|
|
Post by fitviavi on May 26, 2011 23:58:30 GMT 9.5
"On Holy Ground: A History of The Honorable Order of American Co-Masonry" by Karen Kidd Any one read this book yet? f so, what do you think? see blurb at < www.masonicexchange.com/paypal/ohg.aspx> F&F Fitviavi |
|
|
|
Post by LorrB on May 27, 2011 9:11:38 GMT 9.5
Thank you for that info Fitviavi - I didn't know that she had written a second book. Karen and I go back a bit, I must contact her and get her to pay this thread a visit.
I do believe she is coming to Australia next year. I wonder if the male craft would be interested in hearing her speak.
Nice to see you posting ... you are a very learned man and we would love to hear more from you.
|
|
|
|
Post by roman on May 27, 2011 9:39:33 GMT 9.5
While it is good to see a book about Co-Masonry (boy how I hate hyphenated terms) it seems to play fast an loose with facts.
For an example,it states that the foundation of her order was in 1903. It was not. It was in 1994 as a result of her leadership winning a lawsuit.
No need to do this type of thing. IMHO
But it is nice to see any book written from a gender equal perspective.
|
|
|
|
Post by Henka on May 27, 2011 9:41:00 GMT 9.5
Until the split, the history of the two orders were the same, so it is not factually incorrect.
|
|
|
|
Post by roman on May 27, 2011 9:49:36 GMT 9.5
Until the split, the history of the two orders were the same, so it is not factually incorrect. If I worked at IBM for 30 years , sued IBM and as a result started a company of my own , would it be factually correct (or ethical) for me to claim IBM's history as my companies own? |
|
|
|
Post by LorrB on May 27, 2011 9:57:32 GMT 9.5
FREEMASONRY. According to an old " Charge " delivered to initiates, Freemasonry is declared to be an " ancient and honourable institution having subsisted from time immemorial....
Guess we are all guilty then.
|
|
|
|
Post by Henka on May 27, 2011 10:02:35 GMT 9.5
Until the split, the history of the two orders were the same, so it is not factually incorrect. If I worked at IBM for 30 years , sued IBM and as a result started a company of my own , would it be factually correct (or ethical) for me to claim IBM's history as my companies own? If I used to be a Fellowcraft, was effectively expelled from regular Freemasonry, and invented a shiny new product and labeled it "Freemasonry," would it be ethical to claim it is actually Freemasonry? |
|
|
|
Post by roman on May 27, 2011 10:03:04 GMT 9.5
FREEMASONRY. According to an old " Charge " delivered to initiates, Freemasonry is declared to be an " ancient and honourable institution having subsisted from time immemorial.... Guess we are all guilty then. I get what you're saying , but you're not really on point. There is not a question as to the ownership of Freemasonry, but rather the appropriation of a specific orders history. Would it be ethical if I stated that Worshipful Annie Bessant was part of the foundation of my order even if I knew she had nothing to do with it? I shouldn't have to ask that question. Why can't an Order stand on their own accomplishments? There is NOTHING wrong with an Order being self created. There is NOTHING wrong with having a history that started in 1994. Why try to pad a resume that would be A-OK if factually represented? |
|
|
|
Post by Henka on May 27, 2011 10:04:51 GMT 9.5
FREEMASONRY. According to an old " Charge " delivered to initiates, Freemasonry is declared to be an " ancient and honourable institution having subsisted from time immemorial.... Guess we are all guilty then. I get what you're saying , but you're not really on point. There is not a question as to the ownership of Freemasonry, but rather the appropriation of a specific orders history. Would it be ethical if I stated that Worshipful Annie Bessant was part of the foundation of my order even if I knew she had nothing to do with it? I shouldn't have to ask that question. Why can't an Order stand on their own accomplishments? There is NOTHING wrong with an Order being self created. There is NOTHING wrong with having a history that started in 1994. Why try to pad a resume that would be A-OK if factually represented? The fact that Karen Kidd's order split off from the original means that it is a direct descendant of that order. It is not a self-created construction like 1613. |
|
|
|
Post by roman on May 27, 2011 10:09:25 GMT 9.5
|
|
|
|
Post by LorrB on May 27, 2011 10:26:49 GMT 9.5
You have made you point Roman. Maybe we can leave it up to individuals to decide for themselves what is what so far as dates are concerned.
We pride ourselves on this forum that we do not get caught up in politics or intrigues of any sort, we work in the spirit of true fellowship.
|
|
|
|
Post by roman on May 27, 2011 10:29:44 GMT 9.5
You have made you point Roman. Maybe we can leave it up to individuals to decide for themselves what is what so far as dates are concerned. We pride ourselves on this forum that we do not get caught up in politics or intrigues of any sort, we work in the spirit of true fellowship. Understood, my point was that of honesty and factual information. A basis of fellowship. |
|
|
|
Post by Cora B on May 29, 2011 3:30:24 GMT 9.5
Hello Brad, Found yourself a new perch? ... it seems to play fast an loose with facts. For an example,it states that the foundation of her order was in 1903. It was not. Nor does the book state so. Bro. Kidd is quite careful in stating that the first Lodge was established in 1903 as a Lodge under the auspices of the Supreme Council of International Co-Freemasonry, that same Order which nowadays is known as the International Order of Co-Freemasonry, Le Droit Humain. For those, who like me, wonder why the 1613 Administrator continues to make so much of an issue of what is in truth a non-issue, I recommend a careful reading of Bro. Kidd's book, in particular there where she references the "Supreme Council of the Ancient York Rite [...] a body that existed almost entirely in the mind of its founder, the draft dodger, forger and degree seller Joseph W. Pomphrey. His organization was impressive, given Pomphrey operated almost entirely out of his home in Covington, Kentucky. It had its own Supreme Council and published a newspaper, Five Points of Fellowship, with national circulation. Pomphrey also self-published a few exposes, including thing 47-page booklet "A True Disclosure and Exposition of the Knights of the Golden Circle, Including the Secret Signs, Grips and Charges of the Third Degree as Practiced by the Order". (p. 31 a.f.) Imagine - if he pulled it off from his home at the beginning of the 20th century, how much easier it could be this day and age with the aid of, say, the internet... J'ai dit. In that we are in agreement. Nothing worth doing comes easy. |
|
|
|
Post by roman on May 29, 2011 5:15:47 GMT 9.5
Again, the foundations of the AFHR are found within court records. All public domain and easy enough to find.
As to what is within reach to begin. Morin made a living selling patents and warrants for the AASR. If he had not, it would not exist today beyond the influence of Pike. Yet Morin is considered a founding father, not a profiteer.
Masonic history is written through rose colored glasses.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2011 6:31:44 GMT 9.5
Absorption of Craft traditions is itself a time-immemorial tradition (a major instance was the 1813 Union). There are right and wrong ways of introducing such changes.
B.T.W., what is "the federal Cumsille fraud case".
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2011 7:09:02 GMT 9.5
Morin made a living selling patents and warrants for the AASR. If he had not, it would not exist today beyond the influence of Pike. "Beyond the influence of Pike." Pike's influence was enormous! It was too significant to be simply dismissed as an off-hand, conditional qualification to an otherwise general assertion (which in any case, related to only one, non-essential, step in the development and promulgation of the Rite). |
|
|
|
Post by paul on May 29, 2011 10:56:15 GMT 9.5
That might be an interesting thread: distinguishing where Pike influences are and are not.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2011 11:51:10 GMT 9.5
That might be an interesting thread: distinguishing where Pike influences are and are not. In emphasizing Pike's enormous importance, I did so in the context of the Ancient & Accepted Rite, where he and Mackey were analogous to Desaguliers and Anderson in the context of the Craft. Pike influence on masonry as a whole is often over-stated (and misrepresented) by enthusiasts and conspiracy theorists. |
|
|
|
Post by roman on May 29, 2011 12:56:48 GMT 9.5
Absorption of Craft traditions is itself a time-immemorial tradition (a major instance was the 1813 Union). There are right and wrong ways of introducing such changes. B.T.W., what is "the federal Cumsille fraud case". And of course you are a qualified judge of "right" and :wrong" ways? |
|
|
|
Post by roman on May 29, 2011 12:57:44 GMT 9.5
Morin made a living selling patents and warrants for the AASR. If he had not, it would not exist today beyond the influence of Pike. "Beyond the influence of Pike." Pike's influence was enormous! It was too significant to be simply dismissed as an off-hand, conditional qualification to an otherwise general assertion (which in any case, related to only one, non-essential, step in the development and promulgation of the Rite). I never said it wasn't. The majority of the AASR (REAA) practiced world wide is not of the Pike variety. |
|
