|
|
Post by LorrB on May 26, 2011 10:23:49 GMT 9.5
I looked up the word irregular in the dictionary... it means 'not regular'  So I looked up the word regular ... it means normal, usual or customary. That started me thinking about irregular Freemasons. This irregular Freemason was certainly not your usual, normal or customary sort of person... maybe more attention could be given to Irregulars. freemasonry.bcy.ca/biography/esoterica/besant_a/besant_a.html |
|
|
|
Post by paul on May 26, 2011 10:30:33 GMT 9.5
Regular surely means regulated by rules.
But whose rules/landmarks?
|
|
|
|
Post by LorrB on May 26, 2011 10:39:12 GMT 9.5
 The co-founder of our Order. Maria's contribution to humanity has been recognised in the outer world too. She was much admired by Victor Hugo and the town square in St. Nazaire is named after her.
Maria died on 6th February 1894. She will be remembered as the founder of the first women's rights organisation in France, dedicated to improving conditions and securing greater educational advantages for women. Her complete writings were published in 1895.
www.droit-humain.org/uk/html/deraismes.html
|
|
|
|
Post by roman on May 26, 2011 10:56:25 GMT 9.5
Regular is only definable within. Those who apply it without don't have an understanding of the concept or it's use in Masonic custom or jurisprudence.
|
|
|
|
Post by mgc on May 26, 2011 11:06:12 GMT 9.5
i find most traditions constrictive.. if 1 doesnt want to blindly follow tradition, 1 should investigate if the tradition is (still) based on valid reasons.. there r traditions which reasons dont resonate with current day society..
perhaps the rules should be susceptible to change, according to what is deemed right at the time.. this would make achieving a universal standard much harder, as different cultures have different values.. not allowing change will inevitably sqeeze the life out of anything that is not static..
|
|
|
|
Post by Henka on May 26, 2011 11:16:51 GMT 9.5
Regular is only definable within. Those who apply it without don't have an understanding of the concept or it's use in Masonic custom or jurisprudence. Regular means direct descent from an established lineage. |
|
|
|
Post by roman on May 26, 2011 11:20:54 GMT 9.5
Regular is only definable within. Those who apply it without don't have an understanding of the concept or it's use in Masonic custom or jurisprudence. Regular means direct descent from an established lineage. No it doesn't. It means fits the standards of regularity established by whatever body has established those standards. Plenty of Masonic bodies have a direct lineage but are deemed irregular by others. Example: Both the GOdF and the GO of Italy have a direct lineage to Premier Grand Lodge yet are deemed irregular by the UGLE. |
|
|
|
Post by Henka on May 26, 2011 11:42:54 GMT 9.5
Regular means direct descent from an established lineage. No it doesn't. It means fits the standards of regularity established by whatever body has established those standards. Plenty of Masonic bodies have a direct lineage but are deemed irregular by others. Example: Both the GOdF and the GO of Italy have a direct lineage to Premier Grand Lodge yet are deemed irregular by the UGLE. Those are political decisions, not questions of legitimacy. |
|
|
|
Post by roman on May 26, 2011 11:49:35 GMT 9.5
No it doesn't. It means fits the standards of regularity established by whatever body has established those standards. Plenty of Masonic bodies have a direct lineage but are deemed irregular by others. Example: Both the GOdF and the GO of Italy have a direct lineage to Premier Grand Lodge yet are deemed irregular by the UGLE. Those are political decisions, not questions of legitimacy. That is not the official positions, that is your speculation. We must be careful to share correct information. Another example of lineage having no effect n regularity (when it comes to outside jurisdictions) would be the Grand Lodges that make up the National Compact Prince Hall Origin. None are recognized by a single American Grand lodge nor the UGLE despite having direct lineage to Africa Lodge #459 thus Premier Grand Lodge. Of course, the term "irregular" is used by those outside that jurisdiction, they do not consider themselves irregular so it is of no real importance. |
|
|
|
Post by Henka on May 26, 2011 12:04:47 GMT 9.5
Naturally, those who are considered irregular or clandestine will not consider themselves to be so.
|
|
|
|
Post by roman on May 26, 2011 12:22:07 GMT 9.5
And nor should they , those outside considerations have no effect on the work.
|
|
|
|
Post by Henka on May 26, 2011 12:26:33 GMT 9.5
And exactly what work do you consider that to be?
|
|
|
|
Post by paul on May 26, 2011 12:26:54 GMT 9.5
The ultimate question perhaps is who owns Masonry?
If it is owned by humans then it can be anything that humans want - and vary widely
If it is owned by the Temple in the Heavens then there must be rules to be complied with. These are symbolised by the Ancient Landmarks.
I suspect Masonic organisations would do well to spend more time connecting to the Grand Lodge Eternal
|
|
|
|
Post by roman on May 26, 2011 12:36:38 GMT 9.5
And exactly what work do you consider that to be? To erect the temple not built by hands. |
|
|
|
Post by roman on May 26, 2011 12:43:12 GMT 9.5
The ultimate question perhaps is who owns Masonry? If it is owned by humans then it can be anything that humans want - and vary widely If it is owned by the Temple in the Heavens then there must be rules to be complied with. These are symbolised by the Ancient Landmarks. I suspect Masonic organisations would do well to spend more time connecting to the Grand Lodge Eternal Who owns Freemasonry? G.O.A.T.U. and the perfection of humanity. |
|
|
|
Post by paul on May 26, 2011 13:03:51 GMT 9.5
Who owns Freemasonry? G.O.A.T.U. and the perfection of humanity. An excellent reply! I think it would be valuable for Grand Lodges to be clearer about the need to reconcile all Masonic activities with the GAOTU - even if they find two-way communication a bit difficult. |
|
|
|
Post by LorrB on May 26, 2011 13:06:29 GMT 9.5
My usual 'too oblique to be seen by anybody' approach to a subject has bought me down once again. I will try to explain why I started this thread.
The two edged sword I tried to wield here was to point out that women are brothers too .... but more importantly most masons I know, myself included, are happy enough to just do normal, usual and customary works. You know, the regular stuff.
Maybe we might try harder to become 'irregular' - tackle the work that most others leave alone.
........................
Back to the tack this thread has taken now.. wasn't intended, but mighty interesting!
|
|
|
|
Post by Henka on May 26, 2011 13:50:59 GMT 9.5
Lorr, we all know girls are Freemasons. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 26, 2011 16:21:47 GMT 9.5
I would say regular, speculative Freemasonry makes regular, speculative Freemasons. I would also say regular, speculative Freemasons are expected to apply the peculiar, moral work with which they are charged. Picking-up your mail does not suffice.
|
|
|
|
Post by roman on May 27, 2011 6:55:24 GMT 9.5
If the work is worked to wear the apron is always tied around the waist in a sense than it's effective.
To be a member only means the opportunity to associate with a particular group of people while others are off limits, nothing more.
|
|
