between right and wrong. Man, as a rational being, is therefore a moral being, at least in the sense that he is subject to moral law (not that he will necessarily obey it).

As for great minds such as Plato, his idea of moral absolutes differed greatly from today. Ancient Greek culture openly condoned pederasty as a social good, a rigid caste system, slavery, the female as chattel goods, etc.

It should be noted that Plato himself did not condone pederasty (thus the concept of Platonic love). Furthermore, the philosophers also opposed the ideas of slavery, women as goods, etc. In fact, that's why they were often persecuted by the status quo.

Why trust his intuition on the idealist plane, which only served to further the authority of the elite he wished to create, the philosopher-kings who he designated as the only beings morally justified to perceive the unseen qualities of divinity?

It is a fact that not every individual is equipped to bear the highest truths.

But you shouldn't misunderstand me, I don't outright deny that powers beyond our comprehension exist in the cosmos, and beyond that plane as well; it's entirely possible. I just don't think a "sacred text" exists that correctly identifies or categorises such a thing. What's that oft-repeated quote? "Not only is the universe stranger than we imagine, it is stranger than we can possibly imagine!"

Many of the sacred texts were written by very wise men. Others contain folklore, myths, etc. We should take them for what they're worth, but I've never suggested that we rely on sacred texts for everything (or even anything).

reply to post by Extant Taxon


I think you may have the wrong idea about how regular masonry views clandestine organizations. While we are not allowed to discuss masonic secrets with them, we don't make a habit of discussing them with anyone, even brethren outside of lodge. More about philosophy and the like. But most other groups that have ties to masonry seem to take the core lessons and teaching methods and therefore are no enemies of masonry in any way. As I have heard her many times, there are many paths to the ultimate goal, freemasonry is only on of them. I personally respect other orders with the same reverence that I would an AF&AM order. We chose to play by our rules, so we won't change any rules to suit others needs, (no girls allowed) but that doesn't make anyone else wrong, just different.

Originally posted by Masonic Light

Originally posted by Extant Taxon

Faith is by nature blind.

Not at all. For example, I have faith that the sun will rise in the morning. This is not a "blind" faith but is instead based upon supporting phenomena.

Could I ask you what then is your supporting phenomena for the presence of a supreme being?

Originally posted by Masonic Light

Originally posted by Extant Taxon
Belief in an entity only "evidenced" by myraid conflicting ancient texts on the nature of this alleged divinity, which always seem to have been the amalgam projections of the faithful in question.

Why would you automatically assume that I (or anyone else) believe in God because it's only evidenced by texts? In fact, I don't remember ever saying anything about any texts having anything to do with faith.

The conversation tended that way, as I recall. Perhaps it was my bias.

Originally posted by Masonic Light

Originally posted by Extant Taxon
As with just about every idea born of the minds of men, and women, there are opposing views. Orthodox Freemasonry has about as much right to say what is regular or not, in the final analysis, as the Catholic Church has to say on Christianity. I find the traditional Gnostic, mysteries-based aspect of Freemasonry fascinating, but perhaps even more fascinating is the move into the mysteries (the unknown) beyond the mystical roots of the institution that other groups, designated "irregular" (very much like heresy is to the Catholic Church, no?), aspire to. It's the true great unknown they are striving for, perhaps?

The examples are not analogous because the Gnostic Church did not derive from the Roman Church, but shared a common origin. Quite obviously, the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches are closer to primitive Christianity than, say, the modern mega-churches of the evangelicals.

My example more refers to the analogous authoritarian proclamations of UGLE and the Roman Catholic Church, deeming what is not in line with its obedience/dogma is constituted as "other" and illegitimate, and that in the end, according to personal and collective choice and freedom, it matters not.
Perhaps my wording wasn't clear.

Originally posted by Masonic Light
Concerning groups like the GOdF, I do not consider them "heretical". It's just that for an organization to be Masonic it must abide by certain landmarks. I'm not saying that there's anything intrinsically wrong with the GOdF: only that it cannot, by definition, be classified as "Masonic" if by "Masonic" we mean organizations who preserve the ancient landmarks of the order.

Fair enough.

Originally posted by Masonic Light

Originally posted by Extant Taxon
Belief in moral absolutes is a retrograde notion. Morals are arbitrary conventions according to individual cultures, shaped by the environment and its stresses.

This notion was considered by the great philosophers mentioned, and rejected. I am in agreeance with them.

Shall simply have to acknowledge that we differ here, or the broken record shall keep on playing....

Originally posted by Masonic Light

Originally posted by Extant Taxon
What is a moral absolute to bacterium? To a virus?

Bacteria and viruses do no meet the Kantian qualification of a "rational being". One subject to the absolute moral law must know and understand the difference between right and wrong. Man, as a rational being, is therefore a moral being, at least in the sense that he is subject to moral law (not that he will necessarily obey it).

My point would be that morals are an anthropocentric prejudice, once again humanity thinks its codes are absolute. The real test for this, according to your example of the "rational being," will be if we ever make contact with beings not of this earth who are capable of inter-stellar travel, of whatever means. Then we shall see what sort of ethical superstructure they have in place and whether the morals we thought "absolute" are even comparable to their imperatives.
That is if we can even comprehend enough to communicate with them.

Till then, you have your notion, I have mine.

Damn, that broken record keeps on playing.

Originally posted by Masonic Light

Originally posted by Extant Taxon
As for great minds such as Plato, his idea of moral absolutes differed greatly from today. Ancient Greek culture openly condoned pederasty as a social good, a rigid caste system, slavery, the female as chattel goods, etc.

It should be noted that Plato himself did not condone pederasty (thus the concept of Platonic love). Furthermore, the philosophers also opposed the ideas of slavery, women as goods, etc. In fact, that's why they were often persecuted by the status quo.

Wasn't Plato just making excuses for Socrates' pederasty with what you mention?

Originally posted by Masonic Light

Originally posted by Extant Taxon
Why trust his intuition on the idealist plane, which only served to further the authority of the elite he wished to create, the philosopher-kings who he designated as the only beings morally justified to perceive the unseen qualities of divinity?

It is a fact that not every individual is equipped to bear the highest truths.

I vastly enjoy Plato's writings, but he was far too authoritarian for me. I found his idealism dangerous, high-minded, and arbitrarily elitist. His "republic" would have been much like Stalin's joyful regime probably.

Originally posted by Masonic Light
Many of the sacred texts were written by very wise men. Others contain folklore, myths, etc. We should take them for what they're worth, but I've never suggested that we rely on sacred texts for everything (or even anything).

O.K.


reply to post by network dude


Yes, I can see what you mean. As for my rather strident needling on this topic, it is almost necessary for me to do so as masons generally don't engage in conversation unless they're in defensive posture. So if I want to learn about Freemasonry, especially as it concerns gray areas such as the admittance of women, the way that regular Freemasonry views the GOdF, etc, I have to employ more confrontational tactics to instigate debate.
[i]Some of the positions I have taken have been more of the devil's advocate type in this thread, to a degree.

On the subject of women's Freemasonry, the following conference was informative I'm sure:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/56edabf6ac5c.jpg[/atsimg]

Women and freemasonry since the Enlightenment. - Conference organized at Bordeaux University and Musée d’Aquitaine, June 17-18- 19, 2010

[b[Today women are still largely absent from Masonic lodges. Yet few rational arguments can be summoned to account for such an exclusion. The argument of tradition, which is the most frequently put forward, only holds for Anderson’s Constitutions as no such explicit ban against women can be found in the Old Charges. The significance of Elisabeth Aldworth St Leger’s initiation by an Irish Lodge is probably more symbolical than historical as it was a single occurrence never repeated. Yet the event was never denied by the Irish masons at the time, although it probably deterred the “brethren” from renewing the experience and mostly reinforced their convictions on the issue of female initiation. Women however did enter the lodges afterwards, first in the lodges of adoption, and later in co-masonry as well as specific female lodges.

The lodges of adoption have sometimes been considered as a low key form of masonry, a kind of ersatz masonry meant to humour women. Yet their importance and significance should not be underplayed as Margaret Jacob and Janet Burke in particular have recently shown. The lodges of adoption which emerged in Holland and France during the Enlightenment highlight the main features of women’s commitment in those days, with the same limitations, namely the elitist and aristocratic component. Yet they conveyed some important values, let alone possibly through their rituals, and they allowed women to play an unprecedented part in the public sphere, not unlike the celebrated “French salons”.

We may wonder whether those lodges merely reflected the society of their time or whether they anticipated and even encouraged the emancipation of women. How emblematical are they of Enlightenment sociability? Quite significantly the adoption lodges lost lustre at the same time as the Enlightenment. When they emerged again as the Eastern Star in the United States in the following century they were quite different. The nineteenth century Masonic world was predominantly a male one and it would be interesting to find the reasons why. One has to wait till the end of the nineteenth century to find a female presence again in Masonic lodges with women such as Annie Besant, Madame Blavatsky, Clémence Royer or Louise Michel, sometimes in close connection with the Theosophical Society, as in the case of Annie Besant.



We shall endeavour to identify the main evolutions in women’s commitment, both through co masonry, which appeared at the end of the nineteenth century and through female lodges which date back to the twentieth century only. All those women fought for equality, but some hoped to reach it alongside with men while others opted for autonomy in separate lodges. We shall try to understand those choices both in terms of structures and rituals. We shall focus on the social composition of co masonry and women’s lodges, and try to assess how far they committed themselves to the society of their time or preferred to remain discreet. Women’s’ lodges developed in some countries only, we shall try to suggest possible explanations for such disparity. Lodges and Grand Lodges as well as individual itineraries will be studied.



The different factors of exclusion need to be addressed:



- the cultural, social and political factor. Is there a direct link between the development of co masonry and women’s lodges on the one hand and social progress, women’s emancipation and strong feminist movements in the twentieth and twenty first centuries? Why do Scandinavian countries, which have become respectful of women’s rights, or the United Kingdom, the Suffragettes’ country which enfranchised women long before France, lag behind in terms of female initiation?

- the religious factor. How far does the religious context inform the issue of women’s initiation? Can one identify different attitudes in Catholic, Protestant, Islamic or Orthodox countries?

- the Masonic factor : the rift between English speaking freemasonry and “liberal” freemasonry dates back to 1877, when the Grand Orient de France decided to grant complete liberty of conscience to its members instead of imposing a belief in the Supreme being. Curiously enough the issue of women’s admission into freemasonry has also been a dividing one ever since that time. English speaking Grand Lodges and their affiliates exclude women, whereas “liberal” ones accept the idea of initiation, even if the statement needs to be qualified for the latter.



Several levels of exclusion can be identified today : women can either be considered as unfit for initiation, which is still officially the case in the United Kingdom, the USA and in all the Grand Lodges which pay allegiance to the United Grand Lodge of England and in the Prince Hall Grand Lodges, or their presence can be accepted and encouraged but in separate organizations, not considered as Masonic but meant to enhance the male lodges through their charity work: this is the case of the Eastern Star chapters. As to the Women Freemasons, they are still deprived of official recognition by the United Grand Lodge of England. Finally, the “liberal” Grand Lodges are themselves divided on the issue of women’s admission into the lodges. Some have opted for co masonry; others have put the admission of women on the agenda, while others reject the very notion.

How far can one speak of Masonic universalism, how far does gender inform the Masonic issue? Our purpose is twofold. We shall address the problem of women’s exclusion under its various guises and try to uncover some of the motivations, and we shall also concentrate on the specificity of female freemasonry both in time and space, from the earliest lodges to the modern ones, in Europe, Asia and the Americas. Conversely we shall wonder how feminist criticism has viewed women’s freemasonry, from the lodges of adoption to contemporary lodges. We welcome different approaches, and would like the historical and geographical scopes to be broad enough to allow for a better understanding of differences, common points and evolutions.

Programme Les femmes et la franc-maçonnerie 17-19 juin 2010.pdf

Originally posted by bdb818888
Can Atheist , Muslims , Jews , Hindu's, Buddhist, Satanist an Agnostic Join the Free Masons ? Or is it a Christian only club ? Please help me out here , I've always heard it was a Christian only organization ,Is this True ?

Man never had the right to usurp the unexercised prerogative of God, and condemn and punish another for his belief. Born in a Protestant land, we are of that faith. If we had opened our eyes to the light under the shadows of St. Peter's at Rome, we should have been devout Catholics: Born in the Jewish quarter of Aleppo, we should have contemned Christ as an impostor; in Constantinople, we should have cried "Allah il Allah, God is great and Mahmot is his prophet!" Birth, place, and education give us our faith. Few believe in any religion because they have examined the evidences of its authenticity, and made up a formal judgment, upon weighing the testimony. Not one man in ten thousand knows anything about the proofs of his faith. We believe what we are taught; and those are most fanatical who know least of the evidences on which their creed is based. Facts and testimony are not, except in very rare instances, the ground-work of faith. It is an imperative law of God's Economy, unyielding and inflexible as Himself, that man shall accept without question the belief of those among whom he is born and reared; the faith so made part of his nature resists all evidence to the contrary; and he will disbelieve even the evidence of his own senses, rather than yield up the religious belief which has grown up in him, flesh of his flesh and bone of his bone.
...
Therefore no man that or ever had a right to persecute another for his belief: for there cannot be two antagonistic rights: and if one can persecute another, because he himself is satisfied that the belief of that other is erroneous, the other has, for the same reason, equally as certain a right to persecute him.
...
No evil hath so afflicted the world as intolerance of religious opinion. The human beings it has slain in various ways, if once and together brought to life, would make a nation of people: left to live and increase, would have doubled the population of the civilized portion of the globe; among which civilized portion it chiefly is that religious wars are waged. The treasure and the human labour thus lost would have made the earth a garden, in which, but for his evil passions, man might now be as happy as in Eden.

And no man truly obeys the Masonic law who merely tolerates those whose religious opinions are opposed to his own. Every man's opinions are his own private property, and the rights of all men to maintain each his own are perfectly equal. Merely to tolerate, to bear with an opposing opinion, is to assume it to be heretical; and assert the right to persecute, if we would; and claim our toleration of it as a merit. The Mason's creed goes further than that. No man, it holds, has any right in any way to interfere with the religious belief of another. It holds that each man is absolutely sovereign as to his own belief, and that belief is a matter absolutely foreign to all who do not entertain the same belief; because one party has the same right as the other to sit as judge in his own case: and God is the only magistrate that can rightfully decide between them...

Magnum Opus, Ch. XXIX, pp12-13

Originally posted by AlbertPike

And no man truly obeys the Masonic law who merely tolerates those whose religious opinions are opposed to his own. Every man's opinions are his own private property, and the rights of all men to maintain each his own are perfectly equal. Merely to tolerate, to bear with an opposing opinion, is to assume it to be heretical; and assert the right to persecute, if we would; and claim our toleration of it as a merit. The Mason's creed goes further than that. No man, it holds, has any right in any way to interfere with the religious belief of another. It holds that each man is absolutely sovereign as to his own belief, and that belief is a matter absolutely foreign to all who do not entertain the same belief; because one party has the same right as the other to sit as judge in his own case: and God is the only magistrate that can rightfully decide between them...

Magnum Opus, Ch. XXIX, pp12-13

Good quote there. If there is one thing to be said about Freemasonry it's the freedom of choice in matters of religious belief.

freemasonsfordummies.blogspot.com... n-not-flocking-to-grand-orient-of.html

In 2010, France's largest Masonic obedience, the Grand Orient de France, with about 50,000 members, voted to admit women into its lodges. The decision was left to the individual lodge, and required no special permission.

Well, women aren't exactly flocking to the doors of the GOF's lodges. According to Au GODF : mais où sont les femmes ? by François Koch:

• 53 women are now members of GOF (including twenty affiliations transferred mostly from the Grande Loge Feminine de France)

• 160 requests for initiation of women or affiliations sisters are being processed.

• Only one in five GOF lodges have refused to accommodate women.


The Grand Orient of France does not require its members to profess a belief in a Supreme Being, does not require lodges to have a Volume of Sacred Law on their alters, and does not prohibit taking official positions on religious and political issues. It is regarded as irregular by the majority of the Masonic world.

There are at least ten Masonic allegiances of varying importance in France. The GOF has just under 50,000 members. The Grande Loge Nationale Française (male only) has about 38,000 members, and is the obedience that is most uniformly recognized as regular by the majority of grand lodges around the world. The male only Grande Loge de France (GLdF) has 28,000.

Women make up approximately 17% of the Freemasons in France at various other grand lodges. Le Droit Humain (DH) is a Co-Masonic obedience which claims 15,000 members, and the Grande Loge Feminine de France (GLFF), represents some 14,000 women.

It should be noted by all of us in the US that every one of the grand lodges in France have steadily increased their membership over the last six years.

reply to post by Extant Taxon


There were 53 initiations and affiliations since last September and there are 160 additional petitions on the table, it may not be a great number of women joining the GOdF but it is positive growth nevertheless. I think the number of women joining or affiliating will continue to rise.