It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

A masons ring of the 32nd degree

page: 6
12
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 18 2012 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Masonic Light

Originally posted by no1smootha


No, we also adhere to the Ancient Landmarks. We just interpret them differently than your Jurisdiction does.


As noted, they aren't really open to interpretation. If a lodge admits women, it has strayed from the Landmarks and cannot be classified as "Masonic". I'm not saying such systems are bad or wrong, just not Masonic.


A lot of the older members of my Lodge would say the same thing about allowing black members.




posted on May, 18 2012 @ 03:54 PM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


Yes, and as I was looking over the landmarks provided by ML, I noticed a few that caught my eye.
namely:

14. The right of every Mason to visit and sit in every regular lodge.



22. That all men, in the sight of God, are equal and meet in the lodge on one common level.

and lastly:


25. That the landmarks of Masonry can never be changed. These constitute the landmarks, or as they have sometimes been called, "the body of Masonry," in which it is not in the power of man or a body of men to make the least innovation.


To me, I don't see how a black man could be denied admittance to a lodge if he was a mason.

This give me some ideas on my project.



posted on May, 18 2012 @ 04:01 PM
link   
reply to post by network dude
 


I agree, and during my tenure as WM, we did have some visitors to our Lodge, and they were not turned away.

Still, the men raised as Masons in the 40s and 50s do not like all the changes our fraternity has undergone, and in many cases I agree with them. I don't like having 18 year olds apply, and I don't like 1-day degrees, and I don't like passing someone to the next degree when they haven't shown proficiency in the last. I do not like opening a "Lodge of Sorrow" and then leaving it open all year to encompass all funerals, when we should be opening and closing it each time in its entirety. (It is a beautiful thing when done in its entirety, but it is time-consuming.)

I just don't see how we can take a hardline on the women, when we let so many other things slide.



posted on May, 18 2012 @ 04:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by getreadyalready


I just don't see how we can take a hardline on the women, when we let so many other things slide.


Because we are a fraternity, and because of our obligations as Master Masons.

Of the other things you mentioned, with the exception of allowing 18 year olds, none of those things are allowed in my jurisdiction.
edit on 18-5-2012 by Masonic Light because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 18 2012 @ 04:07 PM
link   
reply to post by network dude
 


As I told you once before, in Continental Freemasonry a candidate is prepared the same in every way except what you are thinking here. That preparation exists only to ensure that a woman isn't admitted in your Jurisdiction so why would it exist in ours?



posted on May, 18 2012 @ 04:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by network dude


To me, I don't see how a black man could be denied admittance to a lodge if he was a mason.



He can't. As long as he is a regular Master Mason in good standing, he can sit in any regular Lodge.



posted on May, 18 2012 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Masonic Light

Originally posted by getreadyalready


I just don't see how we can take a hardline on the women, when we let so many other things slide.


Because we are a fraternity, and because of our obligations as Master Masons.

Of the other things you mentioned, with the exception of allowing 18 year olds, none of those things are allowed in my jurisdiction.
edit on 18-5-2012 by Masonic Light because: (no reason given)


I'm not trying to be argumentative, I don't want to see anything changed, but using your logic, those men that took their obligations 60 years ago, understood those obligations to mean something drastically different than they mean today. They are uncomfortable with many of the changes I mentioned earlier, and they feel they have an obligation to uphold as well. Are they wrong to cling to their traditions?

Like I said, the only thing I would advocate for, would be a return to more traditional times. That goes for Masonry, politics, even religion.

But for the sake of argument, why is redefining the "lawful age" from 21 to 18, which irks those older Masons, different from changing the definition of "man" to "mankind." At the time and context "man" was written in the work, women couldn't vote, they didn't work outside the home, they weren't in the military, and they were mostly subservient to "white" men. Things changed, Masonry changed, but that definition remains a sticking point?



posted on May, 18 2012 @ 04:19 PM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


In my Order there are: all male, all-female and mixed Lodges. We aren't trying to change how our own Lodges are governed or composed. We have no interest in changing the all male Fraternity of the English and American system. It would be nice to be given some respect and not be called "fake" because we can not sit in Lodge together.
edit on 18-5-2012 by no1smootha because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 18 2012 @ 04:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by no1smootha
reply to post by network dude
 


As I told you once before, in Continental Freemasonry a candidate is prepared the same in every way except what you are thinking here. That preparation exists only to ensure that a woman isn't admitted in your Jurisdiction so why would it exist in ours?


I don't think that is the sole reason for the preparation. I also don't think it would be a big deal if the same preparation was used on a woman. It would be equally symbolic and useful. I also don't think it would be a big deal to make a slight concession that thrwarted the giggles and still allowed the preparation and the degree to go on according to tradition.

Then again, we are getting into my opinions on things that fall way outside Masonry. I hate prudes in any context, LOL!



posted on May, 18 2012 @ 04:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by no1smootha
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


In my Order there are: all male, all-female and mixed Lodges. We aren't trying to change how our own Lodges are governed or composed. We have no interest in changing the all male Fraternity of the English and American system. It would be nice to be given some respect and not be called "fake" because we can not sit in Lodge together.
edit on 18-5-2012 by no1smootha because: (no reason given)


Don't take it personally, in my jurisdiction Prince Hall is still clandestine.



posted on May, 18 2012 @ 05:28 PM
link   
reply to post by no1smootha
 


I apologize for bringing that up. There is no way to discuss that without appearing to look down on your group. In the big picture, your group tries to live by the same set of guidelines ours does, so in essence, we are all brothers. (and sisters) living for the same goal. I meant no disrespect.



posted on May, 18 2012 @ 05:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Masonic Light
 


At one time a man had to be "unmutilated" or without physical impairment in order to be made a Mason but this "requirement" has since been changed.



posted on May, 18 2012 @ 06:09 PM
link   
As for changing things:

You can't change anything that has been addressed because of politics once again. In the case of continental freemasonry, very clever precautions were taken.

At the start of each degree, usually on whatever religious doctrine you follow, you are required to take vows before they put on their little play or degree. The entered apprentice vow (or obligation as they call it) usually just pertains to no talking about or replicating what you've learned except to other masons. The masters vow is the one where they usually exclude "clandestine" lodges as well as women.

For this example, we'll say it's a Christian. He doesn't know what he's getting into beforehand, almost no candidate does before a degree. He puts his hands on a king james version of the bible and is required to vow all kinds of crazy BS that, amongst other things, usually includes sitting in lodge with a woman or a clandestine.

REGARDLESS of what the lodge changes, the vow to God made this hypothetical Christian take seems rather binding, thus tying his hands to ever treat a woman or clandestine as an equal.

Basically, all the flaws: the sexism, racism, and bigotry are enforced - exploiting whatever faith you believe in against you - before the degree is ever even undertaken. If you take the degree, then you made the vow and as such either can do nothing. The moment you try, everyone else in the room knows you lied to whatever deity you follow and your integrity is immediately destroyed.



posted on May, 18 2012 @ 06:12 PM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 


If I threw your ring in a fire would it glow like the ring of power?



There is no power in these rings it is simply a tool symbolizing the culmination of the knowledge (the light!) gained thus far.



posted on May, 18 2012 @ 06:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Masonic Light

Originally posted by dogstar23


Not all lodges have a 33rd degree (supposedly) - it is the final "occult" (meaning hidden) degree. This ring is a 32nd degree ring.


The 33rd degree is not hidden ("occult"). The degree is the highest in the Scottish Rite of Masonry, and is conferred by Supreme Councils of that Rite, or in acting Councils convened by Sovereign Grand Inspectors General, in recognition of outstanding service to Masonry. 33rd degree members of the Rite wear the white cap with the Patriarchal Cross.


...and now I know more :-) thanks! I knew that not all lodges had a 33rd, but was operating on limited knowledge about it being the "hidden" degree in some lodges. Now that you explained it sounds familiar. Its unfortunate there's so much garbage information to sift through. I've never been a Mason, but have been a member of the AMORC for years. Freemasonry always interested me, but, well, one school at a time.
Anyway, thanks for clearing it up, i'm usually not one to make statements where I don't have solid knowledgem but I did there.



posted on May, 18 2012 @ 06:59 PM
link   
I already mentioned it on this very thread once, but people seem to have missed it. Is there a 33rd degree in masonry? Under very specific circumstances, YES. An OPTIONAL branch of masonry is available to master masons called the scottish rite. Many, if not most, scottish rite organizations have "Consistory of Sublime Princes" which is the 31st degree(Inspector Inquisitor Commander) and 32nd degree(Sublime Prince of the Royal Secret). Then in many, if not most, cases there is a "supreme council" that consists of 33rd degree members(titled sovereign Grand Inspector General). To be clear, there are THREE degrees in masonry, but the scottish rite ELECTIVE continuance usually has 4-33 (although some DO only have 32).

Completely off subject question to masons (i don't think I've ever seen this answered): assuming it was featured male and sound in all members that you can see, could a hermaphrodite sit in lodge with you?



posted on May, 18 2012 @ 07:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by getreadyalready

I'm not trying to be argumentative, I don't want to see anything changed, but using your logic, those men that took their obligations 60 years ago, understood those obligations to mean something drastically different than they mean today. They are uncomfortable with many of the changes I mentioned earlier, and they feel they have an obligation to uphold as well. Are they wrong to cling to their traditions?


None of their traditions were part of their obligations. Nor did those things you mentioned violate the Landmarks.



But for the sake of argument, why is redefining the "lawful age" from 21 to 18, which irks those older Masons, different from changing the definition of "man" to "mankind." At the time and context "man" was written in the work, women couldn't vote, they didn't work outside the home, they weren't in the military, and they were mostly subservient to "white" men. Things changed, Masonry changed, but that definition remains a sticking point?


Age 21 has never been a Landmark. George Washington was 17 when he was initiated. However, due to the nature of a Master Mason's obligation, a woman cannot be initiated. It would also be in violation of the Landmarks, momentarily ignoring that all Master Masons present at a woman's initiation would be in flagrant violation of their personal Masonic obligations.

I strongly disagree that the no-girl rule was written into the work due to the culture of the time. Instead, it goes to the essence of what the Masonic mysteries actually are. They concern the male mysteries, or the Mysteries of Osiris. The female mysteries, or those of Isis, have different celebratory forms and symbolism. Our Masonic forebears, who were Adepts and Brothers of the Rosy Cross, weren't sexist morons who just didn't know any better....they established the fraternity under those landmarks for a reason, and a good one at that. They knew much more about what they were doing than the vast majority of today's Masons.



posted on May, 18 2012 @ 09:16 PM
link   
reply to post by AugustusMasonicus
 


Hey...

What matters more to a Freemason... Is it the Tool(s) or the regalia or the Emblem(s)???

It appears to me to be... But I'm sceptic.



posted on May, 18 2012 @ 09:28 PM
link   
No more flags !

I'm trying to get a hold of the owner to have her read the thread.



posted on May, 18 2012 @ 10:01 PM
link   
reply to post by Masonic Light
 


I agree, the essence of the Masonic Mysteries is identical to the Ancient Mysteries, but I disagree that there was segregation. The Ancient Mysteries all seem to be inclusive and not exclusive to one gender, class, creed, religion or even nation. The evidence for this is strong among ancient authors.




top topics



 
12
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join