|
|
Post by Azaziel on Jan 31, 2011 6:41:19 GMT 10
I was always under the impression that Andersons constitutions didn't prohibt women fron freemasonry, but I now might be forced to reconsider, see point 3
Brethren,
We have once more reached the point in a thread where the search for truth has doubled back on itself and the comments being made are repetitive. I would like to refer you to Dr. Anderson’s constitution which addressed this issue in all of its shades of gray. As with most documents people have a tendency to select a portion, a paragraph, and in some cases a single sentence, which they take, many times completely out of context, to support their own position. For this reason I am including the first three articles without comment or editorial and would ask all of those involved to study them in their entirety and take whatever truth you find in them and move on to a new thread.
I. Concerning GOD and R ELIGION.
A Mason is oblig'd by his Tenure, to obey the moral Law; and if he rightly understands the Art, he will never be a stupid Atheist nor an irreligious Libertine. But though in ancient Times Masons were charg'd in every Country to be of the Religion of that Country or Nation, whatever it was, yet 'tis now thought more expedient only to oblige them to that Religion in which all Men agree, leaving their particular Opinions to themselves; that is, to be good Men and true, or Men of Honour and Honesty, by whatever Denominations or Persuasions they may be distinguish'd; whereby Masonry becomes the Center of Union, and the Means of conciliating true Friendship among Persons that must have remain'd at a perpetual Distance.
II. Of the CIVIL MAGISTRATES supreme and subordinate.
A Mason is a peaceable Subject to the Civil Powers, wherever he resides or works, and is never to be concern'd in Plots and Conspiracies against the Peace and Welfare of the Nation, nor to behave himself undutifully to inferior Magistrates; for as Masonry hath been always injured by War, Bloodshed, and Confusion, so ancient Kings and Princes have been much dispos'd to encourage the Craftsmen, because of their Peaceableness and Loyalty, whereby they practically answer'd the Cavils of their Adversaries, and promoted the Honour of the Fraternity, who ever flourish'd in Times of Peace. So that if a Brother should be a Rebel against the State he is not to be countenanc'd in his Rebellion, however he may be pitied as an unhappy Man; and, if convicted of no other Crime though the loyal Brotherhood must and ought to disown his Rebellion, and give no Umbrage or Ground of political Jealousy to the Government for the time being; they cannot expel him from the Lodge, and his Relation to it remains indefeasible.
III. Of LODGES.
A LODGE is a place where Masons assemble and work: Hence that Assembly, or duly organiz'd Society of Masons, is call'd a LODGE, and every Brother ought to belong to one, and to be subject to its By-Laws and the GENERAL REGULATIONS. It is either particular or general, and will be best understood by attending it, and by the Regulations of the General or Grand Lodge hereunto annex'd. In ancient Times, no Master or Fellow could be absent from it especially when warn'd to appear at it, without incurring a sever Censure, until it appear'd to the Master and Wardens that pure Necessity hinder'd him.
The persons admitted Members of a Lodge must be good and true Men, free-born, and of mature and discreet Age, no Bondmen no Women, no immoral or scandalous men, but of good Report.
|
|
|
|
Post by lanoo on Jan 31, 2011 12:48:22 GMT 10
As Bro. Tamrin has said: "It was a changeable regulation not an unchangeable Ancient Landmark" and it couldn't be an Ancient Landmark because it wasn't Ancient. This was the first time it appears, the Old Charges had made no mention of it and there were women Stonemasons.
Anderson also wrote: "That it is not in the power of any person, or body of men, to make any alterations, or innovation in the body of Masonry without the consent first obtained in the Annual Grand Lodge." We have dropped the: "without the consent first obtained in the Annual Grand Lodge," bit.
|
|
|
|
Post by Azaziel on Jan 31, 2011 14:05:08 GMT 10
As Bro. Tamrin has said: "It was a changeable regulation not an unchangeable Ancient Landmark" and it couldn't be an Ancient Landmark because it wasn't Ancient. This was the first time it appears, the Old Charges had made no mention of it and there were women Stonemasons. Anderson also wrote: "That it is not in the power of any person, or body of men, to make any alterations, or innovation in the body of Masonry without the consent first obtained in the Annual Grand Lodge." We have dropped the: "without the consent first obtained in the Annual Grand Lodge," bit. First, masonry has always been changeable, consider 1717, 2 degree system, then it was changed to a 3 degree system sometime in mid 1720's, that a 33% change, then along came the Royal Arch in early 1730's, so change has been with us since nearly the beginning, so what anderson wrote about change never meant anything, or it wasn't followed , or wasn't seen to be correct at the time It is my view that women can be masons, and should be masons, I see n othing against it, , again that is change from point 3 in my OP, one just can't pick and choose seperate parts that suit them and ignore the others, We are taught to think for ourselves,regardless of what GL;s may or may not direct us to think, personally I have a broad overview of this and am comfortable with my position |
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Jan 31, 2011 19:21:35 GMT 10
I was always under the impression that Anderson's Constitutions didn't prohibit women from Freemasonry... That's a refreshing change and a sign that attitudes are changing (even if the pendulum, in this case, has swung too far to the other extreme). Commonly, Masons presume that Anderson's Constitutions not only exclude women from Freemasonry (which was right) but that this was an unchangeable Ancient Landmark (which was wrong). Andersons' Constitutions are of too recent a date for any new things therein to be regarded as Ancient Landmarks. In his Compendium, after setting forth the premier grand lodge's decisions regarding Anderson's Constitutions, Bernard Jones wrote (p.184): ' From which we conclude that whatever was new in the Regulations was of no effect.' As Speculative Freemasons purport to perpetuate the time-immemorial customs of the medieval, Operative Stonemasons and as those stonemasons admitted women (see Craftswomen link), the readmission of women to mainstream Freemasonry would not entail innovation in a Freemasonic sense. Rather, it would be the restoration of a neglected, ancient custom that arguably may, either in its self or in relation to Freemasonry's 'universality', rank as an Ancient Landmark that has been suppressed. Therefore, there is no need to pursue the issue of innovation further in this case. Those interested in the subject of how, despite our institutional rhetoric, innovation has long been practiced by Freemasons, would do well to consider how and why 'innovations' are made in some cases but not in others. 'No innovation', as an absolute rule, is itself an innovation!? This subject, is admirably discussed by K.H. Perdriau, in an article entitled, " Innovation: A Long-standing Masonic Attribute," published in The NSW Freemason, (V.33, No.2, 2001, pp.13/4). As 'Bro. Gould wisely observed in his history, "the laws for the guidance of the Craft ... were not intended to be final, but alterable according to the necessities of the Craft, provided always that the spirit of the society was preserved'." (Macbride, p.209) Moreover, Arthur Waite in his New Encyclopædia, severely criticized Anderson's work in compiling, interpreting and reformulating the rules and regulations purportedly from the Old Charges. Waite referred (p.25) to Anderson's, ' … errors, omissions [and] inventions.' For instance, we find, ' The celebrated Charge 'Concerning God and Religion,' included in Anderson's Constitutions, substituted for the direct injunction of loyalty to God and Holy Church, as given in the original Charges, the phrase: 'tis now thought more expedient only to oblige them to that Religion in which all men agree, leaving their particular opinions to themselves.' (Jones, p.183). That change was, at least, explicitly acknowledged as such. Anderson's innovation excluding women was no more than an accommodation to the clubbing practices and the social and legal status of women among the gentry at that time, when working class women were still being apprenticed and employed as operative stonemasons!? Jones, Bernard, 1956, Freemason’s Guide and Compendium (new & revised edition), A. Lewis, London Macbride, A.S., 1924, Speculative Masonry, Southern Publishers, Kingsport, Tennessee Perdriau, Kelvin H., April, 2001, ‘Innovation: A Long-standing Masonic Attribute’, in The NSW Freemason, v.33, n.2, UGL of NSW & ACT, Sydney Waite, Arthur, n.d., A New Encyclopædia of Freemasonry, (new & revised edition), Rider & Co., London |
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Jan 31, 2011 20:03:07 GMT 10
Anderson also wrote: "That it is not in the power of any person, or body of men, to make any alterations, or innovation in the body of Masonry without the consent first obtained in the Annual Grand Lodge." We have dropped the: "without the consent first obtained in the Annual Grand Lodge," bit. Good point. Thank you. |
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Jan 31, 2011 20:18:07 GMT 10
BTW, a similar topic was being discussed elsewhere and, in relation to the Old Charges, a Brother was pressing for the words 'female mason' or similar in those MS Charges, as proof that they encompassed both men and women (not being satisfied with the words 'sister', 'Dame' or 'she who is to be made a mason'!? Or with specified women masons, including some names)!? The thread was locked before I could answer but, as I recall (I don't have the AQC volume to hand), the 1389 Certificate of the Guild of Masons at Lincoln, was originally in Latin and the term 'Cementarius' (= Mason, masculine) and its feminine equivalent (translated as 'brother' and 'sister') were both mentioned in every clause.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Feb 3, 2011 21:17:00 GMT 10
BTW, a similar topic was being discussed elsewhere and, in relation to the Old Charges, a Brother was pressing for the words 'female mason' or similar in those MS Charges, as proof that they encompassed both men and women (not being satisfied with the words 'sister', 'Dame' or 'she who is to be made a mason'!? Or with specified women masons, including some names)!? The thread was locked before I could answer but, as I recall (I don't have the AQC volume to hand), the 1389 Certificate of the Guild of Masons at Lincoln, was originally in Latin and the term 'Cementarius' (= Mason, masculine) and its feminine equivalent (translated as 'brother' and 'sister') were both mentioned in every clause. The same Brother chose to be disingenuous in his line of questioning (later claiming to have been using humour). At one point this Brother, when pressed for the good reasons he mentioned for maintaining gender segregation in Freemasonry, pretended to take affront by claiming that I was forcing him to bare his heart and reveal the personal details leading to him valuing the male bonding he finds in Freemasonry (a theme on the thread had, by then, been well established that the issue was not about any one person). Underneath this petty subterfuge was the serious question of male bonding. While those who seek male bonding may find it where they will, there is the question of limiting an organization to provide for them, especially one espousing egalitarian, enlightenment ideals and, declaring itself to be a universal and progressive science. Remember, our object is “the cultivation and improvement of the human mind”; we declare that “we are all sprung from the same stock, are partakers of the same nature and sharers of the same hope”; we celebrate our inclusiveness; and consider Freemasonry to provide a perfect model for the wider society (half of which consists of women). Within Freemasonry there are particular lodges, reserved for certain professions, services or other categories. It is understood that anyone who is, say, not a dentist will not be accepted as a member of a particular lodge consisting of dentists, although others may visit. Similarly, this scenario may be an option in the case of men or women. Hopefully, those who somehow reckon that the admission of women would result in less choice and some sort of bland uniformity, will see that there would thus be more choice (we would have the option of admitting individual women or not) and more diversity within Freemasonry, not less. For those who could not even envisage women as visitors!? I suggest they question their understanding of Freemasonry (and of women). What is is they are looking for and is that consistent with the fundamental principles of Freemasonry? Perhaps what is required for them is a whole other organization; one whose Object is indeed to provide male bonding, not just one which, despite its wider Object, has somehow slipped into that limited role. When Anderson introduced the rule excluding women, it was nothing remarkable at the time, given clubbing practices and the legal and social status of women among the gentry (working class women could not afford to be patronizingly cosseted). What was remarkable was Anderson’s first clause (Of God and Religion), which ended with the words: ... whereby Masonry becomes the Centre of Union and the Means of conciliating true Friendship among persons that must have remained at a perpetual distance. This clause was radically inclusive for the time. It defined Freemasonry as being heterosocial (socially diverse). Now that the social and legal status of women has vastly changed and there is no longer any good reason to exclude them, I feel it totally inconsistent that the same institution founded with this intent should still be entrenching the social distance between men and women!? |
|
|
|
Post by Azaziel on Feb 4, 2011 18:22:51 GMT 10
Philip, I think we need to think outside the box on this issue, It is very doubtful if a single GL will admit women as they will be declared not regular and not recognized by the majority of other GLs, this is just the way it is, Far better I suggest to put pressure on GL's to have all female lodges under their jurisdiction, then once this happens, work on visiting rights, as they say, slow and steady wins the race.
As an aside, if we are to be forced to become co-masonry, I know my lodge would close, as would most others up here, is this what those who advocate want, less men in masonry
|
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Feb 4, 2011 19:57:00 GMT 10
Terry,A few points. Firstly, the term co-masonry commonly and colloquially refers to a particular "family" of Obediences, not all in amity, of which LDH is the best known. I am not an advocate of co-masonry as I find the varying theosophical influences within those Obediences not to my masonic taste. I especially take issue with the display in some lodges of portraits of, an empty chair for, and references to the so-called "Head of All True Freemasons" (HOATF)!? I say this as both a Freemason and as a Theosophist (I was the National Secretary of The Theosophical Society in Australia and I remain a local member). Freemasonry is a universal, inclusive science, thus I would imagine that Freemasonry with both male and female members would be just that, 'Freemasonry.' However, for the sake of clarity in discussions such as this, I suggest the use of existing, colloquial terms, 'Male Craft,' describing segregated masonry for men only; 'Mixed Masonry,' describing unsegregated masonry; (and, by extension, 'Female Craft,' describing segregated masonry for women only). In practical terms, I think that as with PH recognition, the only GL likely to move more or less unilaterally on the gender issue will be the UGLE and other GL's will sooner or later fall into line. There are a few promising signs that the UGLE and others are moving in this direction (hence my having rejoined). I have reason to suspect that this move is already being signaled to other GL's in amity with the UGLE, including our own, and that there is some preparation taking place (for instance, recent articles in our magazine — and it'll be interesting to see if the CoL carries over into the term of the next GM). A good first step would indeed be, as you suggest, to grant visiting rights to the Female Craft Obediences (the UGLE have already approved the workings of two). BTW, there is no more need for a take-over of their lodges than there was in the case of PH lodges. That said, I suspect events may overstep this approach. I would be sorry to see any Male Craft members leave because of desegregation but we would not necessarily have less men in masonry as I imagine the change would be accompanied by much fanfare and a renewed sense of relevance (though not of leadership — too late for that). I imagine we would attract a new, egalitarian, male demographic, as well as a few women. Let's face it, our membership is increasingly aging and some of the attitudes common in earlier generations are, thankfully, becoming increasingly scarce. Values and standards have changed. If we don't change and become more relevant we are certainly going to lose numbers. Beyond this question of numbers are questions of what is right, what is masonic. As Bro. Profs. Paul Rich and Guillermo De Los Reyes observed of PH recognition:That, as the year 2000 approaches, the matter of Masonic Jim Crowism has finally become a major embarrassment to the white grand lodges in the United States deserves neither gratitude nor commendation, any more than does any other simple act of decency and honesty. It is akin to praising motorists for not running over pedestrians at intersections. Should one really gives awards for members of a moral and altruistic organization actually behaving according to its precepts? Let's get our house in order and make ourselves worthy of members.
|
|
|
|
Post by lanoo on Feb 5, 2011 11:26:34 GMT 10
"Now that the social and legal status of women has vastly changed and there is no longer any good reason to exclude them, I feel it totally inconsistent that the same institution founded with this intent should still be entrenching the social distance between men and women!?"
I remember you comparing the exclusion of women from masonic lodges to Amnesty International having a policy of summary justice for members who dissent.
lol
|
|
