|
Post by Smithee on Dec 27, 2012 11:38:46 GMT 10
Rather than indicating a belief in a specific God, the Noachide reference serves to further stress the universality of the Order. "Noachide" means "son of Noah" and encompasses all mankind (as does "son of Adam"), as according to tradition, all mankind descends from Noah (other peoples being said to have perished in the Biblical flood). This is in contrast to "son of Abraham" (i.e., a devotee of one of the Abrahamic faiths: Judaism, Christianity and Islam). Correct ... but it also defines 'religion in which all men agree' as being that of Noah and the God of Noah; ... pre-Abrahamic and the divisions of Faith; ... and the same God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Moses. So it does define a specific God. Correction.... 'All men' include pagans. 'The religion in which all men agree' is not that of a God to which one can attribute a specific name or attributes. Until the telling of the legend of Moses the Biblical god was understood only in a generic sense. Titles given included Elohim (plural) and El Shaddai (almighty).
|
|
|
Post by edwmax on Dec 27, 2012 13:19:22 GMT 10
Correct ... but it also defines 'religion in which all men agree' as being that of Noah and the God of Noah; ... pre-Abrahamic and the divisions of Faith; ... and the same God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Moses. So it does define a specific God. Correction.... 'All men' include pagans. 'The religion in which all men agree' is not that of a God to which one can attribute a specific name or attributes. Until the telling of the legend of Moses the Biblical god was understood only in a generic sense. Titles given included Elohim (plural) and El Shaddai (almighty). After the flood, there were no pagans, only Noah & his sons and the 7 Laws given to Noah by God (Noahide Laws or Code) ... So Not hardly, but I'm not going to argue religion with you.
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Dec 28, 2012 6:54:00 GMT 10
So Not hardly, but I'm not going to argue religion with you. As you wish. What do you want to discuss under this "Freemasonry and religion" thread, in which you chose to participate? I would have been interested in what you think "pagan" means and from whence it derives (even entertaining the Noah legend we find that Patriarch had sons other than Shem).
|
|
|
Post by Torence on Dec 28, 2012 8:27:58 GMT 10
Our original caveat against discussing religion in a Masonic Forum grew out of the experiences of trying to operate Lodges in the old country during the latter half of the seventeenth century. If an Englishman managed to survive the period when Catholics and Protestants outlawed and then murdered one another, he then needed to figure out how to survive when the Presbyterians and Episcopalians were doing the same to one another. It surprises me to no end to hear one of my fellow Lodge Brothers state that American was the first government to try to run things without a King. Far too many are surprised to find out that they were merely repeating a concept that had been tried by their own Great Grandfathers. Going Kingless just didn’t stick, at least not on the first go, and the system would not have even been tried if it wasn’t for religion.
At that old dinner club in London which was the first to style itself a “Grand” sort of Lodge, the originating officers were Anthony Sayer, George Payne, James Anderson, John Desauglier, John Montagu and Philip Wharton. Sayer and Payne represented the Operative Lodges and it is from Payne that we receive the “Original” General Regulations, i.e. the format for our Operating Manual. James Anderson and John Desauglier were employed in their daily life by the two fractious religions, the Protestant Presbyterians and the Protestant Episcopalians; and it is from their friendship predicated upon an agreement to keep their discourse on “the details of religion” between themselves and not involve others that we have our modern-day instructions to keep Masonic discussions of Religion to that which is safe and mutually agreeable, whatever aspects of religion that could be.
John Montagu and Phillip Wharton held titles. It is from them that the original dinner club chose their purpose which was just to do two things, meet for an annual feast and to seek out a Royal Person who would agree, even if it was to be in name only, to patronize the group by sitting at the head of our table.
What brought our Fore Brothers together? A couple of things…these were relatively young men hanging out around and in close proximity to Christopher Wren’s Royal Society. There was not much for them to do there because that club was dominated by Issac Newton who in his old age was behaving rather badly. And, they were all broke. Each of them had put their fortunes, even Anderson and Desaugliers, into the South Sea Company a scheme to form a company to kick Spain and Portugal out of Central and South America for the British. The scheme failed and so went all of their money.
My point in mentioning all this is to merely point out that the motivation behind this regulation to de-brand religion in Masonry and discuss just that to which we all can agree is not based upon any fundamental philosophy of our club; but because these specific handful of individuals needed to find a method by which they could get along.
We have not grown much at all as creatures since then. What excites us and polarizes in politics, at least here in America, are our religious opinions. Though no more of us choose are religion then our ForeBrothers. Like them we only seem to have this passion for our religion by default i.e. those religions that we were born into. And, we are all broke because we allow others to speculate and make what we create into commodities which then go bust.
Shouldn’t we in 21st century FreeMasonry be able to discuss and then learn from one another about our beliefs? Or must we perpetually have to dumb our notions of spiritualism down so that Heating and Air Conditioning men who are elected to preside for a few months can understand those who are educated and make a choice in religious fealty?
I, for one, have not problem with Paganism, for example. Such a concept seems to me just a matter of viewpoint. And, whenever any man can knock upon the door of his Local Lodge and offer up a new perspective, in my humble opinion, it is good thing for us. And, I would like to be able to hear it.
Torence Evans Ake Secretary - Auburn Park Lodge No. 789 - Crete, Illinois Chaplain - Triluminar Lodge No. 767 - Lansing, Illinois MIGS - Illinois Lodge of Research PM - Arcadia Lodge No. 1138 - Lansing, Illinois City and Country Steward torenceake@aol.com
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Dec 28, 2012 9:38:20 GMT 10
Great post. One might go further and argue that Desaguliers, Anderson, et al. simply went as far in avoiding religious discrimination as the spirit of their age would allow. W.Bro. J.-M. David of the Victorian Lodge of Research, brilliantly expounded on this theory in an address entitled, " The Spirit of Secularism in Freemasonry."
|
|
|
Post by edwmax on Dec 28, 2012 10:11:27 GMT 10
So Not hardly, but I'm not going to argue religion with you. As you wish. What do you want to discuss under this "Freemasonry and religion" thread, in which you chose to participate? I would have been interested in what you think "pagan" means and from whence it derives (even entertaining the Noah legend we find that Patriarch had sons other than Shem). May be I was a little harsh with my refusal to discuss religion itself. ... See, I've been on a forum where even the mention of religion (as related to Freemasonry) starts personal attacks from other (very few) members attempting to twist my words to the effect that 'only Christians can be Freemasons' ... These debates / arguments have always resulted in the 'other' member becoming very PO'd because their arguments & logic eventually falls apart. As for me and my beliefs (this is not for debate) ... I am Christian ... I do not believe Freemasonry is a Christian only fraternity; I believe God at different times communicated to the different people in a manner of which they understood. Therefore, if I believe there is only one God & another Mason also believes there is only one God; then we both must believe in the same God regardless of the name by which he is called. ... On the reverse, I have a problem when someone or Mason who states 'my God and your God is not the same." So yes, ... I do believe there are religions which are not compatible with Freemasonry. This belief is also supported by the GL of California which has a list of acceptable religions wrote into their Code and maintained by their GM. A couple of other GLs ( I can't remember which at the moment) do the same. ... This belief is further wrote by Rev. James Anderson in the Constitutions in the statement "They are generally charged to adhere to that religion in which all men agree ..." My definition of 'pagan' ( you asked): An adjective referring to those old religions not founded in the OT of the Bible and predating Christians. ... I could support a pagan who has a nature based monotheist belief in a supreme being. ... However, I find the modern versions of these old religions disorganized and the different sects usually do not have the same core beliefs. In Masonic terms these are clandestine revival religions with modern interpretations with no historical connection to the long-ago dead religion. ps ... i also believe a forum member has a right to state his opinion of a topic without being debated (attacked) by another member simple because his opinion is different. I have also, recently seen other forum members (another forum) take differing opinions as condemnation of their beliefs even though there was no discussion of the differences. ... thus, damned if you do and damned if you don't ...
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Dec 28, 2012 19:36:43 GMT 10
Why do you suppose a person's private religious beliefs, beyond an enabling profession of belief in a Supreme Being, to be relevant to their participation as Freemasons?
Just because the GL of California has also gone down this path does not mean it is a masonically sound policy. BTW, I note Anderson's statement encompasses ALL men.
|
|
|
Post by edwmax on Dec 28, 2012 20:15:24 GMT 10
Why do you suppose a person's private religious beliefs, beyond an enabling profession of belief in a Supreme Being, to be relevant to their participation as Freemasons? ... Because of the particulars and commandments of the religion. ... Just because the GL of California has also gone down this path does not mean it is a masonically sound policy. BTW, I note Anderson's statement encompasses ALL men. Then you are ignoring the statement itself and picking words out of context . ... ALL men is all men of 'that religion'. That religion is singular which excludes all other religions and 'all men agree' excludes those who disagree.
|
|
|
Post by Torence on Dec 29, 2012 1:44:29 GMT 10
>>>"Noachide" means "son of Noah" and encompasses all mankind. >>>Correct ... but it also defines 'religion in which all men agree' as being that of Noah and the God of Noah; ... pre-Abrahamic and the divisions of Faith; ... and the same God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Moses. So it does define a specific God. >>> >>Nice quote from Reverend James Anderson, but why not use the quote from the 1738 edition of the Constitutions where a belief in a specific God is clearly indicated.
By 1738, FreeMasonry had come to India. In 1730, about the same time that Franklin was blasting our club in Philadelphia, Lodge No. 72 began to meet in Fort William. If your theory is correct; and I am not certain that it is, then the addition of the reference to Noah eight years later was a move to exclude darkmen and non-Christians and an attempt to revert FreeMasonry its more primitive state. Clearly, the policy statement in Florida’s Grand Master’s Decision No. 3 is an identical embarrassment. One thing that is certain, Grand Masters have no capacity to speak for anyone other then themselves. This one owes the Masonic Community at Large an apology.
It seems to me that it is more plausible that the inclusion of “Noachide” or in the parlance of Dermott a few years later, “Noachim” that the editor then was merely picking up on some of the fleshing out of our penitent for fabulous fiction. It is to Payne that we can attribute what is worthwhile in that first book of Constitutions and By-Laws. The History in it was devised by Desauglier and Wharton and is quite fantastic. Anderson merely organized it. Wharton went on to repeat the effort with the Chinese theme of the Gorgomons, and had he not been convicted and pauperized as a traitor and sent to Gibralter, we would not have had Chevalier Ramsey and the effort to incredibly link Masonry to Templarism.
Torence Evans Ake Secretary - Auburn Park Lodge No. 789 - Crete, Illinois Chaplain - Triluminar Lodge No. 767 - Lansing, Illinois MIGS - Illinois Lodge of Research PM - Arcadia Lodge No. 1138 - Lansing, Illinois City and Country Steward torenceake@aol.com
|
|
|
Post by Torence on Dec 29, 2012 2:28:12 GMT 10
>>>Presumably the Grand Master's ruling was subsequently ratified by the Grand Lodge. Was there any debate? >>Were there elements of any particular religion in any of the original prayers? Or was the change simply for the dumb and corrosive purpose of uniformity.
What survives, of course, in the record are the comments of the Grand Master, not the debate. Illinois is a wonderful jurisdiction to research and learn from because we have had a handful of truly “Great’ Grand Masters go on record here in addition to the usual mix of ordinary men and politicians at work (usually for themselves) in that capacity.
Delmar Darrah (1914) has the distinction of being the only GM here who followed in his Father’s footsteps and Delmar was quite scholarly and a published Masonic author.
Alexander Darrah essentially ran the fraternity for three instead of two years as his immediate predecessor was John Robert Thomas (Father of the Steamship Navy) who was US Congressman at the same time as his Grand Mastership and when he was not at work in Washington, spent his time at his sister’s home in Indiana as she was sick with cancer. John Thomas, just as an FYI, went on to become a notable friend to Native Americans and was the principle player who wrought Statehood for Indian Territory, the State of Oklahoma. Unfortunately in 1914, Delmar’s year, Thomas was killed in the Old West style during a prison break shoot out at the McAllister Jailhouse in Oklahoma.
Among other things back in 1888, Alexander Darrah expelled John S. Crum, Master of Vienna Lodge No. 105 from the fraternity for being an Atheist. W. Bro. Crum had written a pamphlet entitled “Believe or be Damned!” poking fun at “That Old Book of Jewish Superstitions.” In the debate that followed, Darrah’s decision was…get this… overturned… by the Masonic Congress. His successor, Brigadier General John Corson Smith who formulated the lodge of which I am Secretary had to reinstate Worshipful Brother Crum, a landmark case here in Illinois that proves that under certain conditions a Master Mason in Illinois can indeed be an Atheist or an Agnostic and still retain his membership.
As for Delmar, the motivations for reformulating Our Work were simply a matter of efficiency. He reformatted our work so that open/closings degree work and lectures could be accomplished in an evening. Illinois has one left over artifact from the revisions. We have a choice of two Apron Lectures which survived this rewrite, a long one and a short one, from which to choose. Delmar sought to eliminate the longer one.
I think that Delmar Darrah’s 1914 comments regarding Masonry and Religion speaks well for us:
“We often hear Masons say, “Masonry is good enough religion for me,” or “I want no better church than the Masonic Lodge.” Those who are constantly expressing themselves in this way are doing an unconscious injury to Masonry. Such expressions embitter good people who do not understand what Masonry is. Every person has a right to his own religious convictions and opinions. Each is responsible to the Supreme Power for his soul and to the People for his actions. Each is judged by his own acts and character. Masonry unties men of every country, sect and opinion and conciliates true friendship among those who might otherwise have remained at a perpetual distance.”
“Masonry interferes with no Man’s religion or beliefs. He is left entirely free from creeds or sectarian restrictions. He must believe in the existence of God and proclaim his trust in Him. Each Mason is not only free in the exercise of his own religious rights and opinions but he is strictly enjoined not to interfere with the religious views of others.”
“If a Man thinks that Masonry is good enough religion for him and lives a life in harmony with its professions, he need not go about proclaiming it. In doing so, he gives a bad impression of himself and falsifies the true attitude of Masonry. Some with a good opinion of the Ancient Craft will be unfavorably influenced and decline to knock at our doors for admission. I shall be glad to have Brethren admonished not to say or do that which will bring Masonry in conflict with religion and the church.”
“This subject is presented from observing the effect upon outsiders when over-ardent Masons are too zealous in our cause. Not being affiliated with any church nor claiming to be specially religious my suggestions cannot be construed as resulting from over zeal for the church and its cause. I merely have looked upon the effect and have made this recommendation for the best interest of Masonry.
Torence Evans Ake Secretary - Auburn Park Lodge No. 789 - Crete, Illinois Chaplain - Triluminar Lodge No. 767 - Lansing, Illinois MIGS - Illinois Lodge of Research PM - Arcadia Lodge No. 1138 - Lansing, Illinois City and Country Steward torenceake@aol.com
|
|