posted on Dec, 24 2012 @ 07:05 AM
Originally posted by Erbal
I've heard you go on and on and on and on and on about how monotheism is this core requirement for Freemasons, how you can't join unless you are a
monotheist, and how even if you somehow got 2 people to sign your petition you'd still not get anything from Freemasonry unless you are a
Which is true. Masonry's principles and teachings revolve around monotheism. The non-monotheist's beliefs are not aligned with Masonry's belief
requirements and lessons.
So why is there any question about the compatibility of non-monotheistic practices, especially a level of questioning that ultimately gets the
#1 authority in the jurisdiction to go through the effort of making an official ruling and decision on the matter?
Are you dense? It would obviously appear that lodges in the jurisdiction had not been adhering to the Landmarks. There are occasional instances were
lodges on a local level either intentionally or unintentionally circumvent the Constitution, By-Laws or Edicts of the Grand Lodge under who's
jurisdiction they operate.
They are admonished in some form for their transgession with punishment ranging from a verbal correction to having their charter revoked depending on
the severity of the crime. The Grand Master will, often, make his admonishment available for the remainder of the lodges as a reminder of what Masonic
jurisprudence consists of and what the punishments are for disregarding its regulations.
The logical explanation is that monotheism is NOT a standard of recognition and/or an unflinching rule across all of Freemasonry.
If you say so. I am sure everyone should be taking the word of a non-Mason who is completely versed in Masonic rules and jurisprudence.
Can you imagine the US Supreme Court writing up something to the American people to address the rising question of whether or not it's illegal
to purchase and consume illegal drugs? Yeah, that's pretty ridiculous, just like your "logical explanation."
Your analogy is flawed. The Grand Master issuing a proclomation is not equivalent to the Supreme Court issuing a verdict, we have Masonic courts and
those who were found to be initiating members outside of the landmarks have already been addressed by such.
A more suitable anaolgy would be your employer, after finding that associates were raiding the supply closet for their personal consumption (and after
having dealt with said associates) sending an email to all other associates reminding
them that it is against company policy to take material
from the supply closet for non-work related uses.
edit on 24-12-2012 by AugustusMasonicus because: networkdude has no beer, even on Christmas.