What is the purpose of Freemasonry?

[humason]

Originally Posted by grandsecretary

humason we are debating the very essence of Freemasonry.

Which, for me, and the UGLE, is a belief in a supreme being.
Which, for my friends, and the LDH ISN'T a belief in a supreme being.

What's your point? There's many flavors of Masonry...

[grandsecretary]

Originally Posted by humason

Which, for me, and the UGLE, is a belief in a supreme being.
Which, for my friends, and the LDH ISN'T a belief in a supreme being.

What's your point? There's many flavors of Masonry...

Three:

The Free Masonrie of Ancient Ireland, Scotland and York - God and the immortality of the soul;

The Moderns - "a supreme being"

The Grand Orients - personal choice, including atheism.

There are many flavours of Freemasonry, and when we post here we should make it clear that none of us speaks for Freemasonry, per se we speak for our flavour.

malison and kadosh in particular should appreciate this, and I hope that one day they will.

Each to his own, each system has a value, nobody owns Freemasonry.

[humason]

Originally Posted by grandsecretary

Three:

The Free Masonrie of Ancient Ireland, Scotland and York - God and the immortality of the soul;

The Moderns - "a supreme being"

The Grand Orients - personal choice, including atheism.

There are many flavours of Freemasonry, and when we post here we should make it clear that none of us speaks for Freemasonry, per se we speak for our flavour.

malison and kadosh in particular should appreciate this, and I hope that one day they will.

Each to his own, each system has a value, nobody owns Freemasonry.

Correct And I've never said anything else - look back, I've never said that UGLE is "The Only Right Way (TM)"

[stevepenny]

Originally Posted by agneau

The Bible, referred to by Freemasons as the Volume of the Sacred Law, is always open at every Masonic meeting. - This is not quite correct is it?

It is according to UGLE. Have you ever attended a tyled lodge meeting where the VSL and Square and Compasses are not displayed?

Nothing here about affirmation!! - I Never mentioned 'affirmation' - I took an oath. Oaths are not exclusive to deists. Nor, come to that, is the word 'sacred' - I believe that a sacred oath can be taken by an atheist.

You are entitled to your opinions Sacred can be defined as "...of or relating to religion: not secular or profane...". Deism is secular (...not belonging to a religious organisation or congregation...), so how therefore can an oath when taken by a Deist, be considered sacred?

When asked in the EA Degree "In whom do you place your trust"; And you answered "In God"; were you lying? Nope..

Was the VSL on which you took your obligation the Christian Bible? -Yes.

Why? The point is the same that I have made to humason; you simply cannot take an oath on a Holy Book that contains scripture that you do not believe.

Assuming you are a Master Mason; at your 'raising' you were made to portray the death of our master Hiram Abiff. Therefore;

1. Who is Hiram Abiff?
2. What or who does he represent?
3. What is the allegory of the ritual?
4. What is the significance of the 'Lion Paw (or grip)'?

Assuming you understood or were taught the allegory of the ritual, your own conclusions will hopefully answer your own points.

[stevepenny]

Originally Posted by humason

Sorry about that one It wasn't proper. Yet, I still see no issue with my oath. The question is not "Do you believe in God of the Bible", but "Do you believe in God".

No apology needed; i'm just glad we're back to a serious civilised debate. If I have offended you then please accept my apologies

Unfortunately the Genie is out of the bottle and the subject is just to big for my tired brain to cope with at work today. I'll try to post on the subject later

This is the Masonic oath from the Edinburgh Register House Manuscript dated 1696.

By god himself and you shall answer to god when you shall stand nakd before
him, at the great day, you shall not reveal any pairt of what you shall hear or
see at this time whither by word nor write nor put it in wryte at any time nor
draw it with the point of a sword, or any other instrument upon the snow or
sand, nor shall you speak of it but with an entered mason, so help you god.

Its beauty lies in its simplicity.

[humason]

Originally Posted by stevepenny

It is according to UGLE. Have you ever attended a tyled lodge meeting where the VSL and Square and Compasses are not displayed?



You are entitled to your opinions Sacred can be defined as "...of or relating to religion: not secular or profane...". Deism is secular (...not belonging to a religious organisation or congregation...), so how therefore can an oath when taken by a Deist, be considered sacred?



Why? The point is the same that I have made to humason; you simply cannot take an oath on a Holy Book that contains scripture that you do not believe.

Assuming you are a Master Mason; at your 'raising' you were made to portray the death of our master Hiram Abiff. Therefore;

1. Who is Hiram Abiff?
2. What or who does he represent?
3. What is the allegory of the ritual?
4. What is the significance of the 'Lion Paw (or grip)'?

Assuming you understood or were taught the allegory of the ritual, your own conclusions will hopefully answer your own points.

While I see your point in the questions, I feel obligated (pun intended) to mention that this isn't a Tyled environment and it might not be the best place to discuss this...

To answer your question: I, as I said, see your point (my interpretation being slightly different from the one you allude to), yet, again, see no problems with that and my (personal) interpretation of the GAOTU.

Mate, really, I'm nearly certain that the professed Christian denomination - at least in the continental Europe lodges in amity with the UGLE - is in a serious minority...

Is most of Masonry based on interpretations of the Bible? Yes.
Do you need to be a Christian to appreciate it? No.
Does it make more sense if you believe in God? Yes.

[stevepenny]

Originally Posted by humason

While I see your point in the questions, I feel obligated (pun intended) to mention that this isn't a Tyled environment and it might not be the best place to discuss this...

I'm quite sure that there is no harm in discussing the 4 questions posed. I'm asking you what YOU think they represent. This goes to the heart of the matter that has been raised on more than one forum and in more than one thread.

You need not use long words nor divulge any secrets. Questions one and two have the same answer, question three can be answered in 2 words and question four in 7 words.

Mate, really, I'm nearly certain that the professed Christian denomination - at least in the continental Europe lodges in amity with the UGLE - is in a serious minority...

Then I recommend a visit to a GLoS Lodge as a matter of some urgency...we still take it seriously.

[agneau]

Have you ever attended a tyled lodge meeting where the VSL and Square and Compasses are not displayed?

– Your first post implied that the VSL was always the Bible.

You are entitled to your opinions Sacred can be defined as "...of or relating to religion: not secular or profane...". Deism is secular (...not belonging to a religious organisation or congregation...), so how therefore can an oath when taken by a Deist, be considered sacred?

Don’t understand this; ‘Sacred’ can be defined all sorts of ways, including a non-religious way. An oath can be considered sacred whenever.

Was the VSL on which you took your obligation the Christian Bible? -Yes.
Why? The point is the same that I have made to humason; you simply cannot take an oath on a Holy Book that contains scripture that you do not believe.

–

You may not be able to, but I can: ie Your problem, not mine.

Assuming you are a Master Mason; at your 'raising' you were made to portray the death of our master Hiram Abiff. Therefore;

1. Who is Hiram Abiff?
2. What or who does he represent?
3. What is the allegory of the ritual?
4. What is the significance of the 'Lion Paw (or grip)'?

Now you're trying to be too clever and it still doesn't belie my own truth. In any event I'm afraid I have no desire to answer any more questions, since you finish with : ‘Your own conclusions will hopefully answer your own points’ ? which reeks of good ol’ Christian self-righteous, smug pomposity, and is sooooo endearing…..

Tara!

[stevepenny]

Originally Posted by agneau

– Your first post implied that the VSL was always the Bible.

No; that was taken directly from the UGLE website.

Don’t understand this; ‘Sacred’ can be defined all sorts of ways, including a non-religious way. An oath can be considered sacred whenever.

Not in the way it was intended. The etymology of teh word is Middle English, from the past participle sacren, to consecrate, from Anglo-French sacrer, from the Latin sacrare and similair to the Latin word sancire which means to make sacred. It is also from the Hittite word šaklāi which means Rite.

You may not be able to, but I can: ie Your problem, not mine.

It's not my problem at all.

Now you're trying to be too clever and it still doesn't belie my own truth.

There is absolutely nothing 'clever' about the four questions. If you understood the ritual you would be able to answer them with consumate ease. Did you become a Freemason with an intent to learn and become a useful member of a fraternal society; or did you just join it because you thought it was a social club and so you could get a 'leg-up' in society?

And please, no more of the feigned indignance. If the point made above hurts, i.e. is it representative of the words "...and may it's recollection prove a torture to your soul..." then only you can do something about it. (and yes, I know the words are used out of context...)

In any event I'm afraid I have no desire to answer any more questions, since you finish with : ‘Your own conclusions will hopefully answer your own points’ ? which reeks of good ol’ Christian self-righteous, smug pomposity, and is sooooo endearing…..

Actually it reeks of a lack of knowledge of the fraternal society to which you allegedly belong. It reeks of a lack of undestanding of the ritual. Do you remember the words "Daily advancement in the knowldege of Freemasonry", or have you forgotten that as well.

[grandsecretary]

[QUOTE=agneau;1058370166Don’t understand this; ‘Sacred’ can be defined all sorts of ways, including a non-religious way. An oath can be considered sacred whenever ...[/QUOTE]

No.

Sacerdotal: teaching "through the ministry of priests". Read your Royal Arch ritual. You cannot change the Landmarks for your own convenience. Well, you can, but then your Freemasonry becomes "The Rainbow Alliance."

[kadosh]

Originally Posted by grandsecretary

Each to his own, each system has a value, nobody owns Freemasonry.

However, to borrow a proverbial legal phrase - the man on the Clapham omnibus does not understand that.

[stevepenny]

Originally Posted by kadosh

However, to borrow a proverbial legal phrase - the man on the Clapham omnibus does not understand that.

The quote refers to a 'reasonably educated man...'. A difficult standard to apply to some who post here

Out of pure interest:

The story goes like this: in June of 1753, the real Reasonable Man was due in Chancery courts to give expert testimony in the matter of R. v. Murphy. He failed to show up at court at the appointed time of 9 a.m., but barristers on both sides of the matter gave the witness the benefit of the doubt, conceding 10 a.m. to be a more reasonable starting time anyhow.

When the Reasonable Man still failed to show up, earnest law clerks were sent into Chancery Lane to try and catch a glimpse of the latecomer. Just at this moment the Clapham omnibus went chugging by, spiriting Mr. Toff within. It was the young clerk Philip Dunwell, in a typical attempt to win the favour of his superior judge, that yelled, "That's our man, the man on the Clapham omnibus!"

Judges, however, were right to question the likelihood of espying the Reasonable Man within the Clapham bus, as certainly any reasonable Londoner would have taken the Battersea Omnibus to court, generally regarded to be the more expedient of the two modes of public transportation.

Indeed, our Man had taken that route, but when the bell rang to signify his upcoming stop, it proved to be a death knell for his final stop. At the corner of Wakehurst and Northcote Road, the bus crashed, killing its occupants.

While tragic, the accident proved to be one of the more succinct cases London Peelers presided over: it was determined the driver of the omnibus acted within reason, just as the driver of the post-chaise had. It was, at the risk of literary hyperbole, a pure accident. William Hogarth would later reproduce this entirely unique occurrence in one of his trademark woodcuttings, depicting the accident taking place under both an eclipse and the end of a rainbow.

To make matters worse, the justice in the Murphy case had to declare a mistrial, concluding: "Everything that could go wrong, has."

Grays Legal Dictionary

[agneau]

Well I consider my Saturday mornings playing golf as sacred - but I never realised the true religious aspect of my experience..

Perhaps that explains the continual blaspheme I hear around me on every other shank....

...now that IS my problem.

[aronia]

Originally Posted by lightgiver

Any thoughts.?

The purpose of Freemasonry is world goverment out through the bloodlines...

The same goes for all the think tanks...

All the member of all think tanks is from a bloodline familie to...

[grandsecretary]

Some truth in this aronia. Good post. But only half of the story.

True Anglo-Saxon Free Masonrie was and is the opposite if this. It is the empowerment of the individual by education, so that the individual may take hold of the reins of power, for and on behalf of the people.

"Of the People, For the People, By the People."

It became so influential that in 1813 it was appropriated and turned into a hierarchical system of Royal patronage, where it is forbidden to even discuss religion and politics, in the interests of the "bloodlines".

Fortunately, this attempt to eradicate the democratic system of Free Masonry has failed and it has been revived.

Watch this space.

[aronia]

Originally Posted by grandsecretary

Some truth in this aronia. Good post. But only half of the story.

True Anglo-Saxon Free Masonrie was and is the opposite if this. It is the empowerment of the individual by education, so that the individual may take hold of the reins of power, for and on behalf of the people.


It became so influential that in 1813 it was appropriated and turned into a hierarchical system of Royal patronage, where it is forbidden to even discuss religion and politics, in the interests of the "bloodlines".


Fortunately, this attempt to eradicate the democratic system of Free Masonry has failed and it has been revived.

Watch this space.

If this kind of Freemasonry ever have existed it is dead now.

[grandsecretary]

Originally Posted by aronia

If this kind of Freemasonry ever have existed it is dead now.

Well if it is dead then it won't lie down.

[stewart edwards]

Thank you Peter for you have just unwittingly ticked a box that helps me understand some of the wierd and wonderful unexpected things that have happened to me in the masonic wolrd over the years.

Thank you.

[lightgiver]

Originally Posted by grandsecretary

Some truth in this aronia. Good post. But only half of the story.

True Anglo-Saxon Free Masonrie was and is the opposite if this. It is the empowerment of the individual by education, so that the individual may take hold of the reins of power, for and on behalf of the people.


Watch this space.

That all depends on the quality of education one receives.

Build your penitentiary, we build your schools,
Brainwash education to make us the fools.
Hate is your reward for our love,
Telling us of your God above.

[grandsecretary]

Originally Posted by lightgiver

That all depends on the quality of education one receives.

Build your penitentiary, we build your schools,
Brainwash education to make us the fools.
Hate is your reward for our love,
Telling us of your God above.

Totally agree with you lightgiver.