Post by Tamrin on Aug 6, 2008 7:20:55 GMT 10
The Babylonian Laws of Hammurabi, c.1760 BCE, although carved in stone, remained subject to amendment by the legitimate king, exercising his sovereign right. If, after a hiatus exceeding many generations, a group created a society seeking to faithfully resurrect that of the ancient Babylonians, would that sovereign right be exercised by some nominated individual within that group? Or would this new society remain bound by the rules and customs of Babylon as they were when it fell?
Either way we encounter difficulties. If, on the one hand, Babylon was to remain as it fell, how would the new society address modern issues on which the ancient laws were silent and would not this inflexibility itself be a deviation? If, on the other hand, amendments were allowed, would the ‘reality’ of their faithful resurrection be compromised by these amendments?
In Freemasonry we have the concept of reponement, which is fairly straightforward in the case of lodges which have handed in their charters and where the governing body (GL or SC) remains able to authorise any reponement. But what of that concept in the case of a governing body which has ceased to exist generations ago? We have the Grand Lodge of All England proposing it has done just that. We raise no questions as to their right to exist or indeed their right to emulate their predecessor. What might be questioned is the reality of the claim that they have indeed rightfully resurrected, possessed and put flesh on the dry bones of the earlier body and, moreover, are able to speak and act on their behalf!?
Either way we encounter difficulties. If, on the one hand, Babylon was to remain as it fell, how would the new society address modern issues on which the ancient laws were silent and would not this inflexibility itself be a deviation? If, on the other hand, amendments were allowed, would the ‘reality’ of their faithful resurrection be compromised by these amendments?
In Freemasonry we have the concept of reponement, which is fairly straightforward in the case of lodges which have handed in their charters and where the governing body (GL or SC) remains able to authorise any reponement. But what of that concept in the case of a governing body which has ceased to exist generations ago? We have the Grand Lodge of All England proposing it has done just that. We raise no questions as to their right to exist or indeed their right to emulate their predecessor. What might be questioned is the reality of the claim that they have indeed rightfully resurrected, possessed and put flesh on the dry bones of the earlier body and, moreover, are able to speak and act on their behalf!?
