Ship of Fools: Freemasonry and Christianity

Thread: Freemasonry and Christianity Board: Purgatory / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=020039

Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :

Are they compatible? They raise a lot of money for charity, and don't appear to be working for the downfall of western civilisation (such as it is). Yet the RC church thinks you're in a state of grave sin if you're a mason and RC (how far is this reflex anti-masonry from 200 years ago?).

The CofE on the other hand has had at least one 20th century ABC (Ramsay) who was also a mason, and still apparently numerous clergy (although they tend to have to resign when elevated to a bishopric these days - eg current bishop of Fulham).

I'm not asking the assembled masses whether I should join, but they have made noises in my life in the past, and I've always passed it up. Was that right?

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

What I have against freemasonry is its esoterism, secredy, and closedness, values that appear antithetical to the Kingdom of God to me.

I do have one in my church though [Big Grin]

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

Yes!! The semi-perennial SOF Masons thread! I was actually wondering a couple of days ago when we'd be seeing the next one. Good times!

Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
Yes!! The semi-perennial SOF Masons thread! I was actually wondering a couple of days ago when we'd be seeing the next one. Good times!

In all seriousness I've been reading the boards daily since 2010 and I started it because I've never seen one!

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
Yes!! The semi-perennial SOF Masons thread! I was actually wondering a couple of days ago when we'd be seeing the next one. Good times!
In all seriousness I've been reading the boards daily since 2010 and I started it because I've never seen one!

Well, like I say, it has been a while. I think around 2010 or shortly thereafter might have been the last one, but I couldn't say for sure.

And, for the record, my exaggerated enthusiasm was meant as hyperbole, not sarcasm; I wasn't criticizing you for starting this thread. Quite the opposite. It's somehow reassuring to see certain topics maintain a following over time.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

A couple of thoughts

Freemasons are required to swear oaths of fidelity to Freemasonry. Thou shalt have no God before me?

A Freemason agrees that he will support a fellow Freemason before all others. Doesn't quite fit with the Christ who received all who came to Him , without favour.

It suggests to me that any kind of "dual commitment" is proscribed from first principles.

Posted by Callan (# 525) on :

Years ago a church, at which I was curate, hosted a Masonic Service. I said nothing, despite my reservations, curates have to pick their fights selectively. My main impression, from the Order of Service, was that Masonic Clergy give themselves the most appallingly grand titles. At a subsequent church, one of the congo, took us on a tour of the local Masonic Temple. My feeling is that I would not join, myself, but I wouldn't fall out with someone who did.

I do have a friend who very nearly became a 'Masonic Widow'. She ditched the gentleman concerned because his finances didn't stretch to taking her out for her birthday but did stretch to coughing up for an expensive and elaborate masonic 'do' the day after. From what I can make out that was more of a personal failure than Masonic ideology.

Here endeth the attempt to parse anecdotes into data!

Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
A couple of thoughts

Freemasons are required to swear oaths of fidelity to Freemasonry. Thou shalt have no God before me?

Well, that wipes out all oaths of citizenship, all oaths of loyalty to any person or organization, and all swowrn testimony in court. That may be your bag, but it isn't mine.

Once again (I've done this on several of these threads) I'm not a mason, but far too many faithful and honest Christians have been masons for me to believe it's anti-CHristian. It was only in the higher degrees, for example, that my father was brought to attend a Maundy Thursday commemoration of the Last Supper (I saw the order of service he brought from it, and there's nothing out of the way about it from a Christian perspective at all -- as there was nothing out of the way about the order of service he brought home after the Easter sunrise service).

FWIW, some masons will talk a lot of what I think is utter drivel about their supposed esoteric origins, from the time of Solomon's temple on. But that is mostly an 18th century romantic add on to what was in origin a standard medieval craft guild,and like most such guilds, thoroughly Christian (in the understanding of the time). I'd guess that most masons think those things are, at best, a pretty story, with no more relationship to real history than the story of a three-level universe has to real astronomy.

John

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

My own view is that Freemasonry is daft rather than diabolical.

I'd never join nor would I ever be asked I don't suppose. I know they don't directly invite people to do so - or at least, aren't supposed to.

I've known a number of Masons. They are no more loopy than anyone else. Some of the anti-Masonic stuff out there is more whacky.

If someone can square it with their own faith, then that's up to them and none of my business. It doesn't float my boat but one man's fish is another man's poisson.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

My late father was a mason, and came from a long line of same who held what is called "grand" rank - in other words at national level - within both ordinary and in Mark masonry. During his lifetime he became increasingly disillusioned with masonry (of all kinds) and was adamant that, unless one of us asked, he would not be suggesting that we join the craft.

He was particularly scathing about the well-worn line "masons do a lot for charity" because, as he'd point out to anyone who'd listen, the charities that benefited from Lodge largesse were specifically masonic charities, the schools and hospital in particular.

My father finally dropped all masonic links and activities in his 50s, although he still had friends who were 'in'. He became ever more cynical about masonry from then on and the many shady goings-on that he heard of - not just known about such as P2 but other, local affairs - convinced him that the craft was fatally flawed, corrupt and totally incompatible with christianity or church membership.

I've been invited to become a mason over the years but have chosen not to - it all seems rather puerile and any so-called charitable activity can be better done without having to spend a fortune on Lodge dinners and fees. I don't think the sons' generation would do anything other than die laughing if anyone suggested they become masons.

Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:

My father finally dropped all masonic links and activities in his 50s, although he still had friends who were 'in'. He became ever more cynical about masonry from then on and the many shady goings-on that he heard of - not just known about such as P2 but other, local affairs - convinced him that the craft was fatally flawed, corrupt and totally incompatible with christianity or church membership.

That's interesting - could it have been a generational thing? I ask because my father says the same thing about the Rotary club of the 1980s, the next-door neighbour about the Round Table, and there's a bloke down the pub who still thinks he didn't get planning permission because all those who thwarted him were in the local rugby club.

Do you think it was specifically masonry, or just what happens when people with a bit of power and influence socialise together? In other words, if you've got any influence, is it beholden on you to recuse yourself from any form of club or alliance, whether because it is corrupt, or because it might look corrupt to others?

Or is it just that masonry is/was uniquely different and qualitatively worse than the things that get settled over a G&T in the golf club?

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
The CofE on the other hand has had at least one 20th century ABC (Ramsay) who was also a mason

Surely not - Fisher was.

Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
The CofE on the other hand has had at least one 20th century ABC (Ramsay) who was also a mason
Surely not - Fisher was.

You are absolutely right. Thank god you can't libel the dead - if libel it is.

Although this might sound strange given their characters as individuals, I've always got many aspects of the lives of Ramsay and Fisher confused!

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
The CofE on the other hand has had at least one 20th century ABC (Ramsay) who was also a mason
Surely not - Fisher was.

Thanks Leo. I was going to say the same thing.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

There's a move round here to get Masons involved in public life to declare themselves ...

It can get silly.

I know of a planning board hearing when a particularly unpopular proposal came up for consideration, one of the journalists overhead someone behind him say, 'You watch now, all the Masons will vote for it ...'

In the event, it was unanimously turned down. He told me he wanted to turn around and ask why 'all the Masons' (if there were any) had suddenly voted it down. But the fella had gone.

All that said, Freemasonry in South Wales was supposed to be notoriously corrupt when I was growing up. But then the same applied to the dominant political parties down there and much else besides ...

I don't doubt that it went through a very corrupt phase though. Probably from the 1950s to 1970s in particular.

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

The vicar who welcomed my family into the CofE when the Congregationalists got unfriendly, and became a family friend was, for a time, a mason. Then he resigned. He said that as he advanced, he found out things which he could not consider compatible with his Christianity. He considered himself still bound by his oaths not to reveal what those things were.

One of my life's loose ends.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

The current bishop of Fulham, Jonathan Baker, resigned from his Lodges in 2011 but my sources are fairly certain he has rejoined his 'mother' Lodge.

Archbishop Fisher was Grand Chaplain twice in the 1930s, having become a mason while at Repton.

A few 20th century bishop-masons: + Gerald Ellison (Chester, then London 1973-81), + Basil Guy (Gloucester 1962-75), + Percy Herbert (Norwich 1942-59); further afield ++Orland Lindsay (Archbishop of the West Indies 1986-98), and there are serving bishops in TEC who are masons. Earlier, Archbishops of Canterbury Howley, Longley and Tait were all masons.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
He was particularly scathing about the well-worn line "masons do a lot for charity" because, as he'd point out to anyone who'd listen, the charities that benefited from Lodge largesse were specifically masonic charities, the schools and hospital in particular.

Can you expand on that? I don't understand how it's any less charitable to raise money for a Masonic school or hospital than for a Uniting Church kindergarten. Or to buy chutneys and pickles a street stall supporting those affected by the Nepal earthquake.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
He was particularly scathing about the well-worn line "masons do a lot for charity" because, as he'd point out to anyone who'd listen, the charities that benefited from Lodge largesse were specifically masonic charities, the schools and hospital in particular.
Can you expand on that? I don't understand how it's any less charitable to raise money for a Masonic school or hospital than for a Uniting Church kindergarten. Or to buy chutneys and pickles a street stall supporting those affected by the Nepal earthquake.

Yeah, as far as I am aware, Masonic hospitals etc don't confine themselves to serving Masons and their families. If they did, they'd have very few patients, since the number of Masons these days is miniscule.

I guess you could argue that charities with masonic names imporoperly glorify the organization, but then how is that any different from, say, Grey Nuns Hospital?

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

Shriners is a part of the Free Masons. They have a large network of hospitals, though as they shrink the hospitals have been struggling financially.

Masons are very civic minded too.

I think overall free-masonry has been struggling too as millennials are hesitant on long-term commitments.

While there are many Lutherans who are Masons, my particular Synod discourages its clergy from joining abt type of lodge. Has to do with time commitments more than anything else.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

My grandfather was a pretty high up Mason, which concerned us as he clearly had more of a commitment to it than to Christianity for most of his life. When I looked into it (with the help of some reading materials he gave me) the biggest theological problem I found was that it appears to place all religions/faiths on one level, as many different equal paths to God--and all of them implied as further away from the truth than Masonry itself. If that is indeed what they teach and practice, it's not hard to see why it would be incompatible with Christianity, particularly with Christ's claim to be the Way, Truth, and the Life, and the only way to the Father. Going too deeply into it (for more than mere social life and do-gooding, I mean) would force a person to choose eventually.

I was very glad to see that at the end of his life, he turned back to Christianity and became quietly but regularly communicant again.

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

These are the main theological reasons the RCC objects to Freemasonry as I understand it. Making all religions and all versions of God on equal footing, that is. As a Christian one should put Christ and the Triune God above all else unreservedly is the RC stance. And if you want to belong to a big organization that is highly charitable and has all sorts of cool rituals, why not the One True Church?

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

Lamb Chopped wrote:

quote:
I found was that it appears to place all religions/faiths on one level, as many different equal paths to God--and all of them implied as further away from the truth than Masonry itself.

Yeah, that would be problematic, from a small-O orthodox perspective. But I don't think it's much different from what, say, Alcoholics Anonymous teaches. In most of the groups, everyone pledges allegiance to a higher-power, even though most of them probably have differing views about what that higher-power is. And some of them probably belong to churches that would condemn the theistic ideas of the other members.

Of course, 12-Steps HAS come in for criticism from the kind of Christians who worry about ocultic influences in the larger culture, owing to its origins in Jungian psychology and mystical symbolism.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

I've no problem with AA etc. They give you the option of interpreting and using their "higher power" idea in an orthodox Christian way. But Masonry basically tells you "this is how it is" and you either sign on for that, or you're ... well, an oathbreaker? at the very least an equivocator and dear to Macbeth's devil-porter. [Devil]

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
I've no problem with AA etc. They give you the option of interpreting and using their "higher power" idea in an orthodox Christian way. But Masonry basically tells you "this is how it is" and you either sign on for that, or you're ... well, an oathbreaker? at the very least an equivocator and dear to Macbeth's devil-porter.

I think most Masons would say that they give their members the option of interpreting "Great Architect Of The Universe" in a Christian way as well, or at least, they accept it as a valid understanding of the idea, as long as those members also respect the right of, say, Jews and deists to interpret it as THEY see fit. (Otherwise, there would not likely be many Christian Masons, if they were being directly instructed to renounce their beliefs upon signing up).

One supposedly liberal group that DOES, I believe, give its members detailed instructions about what to believe is the Bahai faith. It's not just that you can accept Jesus as the ultimate guy, or Muhammed as the ultimate guy, you HAVE to believe that Jesus and Muhammed were avatars(for lack of a better word) of the same entity, along with whoever it was who started the Bahais. Whereas Masonry in most of its manifestations allows you to bring whatever conception you have to the table, as long as it can fit the category of "God".

Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on :

Watch when a minister preaches against freemasonry. I've never seen anything like it - he was removed within a couple of months.

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

I always thought that Freemasonry was at one time quite explicitly Christian but somewhere in the eighteenth century became solidly deist.

It does seem to attract a type of 'Protestant' who has a longing for ritual so long as it isn't in church, and those who were once in the BB and now would like to dress up and those who have rather menial jobs who can feel important and titled in a little club.

I can see why clergy can find it appealing though - it's a place where they can go away from the eyes of everyone else, relax knowing they wont be hassled by someone wanting to talk shop or experience the eyes of judgement if they are sat at the bar.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

Posted by Gee D

quote:

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
He was particularly scathing about the well-worn line "masons do a lot for charity" because, as he'd point out to anyone who'd listen, the charities that benefited from Lodge largesse were specifically masonic charities, the schools and hospital in particular.
Can you expand on that? I don't understand how it's any less charitable to raise money for a Masonic school or hospital than for a Uniting Church kindergarten. Or to buy chutneys and pickles a street stall supporting those affected by the Nepal earthquake.

I'm talking about masonry in the UK here, but here goes:

The largest masonic charities in my father's time (the 'he' referred to above) were The Royal Masonic Institution for Boys, The Royal Masonic Institution for Girls, The Royal Masonic Hospital, plus a general Samaritan Fund and retirement/care homes.

The institutions for boys and girls were joined together: up to the early 1970s they ran boarding schools for boys aged 5+ and girls 7+. The schools were originally for the fatherless children of masons or those whose father had 'fallen on hard times'; later children could be admitted so long as Papa was a mason, with fees on a sliding scale for those with fathers. The institutions also helped with bursaries for university and closed scholarships at a number of places, including Christ Church Oxford. No school places, bursaries or scholarships were (or are) open to non-masonic children. The boys' schools closed despite a vigorous campaign by a clergyman mason to keep them open; the girls' was more fortunate and is still up and running in Rickmansworth, Hertfordshire.

The Royal Masonic Hospital was largely staffed by doctors who were masons; priority for nurse recruitment was for daughters of masons. Patients were exclusively masons and their families up to 1977, when it began to take non-masons. Never in the NHS, it ceased to function as a masonic charity in 2007, although the craft still own it and have re-developed the site as a purpose-built hospital for 'health tourists'.

Masonic care homes still exist - in fact they have expanded. To quote from the website of the Royal Masonic Benevolent Institution (the RMBI) has a history of care and support for older Freemasons and their families, as well as having some provision for people in the community.

The emphasis should be on the "some": as the population has aged so the number of 'non-masonic' people in masonic care homes has declined; while a few homes offer some respite day care, this is again restricted. I know from a relative in a RMBI home that there are no non-masons there, either as residents or for day-care, and nor were there in the home they were in previously. Although hard to prove, the resident relative is firmly of the opinion that the needs of masons trump those of members of the local community every time - informed opinion?

In a nutshell, masonic charities almost exclusively benefit masons and/or their dependents and to an extent where they cannot be honestly said to be free from bias or openly available to all in need.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

Thanks for the rundown on Masonic charities in the UK, Organist. I agree, if that's the kind of thing they were doing, they shouldn't have been bragging about how much they were giving to charity.

Not that I have anything against in-group benevolence, I mean, corporations with drug and dental plans for their employees are basically doing the same thing, ie. taking care of their own. But it can't really be considered a contribution to the general welfare.

In Canada, I know the Shriners sponsor burn-hospitals, which are not likely restricted to Masons and their families. And Masonic relatives and family friends have talked about doing volunteer work for various charities which I'm pretty sure were directed toward the general public(eg. literacy programs), not just Masons.

Posted by Humble Servant (# 18391) on :

quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
A couple of thoughts

Freemasons are required to swear oaths of fidelity to Freemasonry. Thou shalt have no God before me?

Well, that wipes out all oaths of citizenship, all oaths of loyalty to any person or organization, and all swowrn testimony in court. That may be your bag, but it isn't mine.

Well, yes, obviously it does. A tangent to this thread, but seriously, Jesus condemns the swearing of oaths. Any loyalty to man-made institutions, including nation states, that is above our loyalty to God is against Christianity. But if that's not your bag...

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :

It would be interesting to review if membership in these social and fraternal organizations is declining in the same way that church attendance is declining.

The Bowling Alone thesis by Robert Putnam is that church attendance and participation is not the only thing that is waning in the west, but all forms of participation in voluntary organizations.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Humble Servant:

quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
A couple of thoughts

Freemasons are required to swear oaths of fidelity to Freemasonry. Thou shalt have no God before me?

Well, that wipes out all oaths of citizenship, all oaths of loyalty to any person or organization, and all swowrn testimony in court. That may be your bag, but it isn't mine.
Well, yes, obviously it does. A tangent to this thread, but seriously, Jesus condemns the swearing of oaths. Any loyalty to man-made institutions, including nation states, that is above our loyalty to God is against Christianity.

Well, yeah, but...

Compare the amount of Christian criticism of Freemasonry, with the amount of Christian criticism of oath-swearing in court and citizenship ceremonies. I'd say it's pretty evident that Christians, collectively, are WAY more preoccupied with the former than with the latter.

[ 06. January 2017, 15:04: Message edited by: Stetson ]

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
It would be interesting to review if membership in these social and fraternal organizations is declining in the same way that church attendance is declining.

I'm pretty sure it is. Anecdotally, I went to a Masonic Christmas dinner a few years back, and the average age of the attendees must have been about 75. (Great food, though)

Ironically, though, Masonry has in now front-and-centre in popular culture, moreso than ever before. Starting with Slacker in 1990, and then The Simpsons' Stonecutters, the Da Vince Code, National Treasure etc, people do seem really fascinated with it.

Posted by Nenya (# 16427) on :

I have known Christians of a conservative evangelical persuasion who regard Freemasonry as a tool of the dark side and anyone who is or has been involved, or whose family has been, needs thorough and specific prayer through all the different levels of it, to free them from its strongholds. I haven't asked the question but I suspect there are people in the church where I currently worship who think this. All their charity work... Satan masquerades as an angel of light... That sort of idea.

My father and brother were Freemasons - they said little about it and my mum and I regarded it as an evening where they got to skip about in little aprons and come home to tell us about the nice food they'd eaten. [Biased]

My father was definitely a man of faith and saw no conflict between that and his Freemasonry.

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

If you've got a search engine on your computer there's nothing the least bit secret about Freemasonry.

It may be different in England, but in Ireland it's just, in my opinion, a rather quaint excuse for the lads to get together. Ladies' nights, optional.

They are charitable, and are very supportive of one another. Hardly radical. I've known even people who don't like each other, support one another because they happen to be in the same bowls club.

As for the silly oaths. I don't suppose committing to prioritize a fellow mason in need, is much different from 'believing' in the 39 articles with your fingers crossed; or mentally hanging a question mark over the virgin birth during the creed. Or indeed deciding one verse of scripture deserves more emphasis than another.

From what I can see, it's about fellowship, friendship, raising money for good causes, complete with daft wardrobe and obsolescent language. Almost as good as church, some might say! It also has the advantage in Ireland of being one of the few fellowships were Catholics and Protestants are equal brothers. Which definitely is a hell of a lot better than the Church, in many ways!

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

With regards to the schools, I came across this site while researching someone who had been on the staff and subsequently met a friend of mine who was a pupil at another school. The meeting was not beneficial to the pupil.

Bushey Masonic School for Boys

You might find it interesting in its view of what was regarded as charitable behaviour.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

L'organist, how does that differ to raising money for Nepalese children orphaned in an earthquake - you have to be a Nepalese child to benefit. As long as the test is need, I have no concerns about the need being that of a child of a mason, or of clergy of any or a specific religion/denomination, or that of a child from a particular area.

Posted by Humble Servant (# 18391) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
and are very supportive of one another. Hardly radical. I've known even people who don't like each other, support one another because they happen to be in the same bowls club.

The issue I've always heard with masons is that they consist mainly of business people, law enforcement officials, judges and politicians. When you get that lot together "supporting one another", you have a recipe for corruption.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

In Massachusetts forty-five years ago every parade unit that included animals was followed by a group of Shriners who cleaned up any droppings. They wore clown costumes and called themselves the Super-Duper Pooper Scoopers. They did the cleanup with tremendous flourish and got more applause than anyone else in the parade.

Moo

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

What's a Shriner please? Are they Masons or aren't they? And why do they have such an odd name? Googling gives an odd selection of facts and a picture of a man in a funny hat, but doesn't really explain them. I don't think we have them here.

[ 06. January 2017, 22:56: Message edited by: Enoch ]

Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Humble Servant:

quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
and are very supportive of one another. Hardly radical. I've known even people who don't like each other, support one another because they happen to be in the same bowls club.

The issue I've always heard with masons is that they consist mainly of business people, law enforcement officials, judges and politicians. When you get that lot together "supporting one another", you have a recipe for corruption.

In the UK, perhaps, though that used not to be the case. My grandfather (a wheelwright and blacksmith) joined the masons in Exeter before 1905, and he would certainly have been out of place and uncomfortable in the company you mention.

As well, the masons are an international group. Your characterization of the masons would not be recognized in Canada, for example, though I am sure there are (or used to be) masons from all the professions you so dislike.

As for corruption, all organizations can be corrupt in whole or in part, but I have never seen it creditably argued that corruption is inherent in masonry.

John

PS -- the "Shrine" is a largely North American add-on to the masons. You have to be a 32nd or 33rd degree mason to join. They've created an amusing mythology (that no one believes) as a pretext for their meetings and service to the community. The work the Shrine hospitals do for children and burn victims has been outstanding over many decades -- and no one asks if you are a mason before you're admitted.

JOhn

Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :

To be clear about my position, I think masonry is dark.

I know Christians who are masons and they are clearly not as graceful as they potentially could be. It diminishes their faith. Every Christian who is also a mason is less because of it.

At it's best it is a male dominated social club. Which quickly becomes a "scratch my back" club. Including business and justice issues. Offering deals a certain way and getting off minor and major crimes because of the number of police involved.

At its worst its core demonic. The "god" they worship is dark. It is a deep truth and one that many would like to mitigate but "you shall love the lord your God with all your heart." Masons can't do that.

We all have our idols but this is a spiritual organisation which runs counter to Christianity.

Pyx_e

p.s. AA is basically Christian with the Christian jargon taken out so anyone can get it. It was written by two Christian, based on the Oxford Movement and the spiritual work of St Ignatius.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

Gee DBut the test isn't need: it is need in a small group of people. If people within that group don't have the need then no one who isn't of the group can benefit.

In layman's terms, you have to be a mason to benefit from masonic charities - fair enough: but to hold that masonic charitable giving per se is to the benefit of anyone who needs it isn't true. So its charity but within very narrowly defined lines.

<tangent> A friend has a splendid 19th century pudding bowl with a view of Methodist Central Hall Westminser on it: on the reverse is the legend "A warm welcome awaits you if you are not already a member of another church".

(edited to correct hideous typo)

[ 07. January 2017, 15:15: Message edited by: L'organist ]

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Humble Servant:

The issue I've always heard with masons is that they consist mainly of business people, law enforcement officials, judges and politicians. When you get that lot together "supporting one another", you have a recipe for corruption.

Recipes for corruption don't require much of an effort when they're already most likely initiated, enabled and appear to happen quite naturally in the echelons of power. Almost as a matter of course, so far as I can see. Involvement in freemasonry might be just one more opportunity for those who are minded to corruption. But so would be attending the same golf-club, or Rotary group, or other kind of semi-exclusive club.

After all, masonic lodges also include people who aren't interested in corruption and who don't have high-powered or influential jobs. If the powerful elites are going to gather together and collude for evil purposes they're not going to do it in the contexts of everyday masonic life, that's for sure.

I'm not saying it doesn't happen at all.

I'm just saying that if anyone is seriously interested in dealing with the corruption of the police, business, legal and political communities they'd have to begin at a hell of a higher level than the local masonic lodge!

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
p.s. AA is basically Christian with the Christian jargon taken out so anyone can get it. It was written by two Christian, based on the Oxford Movement and the spiritual work of St Ignatius.

Hmm. "...Christian with the Christian jargon taken out so anyone can get in".

So, that means that you could have an AA group that consists of ten people, none of whom are Christian, pledging allegiance to a "higher power" that none of them regard as Christian in any way, and who have never once heard the name "Jesus Christ" mentioned in a meeting, but it would still be "basically Christian"?

At what point have you so lost so many of the threads that you no longer have a coat(Or however the metaphor goes)?

And yes, I'm aware of the Moral Re-Armament influence on AA. There was a Jungian influence as well(google Alcoholics Anonymous and Carl Jung), though that might have been more through the personal influence of Jung himself. My understanding is that the program was divided into 12 steps partly because of the mystical associations of that number, though I honestly don't know all the details there.

Posted by jayhawk (# 5737) on :

I have to say I would come at this from the perspective of someone whose wife is an evangelical/charismatic leaning member of the clergy but also someone who was pressed from an early age (8 or 9) into helping her father rehearse his masonic oaths and rites, and her perspective is that much of it is death rituals and entirely anti-christian in nature. She did have prayer for it and experienced a very great freeing of her ability to worship afterwards. My father-in-law prioritised the very extensive cost of it over everything else financial in his life. I agree that many masons have no real commitment to anything other than something they see as helpful socially, but also with business connections. I have no doubt that the spiritual implications are very bad, but Masons who do not have that understanding given by the Holy Spirit himself are pretty much blind to it. I pray it is rooted out of the church wherever possible.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

Just to be clear, nothing a priori against Jayhawk's opinion, but WE ARE NOT THE SAME POSTER. I just thought some people might be confused by the avatar.

(Great taste, though, Jayhawk. Park Near Lucerne rules.)

[ 07. January 2017, 16:58: Message edited by: Stetson ]

Posted by jayhawk (# 5737) on :

Ah but I picked it a year before you... [Smile]

[ 07. January 2017, 16:58: Message edited by: jayhawk ]

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
Originally posted by jayhawk:
Ah but I picke it a year before you...

Indeed you did, so even if I wanted to make an issue of it(and I don't), I wouldn't.

Posted by Zappa (# 8433) on :

I think they're loopy.

They put me through school.

The two statements may be related.

Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Gee DBut the test isn't need: it is need in a small group of people. If people within that group don't have the need then no one who isn't of the group can benefit.

In layman's terms, you have to be a mason to benefit from masonic charities -

Certainly not true here in Canada. (Mind you, we son't have a school system that would allow masonic sponsored schools, I'm thinking only of hospitals) Nor in the UK -- I knew a guy who'd been educated at a masonic sponsored public school in England and, though he became a mason himself once of age, was not of a masonic family ...I think he was in fact an orphan.

John

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Gee DBut the test isn't need: it is need in a small group of people. If people within that group don't have the need then no one who isn't of the group can benefit.

In layman's terms, you have to be a mason to benefit from masonic charities - fair enough: but to hold that masonic charitable giving per se is to the benefit of anyone who needs it isn't true. So its charity but within very narrowly defined lines.

OK, it's need in a small group of people. There are (fortunately) very few people who are blind and deaf, but not surprisingly they have needs. That does not make the work that a supporting association does for them any the less charitable, even though the lines defining the group to benefit are narrow.

So far, you're not proving your initial assertion.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
There are (fortunately) very few people who are blind and deaf, but not surprisingly they have needs. That does not make the work that a supporting association does for them any the less charitable, even though the lines defining the group to benefit are narrow.

There is a difference, though. If you have a charity for the deaf and blind, or for sufferers of some rare illness, its benefits are available to anyone who is unfortunate enough to meet the criteria.

These examples of restricted masonic charity are only available to people who are both in need and relatives of masons. It's looking after your own rather than looking after anyone.

And to the extent that being a mason involves significant "compulsory" contributions to these charities, it starts to look more like an insurance scheme than a charitable undertaking.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

Theoretically any giving that does not benefit you yourself directly is "charity," though the further away you get from yourself the more charitable it is (giving to a stranger is more charitable than giving to a family member etc.). The difference is the degree to which you can expect benefits in return (should you ever need them). A family member bound by love and mutual interdependence is highly likely to reciprocate; a fellow Mason (bound by rules) is fairly likely; a stranger with no ties, not likely at all.

The smaller the potential pool and the stronger the mutual ties, the closer it gets to life insurance and the further from true charity. Which is not to say that you shouldn't do it; but you probably ought to mute any talk about how charitable you are.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
The smaller the potential pool and the stronger the mutual ties, the closer it gets to life insurance and the further from true charity. Which is not to say that you shouldn't do it; but you probably ought to mute any talk about how charitable you are.

As long as the need is there, I'd say it is charity.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
I'm just saying that if anyone is seriously interested in dealing with the corruption of the police, business, legal and political communities they'd have to begin at a hell of a higher level than the local masonic lodge!

The more major trials of recent years involving corruption in public office make reference at some point to the masonic involvement of the participants (This includes Hillsborough).

Either the Press have a thing about Masons or it's just a coincidence or there's some truth in the often repeated assertions that masonry is not healthy.

Corruption needs to be rooted out at any level. What allows corruption to flourish is an environment where one individual feels he has duty and responsibility to another, over and above anything also. The "other" being prepared to make money or wield influence over others to their own ends.

That's exactly what a masonic oath requires - very easy then to make a link between the possibility of corruption and the lodge. Since a lot of masonic involvement relates to the business community, failing to take part will result in loss of business, income, prestige. It's a kind of blackmail really.

Masonry is probably on the decline although it's always had a hold in smaller marker town with traditional family businesses. There are one or two place I've worked in where I was (allegedly) the only non masonic "professional" - it seemed to bother them way more than me.

I have to say that there were one or two things that seemed to be stitch ups - e.g drink driving of a massive nature not reported by the local press when they usually revelled in it. Was it coincidence that the guy was breathalysed by out of town police on relief duty and that the owner of the local paper was a fellow mason? Who really knows?

Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
The smaller the potential pool and the stronger the mutual ties, the closer it gets to life insurance and the further from true charity. Which is not to say that you shouldn't do it; but you probably ought to mute any talk about how charitable you are.
As long as the need is there, I'd say it is charity.

Doing good is doing good.

Equating doing good with a heart for goodness is a different kettle of fish. When the charity card is used in regard to masonry it always feels like people trying to balance the scales, yes we are a patriarchal social club that worships a devil figure and makes sure we look after our own BUT we gave some money to the poor kids so we are ok.

It's a bullshit argument. Less so if you are poor kid, I get that. But as a defence for masonry, meh. The nazis made the buses run on time and escobar gave millions to the poor.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

Where would you draw the line then?

Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Where would you draw the line then?

I am sorry I do not understand, please write a little more so I may reply.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

What proof do you have that the Mason's 'worship a Devil figure'?

As far as I am aware, they allow you to interpret 'The Great Architect' however you wish - if you're a Christian then in a Christian way, if a Muslim in that way, if ...

The Masons I've known have insisted that their rituals don't involve worship in the religious sense.

Sure, I've come across stuff online that insists that 'Jahbulon' and other names Masons use in their rituals are somehow demonic in origin, but I've tended to regard that as loopy-doopy seeing the Devil under every bush stuff.

Is there any serious source, serious theologian or serious commentator who takes that element seriously?

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

Guess who has a copy of Morals and Dogma in her room? [Cool]

My great grandfather's, and after him my grandpa. My mom was a member of Job's Daughters. ( Kind of like Girl Scouts for the Masons.)

They all talked about it openly, and made it sound like a scratch your back club. I do know, sadly, that my grandfather participated in things like signing seller's agreements, promising he would not sell his house to a person of color.

As to this hefty tome I have in my room-- it seems to be a collection of instructions for various rituals, with backstory about the mythos behind the rituals. The rituals themselves seem ridiculously self-- aggrandizing.

The mythos, as well as the language of the rituals-- well, here's my take. That particular manual was written in about 1901. At the time, big discoveries were being made in the field of archeology, and Egyptophilia had been popular for a while. In the 19th century, literary curiosity about the Middle East was popular, too. ( See the poems of Tennyson, Poe, that dude who wrote "Kubla Khan" whose name is escaping me.)

The "dogma" portions of the book strike me as written by someone with just enough knowledge about ancient cultures to make stuff sound convincing, and the rituals are sprinkled with a combination of authentic names of Egyptian/ Babylonian/ Persian gods, and made up names that sound authentic enough to please a layman.

Basically, a difficult read, and indeed very loopy-- doopy. Strikes me as the work of someone looking to fill a cultural conceit of knowing secret arcana not available to the unwashed millions.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

(Hauled the thing out to check the publication date) Original entry into Library of Congress 1871, my copy a 1927 reprint.

[ 08. January 2017, 15:41: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Samuel Taylor Coleridge wrote 'Kubla Khan'.

On the rituals thing, there are various versions and iterations and from what I can gather US Freemasonry differs from the UK versions in that respect.

I don't think I've met any Freemasons who have taken the rituals particularly 'literally' as it were - there may be some bonkers ones who actually think they are based on ancient antecedents - but those I've discussed these matters with think of them as simply allegorical tropes that have some kind of moral message and which emphasise behaving in a moral way.

I did once chat to a chap who had all sorts of whacky Dan Brown type views but he was the sort of chap who would have probably held those sort of views anyway, I'm not sure to what extent his Freemasonry contributed to that.

My Dad was involved for a time but soon got bored of it. He was an atheist, or at least very strongly agnostic, so he span them a yarn that he was into the theories of Erik Von Daniken in order to satisfy them that he held some kind of theistic belief. Apparently, a belief in little green men building the Pyramids or laying out the Nasca Lines in Chile was sufficient to pass muster ...

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

Gee D
OK, to go with your example of people who are blind and deaf.

If I give to Sense (the UK's national deafblind charity) then they will spend the money on ANY deafblind person in need, regardless of race, gender, etc.

If, on the other hand, I give to a masonic deafblind charity then they will only consider the needs of masonic deafblind people.

I think that sums up the situation.
** corrected typo/coding error

[ 08. January 2017, 21:56: Message edited by: L'organist ]

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

I shall assume that that is correct in the UK (I very much doubt it is here). Even so, what is wrong with that if the child is in need?

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Where would you draw the line then?
I am sorry I do not understand, please write a little more so I may reply.

I cannot understand why you say that the actions of the masons are not charitable - nor can I understand your last paragraph at all.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
Guess who has a copy of Morals and Dogma in her room?

I'm gussing the answer isn't Amy Grant?

Seriously, though, Henry Miller's book The Air- Conditioned Nightmare has a passage about Albert Pike(which I've only skimmed), and Miller observes that Pike's physical appearance and general outlook seem akin to that of Walt Whitman. I guess the parallel is that they both aspired to embrace a multitude of seemingly discordant things in their writing(though Pike, unlike Whitman, managed to confine himself largely to the religious realm).

And Pike apparently hid Confederate gold up in Canada, using cryptic numerological systems, natch.

quote:
At the time, big discoveries were being made in the field of archeology, and Egyptophilia had been popular for a while. In the 19th century, literary curiosity about the Middle East was popular, too.

I think similar trends influenced the development of the Shriners' themes and imagery, but their appropriation of it is more tongue-in-cheek.

[ 09. January 2017, 13:51: Message edited by: Stetson ]

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

Gamaliel wrote:

quote:
I don't think I've met any Freemasons who have taken the rituals particularly 'literally' as it were - there may be some bonkers ones who actually think they are based on ancient antecedents - but those I've discussed these matters with think of them as simply allegorical tropes that have some kind of moral message and which emphasise behaving in a moral way.

The Mason I knew best told me, quite sincerely, that the Lodge goes all the way back to Solomon's Temple, which he seemed to regard as a real thing. In fairness, believing that Solomon was an historical figure, and that he built a temple, is not quite the same thing as believing that Atlantis was a real place, destroyed by space aliens.

Interestingly, despite apparently believing in the literal truth of the Old Testament, this Mason also held to the view(derived at least in part from Masonry, I think) that all religions are basically pointing in the same direction, and we mustn't pass judegment on any of them.

Further irony can be found in the fact that, when it came to politics and social issues, he was somewhat in the mode of the old western-Canadian Reform Party(Nigel Farage would be the cross-pond counterpart here). But on religion per se, divorced from all of that, he was as liberal as anyone I have ever met.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Masons were involved in the building of the permanent (I hope) church at Our Place - it says so on the foundation stone.

FWIW, between them, the architects/builders/benefactors gave us a simple but robust church, well-designed, of durable materials, which has lasted for well over a century with no major problems at all.

The same applies to one or two other local Sacred Edifices, so not a bad legacy, IMHO, whatever the rights and wrongs of Freemasonry in relation to Christianity might be.

IJ

IJ

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Sure, I get all that Stetson, but I'm still waiting for Pyx_e to provide proof positive that the Masons worship some kind of 'devil like figure'.

The Masons I've known best have tended to be fairly nominal in whatever faith position they profess, whilst remaining respectful of all faith positions apart from out and out fruitcake ones.

I'm sure there are fruitcakes who are Masons, but then it's not as if any grouping, religious, secular or non-aligned is free of those.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Sure, I get all that Stetson, but I'm still waiting for Pyx_e to provide proof positive that the Masons worship some kind of 'devil like figure'.

Well, you can google "Morals And Dogma" to get a cached copy of the book Kelly mentioned. I've only glanced at the thing briefly a few times, but it is evident that Pike is fascinated by the multitude of world religions and mythology, and seems like he's trying to show how they're all really about the same thing.

So, if you're the kind of Christian who thinks it's diabolical for someome to suggest that Jesus went to India and studied with Hindu gurus(I don't know if Pike claims that, but it's the general ballpark), then yeah, you might think that Masons, or at least the ones who follow Pike, are into some pretty dark stuff.

I should add as a caveat that, from my limited exposure to Masonic discussions of the book, there seems to be no consensus as to its importance. On one message board I followed, there were Masons who thought it was overhyped goobledygook, and others who lamented that it wasn't given its proper reverence by Masons today.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

And you can google "Deviant Scripturalism And Ritual Satanic Abuse Part 2: Possible Masonic, Mormon, Magick, and Pagan Influences" to read an essay by Dr. Stephen Kent, one of the few academics to conclude that there was anything credible about the early 90s SRA allegations.

Personally, I didn't find the part on Masonic abuse all that convincing, it seems to rely mostly on "Well, some people say they were ritually abused by Masons, and Pike Crowley Jahbulon etc". The stuff closer to the end on possible pagan fertility cults is a little more intriguing.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

I did look into some of this stuff myself when I had a Masonic colleague and concluded that Pike was pretty much as you say - but then it's sometimes claimed that Pike had more influence in North America than in Europe and elsewhere.

I did come across some sites with Masonic content which rather indicated that the writers were broadly in sympathy with Pike, but I have no way of assessing whether those views are typical. If someone visited some broadly Christian sites they could come away with all sorts of views on what Christians actually believe and easily mistake some outlier comments as some kind of consensus.

I showed some of these to my Masonic colleague and he was somewhat nonplussed. I don't doubt his sincerity for a moment and the impression I picked up from him was that Freemasons were pretty much free to believe whatever they liked and to interpret the rituals in whatever way they liked provided it wasn't hurting anyone else.

I certainly didn't pick up the impression that there was some kind of divine entity called Jahbulon they all worshipped - rather they treated this as they did some of the other somewhat silly names and references in their rituals - simply as part and parcel of the thing - in a similar way to how we use the boards called Heaven, Hell and Purgatory here without understanding them as literal physical states where we might spend an online eternity ...

Although there are occasions ...

[Big Grin]

My guess would be that some Masons may take some of this stuff in a more literal way than others, but for the most part they don't get so 'speculative' about it - although there do seem to be some very geeky Masons out there who do read all sorts of stuff into their rituals and come out with some pretty daft claims for its antiquity ... but this doesn't appear to be an official line as such.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:
Originally posted by leo:

quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
The CofE on the other hand has had at least one 20th century ABC (Ramsay) who was also a mason
Surely not - Fisher was.
Thanks Leo. I was going to say the same thing.

Yes. I was told by someone who knew Ramsay that when in retirement Fisher was burgled and had his masonic regalia stolen, Ramsay rather gloated over it:'They took the geegaws- you know what I mean, the geegaws? Shouldn't have had them anyway...'

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
.... It also has the advantage in Ireland of being one of the few fellowships were Catholics and Protestants are equal brothers....

And perhaps there is a history of that elsewhere too http://www.kiplingsociety.co.uk/poems_motherlodge.htm

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

I think one thing that lends itself towards speculation about demonology is that some of the names of God mentioned in the rituals are those of deities mentioned in the Bible, most notably Baal. Somewhere in the development of Hebrew cosmology Baal basically got conflated with demons, instead of being simply a rival, false god.

As Stetson said, there was a quite aggressive trend in the 60's-70's, a response to the rising interest in Eastern religions, that taught that any God that was not the God of the Bible was a demon in disguise. I am not sure if a similar evangelical pushback may have existed when poetic musings about Arabia were popular.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

TBH, I kind of want to give M&D a read, but my previous attempts gave me a headache. It's somewhat lacking in, erm, coherence.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:

As Stetson said, there was a quite aggressive trend in the 60's-70's, a response to the rising interest in Eastern religions, that taught that any God that was not the God of the Bible was a demon in disguise. I am not sure if a similar evangelical pushback may have existed when poetic musings about Arabia were popular. [/QB]

The popularity of The Two Babylons back in 1853 would probably indicate that there was. If militant protestants weren't devoting as much energy to "exposing" Islam, Hinduism etc, as they were to Catholicsm, it's probably just because those faiths didn't have generally accepted claims to being Christian.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
TBH, I kind of want to give M&D a read, but my previous attempts gave me a headache. It's somewhat lacking in, erm, coherence.

I have the same experience whenever I try to listen to speeches by or interviews with R. Buckminster Fuller. I defy anyone to demonstrate to me that the guy wasn't just stringing random words and phrases together.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

Yup. Book of Mormon, too. Makes my eyes bleed.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
I think one thing that lends itself towards speculation about demonology is that some of the names of God mentioned in the rituals are those of deities mentioned in the Bible, most notably Baal. Somewhere in the development of Hebrew cosmology Baal basically got conflated with demons, instead of being simply a rival, false god.

As Stetson said, there was a quite aggressive trend in the 60's-70's, a response to the rising interest in Eastern religions, that taught that any God that was not the God of the Bible was a demon in disguise. I am not sure if a similar evangelical pushback may have existed when poetic musings about Arabia were popular.

Milton has various of these false gods as the generals of Lucifer's army and falling with him.

Posted by Barnabas Aus (# 15869) on :

I am an Australian Freemason, and a communicant Anglican, most familiar with the circumstances within NSW. Most of the statements made in this thread are so far beyond the way in which the Lodge operates in our state as to be incomprehensible. We have done away with the swearing of oaths, and many of our ritual elements are now very public.

Our charitable institutions are almost without exception open to all, the outlier being the provision for members and families in distress. Our own local lodges have made significant donations to domestic violence refuges and accommodation centres for poor or homeless, among other charitable projects. Our region operates a relief fund which is open to any deserving person or organisation on the recommendation of a local lodge.

If anything, you could call the Lodge an ecumenical organisation, as the belief in a supreme being is the major qualification. While the ritual is based in the story of the building of King Solomon's Temple, there is little that remains secret. Each brother makes his promise according to the beliefs of his own faith. My own lodge is made up of men who mainly work or worked in industry, most of them from working-class roots, and that is true of many other lodges across the region.

Some of the corrupt practices mentioned upthread are inimical to lodge membership. There have been recent expulsions from the lodge for civil offences.

Many of my brethren have a more moral approach to life than some within my own parish.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

Thanks for the inside perspective Barnabas Aus.

quote:
My own lodge is made up of men who mainly work or worked in industry, most of them from working-class roots, and that is true of many other lodges across the region.

On one of the previous Mason threads, I speculated, and at least one poster agreed, that Masonry might function as a social and business network for working-class men who, in the British context, were otherwise unable to enter such networks as a result of not having gone to elite schools or univerisities.

Not that that would justify alleged masonic cronyism, but it would put the cronyism in a bit of overall social context.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

And here's a question, asked in the most innocuos, non-trolling way possible...

Do Masons still use skulls in their rituals?

And if so, are they real skulls?

And if so, where do they get them?

I'm just asking, because I really always have been curious about that.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
Thanks for the inside perspective Barnabas Aus.

quote:
My own lodge is made up of men who mainly work or worked in industry, most of them from working-class roots, and that is true of many other lodges across the region.

On one of the previous Mason threads, I speculated, and at least one poster agreed, that Masonry might function as a social and business network for working-class men who, in the British context, were otherwise unable to enter such networks as a result of not having gone to elite schools or univerisities.

Not that that would justify alleged masonic cronyism, but it would put the cronyism in a bit of overall social context.

That may be the case in Aus but not in the Uk. In the UK the costs of Masonic membership is way beyond the means of an average wage earner.

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

Hence groups like the Ancient Order of Foresters, to which one of my great uncles belonged (we used to play with his apron and sash - he being deceased). And the Oddfellows. (I once received a flyer from them for some reason. Didn't look all that different from a Working Men's Club - though not men only - or the U3A.)

[ 18. January 2017, 20:05: Message edited by: Penny S ]

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
Thanks for the inside perspective Barnabas Aus.

quote:
My own lodge is made up of men who mainly work or worked in industry, most of them from working-class roots, and that is true of many other lodges across the region.

On one of the previous Mason threads, I speculated, and at least one poster agreed, that Masonry might function as a social and business network for working-class men who, in the British context, were otherwise unable to enter such networks as a result of not having gone to elite schools or univerisities.

Not that that would justify alleged masonic cronyism, but it would put the cronyism in a bit of overall social context.
That may be the case in Aus but not in the Uk. In the UK the costs of Masonic membership is way beyond the means of an average wage earner.

Well, by "working-class men", I meant people from a working-clas background, hence unable to go to elite schools. Not neccessarily that they are doing working-class jobs in their adult life. I would imagine that police officers, (in)famous in the UK for Masonic ties, are not all Oxbridge graduates.

FWIW, the Mason I knew best in Canada was a butcher for a large grocery chain, but I also met others who were abattoir workers, and janitors. These jobs would likely have been unionized, though, so that might have made a difference in terms of their ability to pay membership dues.

Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
Thanks for the inside perspective Barnabas Aus.

quote:
My own lodge is made up of men who mainly work or worked in industry, most of them from working-class roots, and that is true of many other lodges across the region.

On one of the previous Mason threads, I speculated, and at least one poster agreed, that Masonry might function as a social and business network for working-class men who, in the British context, were otherwise unable to enter such networks as a result of not having gone to elite schools or univerisities.

Not that that would justify alleged masonic cronyism, but it would put the cronyism in a bit of overall social context.
That may be the case in Aus but not in the Uk. In the UK the costs of Masonic membership is way beyond the means of an average wage earner.

Not sure that's true - I made a few phone calls last night out of interest - quick chat with my neighbour last suggests about £150 per annum plus £20 a time for 7 dinners.

Scotland's apparently more like £50 per year and £9-10 per dinner, but apparently up there they tend to have a cold buffet rather than a meal.

A naval friend of mine is a member of an officers lodge which is apparently more like £600 per year membership. At the same time, he points out to me that that's £50 per month, at a time when many average wage earners spend more like £70 per month to be members of their local gym (and don't go). He's not a member of a gym.

So, horses for courses, but even in the UK for all its all walks of life chat, I get the impression that in general it's a lower middle class/working class thing, which has somehow managed to convince people its some sort of vastly expensive powerhouse for the rich and influential.

One of the surprising lines on the calls, once the laughter had subsided at the idea that it's a gathering of the jetset, is that the average UK mason is probably a below average wage earner!

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

quote:
Originally posted by betjemaniac:
...Scotland's apparently more like £50 per year and £9-10 per dinner, but apparently up there they tend to have a cold buffet rather than a meal...

Merely considering it as a social thing, that looks like very good value.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

In my experience, Masonry tended to attract small shopkeepers and the skilled upper-working class/lower working class ... And one of the perks was that they could get to rub shoulders with judges, senior coppers and aristos in a way they couldn't in any other way ... So there was a genuine cross-class fraternity element when UK society was pretty hide-bound in class terms. Arguably it still is ...

That said, I have detected a degree of pomposity in a Captain Mainwaring type of way with some Masons, particularly those who have derived a sense of achievement or a sense of having 'arrived' by working their way up to the higher degrees by memorising the scripts and performing the arcane rituals necessary to get to those levels.

You can find aspects of that tendency anywhere and everywhere, of course. Being an anorak isn't restricted to Freemasonry.

On the whole, I tend to think it's fairly innocuous and in some settings - sectarian Northern Ireland for instance - I'm sure it can provide 'neutral' ground for fellas to interact across religious and political divides.

I wouldn't want to join myself - it looks bloody daft and the aprons and paraphernalia are ludicrous - but each to their own ...

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

betjemaniac wrote:

quote:
So, horses for courses, but even in the UK for all its all walks of life chat, I get the impression that in general it's a lower middle class/working class thing, which has somehow managed to convince people its some sort of vastly expensive powerhouse for the rich and influential.

There's also the fact that the male members of the Royal family(Charles possibly still being a holdout) have tended to join, which helped give the impression that Masonry was a tool of the elites. Though I suspect the royals joining up was more of an honorary thing, like the Queen being the official patron of the Boy Scouts.

The book Jack The Ripper: The Final Solution, by Stephen Knight, along with its knockoff movie Murder By Decree and the comic book From Hell(followed by its own movie) promoted the idea that the Royal Family used Masonic blood-rituals to carry out the Ripper murders, in order to cover up the existence of an illegitimate Catholic heir to the throne. Apparently, Knight and company found it credible that a conspiracy to keep something secret would draw attention to itself by leaving Masonic clues all over the place.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
....Though I suspect the royals joining up was more of an honorary thing, like the Queen being the official patron of the Boy Scouts....

No, seems to go rather a long way back.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:

quote:
Originally posted by Stetson:
....Though I suspect the royals joining up was more of an honorary thing, like the Queen being the official patron of the Boy Scouts....

No, seems to go rather a long way back.

Oh, I'm aware that it goes back centuries. My point is, the Royals don't join the Masons as a tool to advance their interests or power. They probably just join it because it is(or was) a popular club to join, and they like to be involved in things that the public(or at least part of the public) also likes.

I suppose it might also have given them the chance to socialize with some of the bigshots in British society, if the strictures of their office might have prevented that under normal circumstances.

Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :

No, that is a very twenty-first-century perspective. Even in the middle twentieth century there was enough reason for Royals to want to have influence among other influential people for them to belong. It was not that the United Kingdom was going to become a Republic, but there were enough room for manoeuvre in the succession that the courting of the powerful elite was essential. Succession has become less controversial precisely because the Royals have become less powerful.

Jengie

Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :

Can I suggest an alternative -- most of their friends (thinking of the royals) were members, and so of course they joined to be with their friends. It was a conventional thing to do, and -- being mostly fairly conventional people -- they did it too.

John

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:
Can I suggest an alternative -- most of their friends (thinking of the royals) were members, and so of course they joined to be with their friends. It was a conventional thing to do, and -- being mostly fairly conventional people -- they did it too.

John

Well, we can probably combine your two theories into one fairly plausible explanation...

"The Royals joined the Masons because it was a place to socialize with other people of their social stratum, and also useful for political networking in regards to succession."

I'm omitting my own "PR move" hypothesis, though I suppose you could add on "...and if you're trying to maintain your popularity with the public, it helps to be seen doing the same sort of things that a lot of other people are doing".

[ 20. January 2017, 13:23: Message edited by: Stetson ]

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

Like a lot of other men are doing.

Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
Like a lot of other men are doing.

Well, I was stating a general rule, ie. leaders like to be seen doing some of the things that everyone else does. But yes, in the case of Freemasonry, that would be exclusively men.

Though, at least in the North American context, there are women and girls who are impressed enough with Freemasonry to join auxillary bodies like the Eastern Star, Job's Daughters, and Rainbow. The women I've met who were involved in Eastern Star seemed almost as devoted to it as their husbands were to the Masonry proper.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0