Advertisement
Many will be aware of W:.Tim Bryce, PM, MPS articles accross many masonic sites and also his books... this might be of interest
MASONIC SOVEREIGNTY
by
W:.Tim Bryce, PM, MPS
timb001@phmainstreet.com
Palm Harbor, Florida, USA
"A Foot Soldier for Freemasonry"
"Tolerance: The capacity for or the practice of recognizing and respecting the beliefs or practices of others."
- TheFreeDictionary.com
Have you ever seen a Masonic Lodge that basically is an entity unto itself? In other words, the Brothers of the Lodge do not like to visit other Lodges and Masonic visitors are not really made to feel welcomed in theirs. Instead of the benefits of a true fraternity where you practice universal Brotherhood, the Lodge behaves more like a club or tight knit clique. Such attitudes are a microcosm of some Grand Lodges who do not like to communicate or cooperate with others. Some Grand Lodges even want to go so far as to control communications between Masons. To illustrate, communications between Brothers in two different Grand jurisdictions is theoretically suppose to go through the Grand Lodges. If we were to take this to the extreme though, it would be a violation of Masonic law to communicate through e-mail or any other Internet protocol. It was this logic which led to my censorship on the Internet about a year and a half ago by my Grand Master at the time.
Let's consider another incident though; Masons in the Philippines recently wanted to hold a reception for all Masons in the area, regardless of the jurisdiction they belonged to. As I understand it, the idea wasn't to hold Masonic communications but rather to simply enjoy some Brotherly love and harmony. Learning of this meeting, the Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of the Philippines (GLP) issued an order prohibiting members of his Grand jurisdiction from participating in the reception. The thinking here was that Masons in the GLP would risk exposure to clandestine Masons which, I presume, would result in some adverse affect (although I'm not too sure what).
As I interpreted the purpose of the meeting, it was intended to simply be a "mixer" whereby the parties get to know each other, and essentially would be no different than if Masons were to meet with the Knights of Columbus, Elks, Moose, etc. Even the clergy practices such "mixers" for the purpose of promoting understanding and building goodwill between religions. Interestingly, Freemasonry appears to be one of the few institutions that openly resists any attempts to promote such understanding and goodwill.
As we all know, there is a variety of interpretations of how Freemasonry is to be implemented; the Grand Lodges, the Grand Orients, Co-Masonry, Prince Hall, and others. To my knowledge, none practice devil worshiping, but rather, peace, cooperation, citizenship, community involvement, and philanthropy. I find this all rather ironic; on the one hand, Freemasonry practices religious tolerance, yet on the other it steadfastly opposes fraternal tolerance. So much so, one could conclude that Masons treat Masons like some Religions treat Masons (badly).
All of this points at the territorialism ingrained in Freemasonry and instead of being a universal system aimed at promoting Brotherhood, it has become a series of "good ole boy" clubs, hence the proliferation of politics in our institution in recent times. The difference between a true fraternity and a club is you either believe and practice its social principles on a universal basis or you do not. In this way it is somewhat like an organized religion in that you have the "faith" and the various churches to implement it. The difference in Freemasonry though is that the churches (Lodges) do not cooperate and try to sequester their flocks from each other. The Grand jurisdictions should be reminded that it is not a question of protecting the sovereignty of a particular jurisdiction, but practicing True Masonry instead. Those that practice territorialism in Masonry have essentially taken a beautiful concept and turned it into nothing but a club.
When we read of Freemasonry in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries we marvel at how Masons traveled the world and were warmly received by their Brethren. True there were differences between the Grand Lodges of England, Scotland, and Ireland, but on the whole they tried to promote the universality of the fraternity. And it was this thinking which led to the conquering and settlement of not just villages, cities and states, but whole countries and continents.
Now, instead of finding ways to work together, we viciously fight over territory and who has the correct interpretation of Freemasonry. One thing is certain, fraternal tolerance is essentially no different than religious tolerance, and as long as we practice one and not the other, we will look as foolish as the religious institutions that censor us.
Keep the Faith.
NOTE: The opinions expressed in this essay are my own and do not necessarily represent the views or opinions of any Grand Masonic jurisdiction or any other Masonic related body. As with all of my Masonic articles herein, please feel free to reuse them in Masonic publications or re-post them on Masonic web sites (except Florida). When doing so, please add the following:
Article reprinted with permission of the author and www.FreemasonInformation.com
Please forward me a copy of the publication when it is produced.
To receive notices of Tim's writings, subscribe to his Discussion Group.
You can also "tune in" to Bro. Tim's audio podcasts at the "Lodgeroom International" (UK):
podcast.lodgeroominternational.com/
Also be sure to check out Tim's "Pet Peeve of the Week" (non-Masonic related) at:
www.phmainstreet.com/timbryce.htm
Copyright © 2008 by Tim Bryce. All rights reserved.
MASONIC SOVEREIGNTY
by
W:.Tim Bryce, PM, MPS
timb001@phmainstreet.com
Palm Harbor, Florida, USA
"A Foot Soldier for Freemasonry"
"Tolerance: The capacity for or the practice of recognizing and respecting the beliefs or practices of others."
- TheFreeDictionary.com
Have you ever seen a Masonic Lodge that basically is an entity unto itself? In other words, the Brothers of the Lodge do not like to visit other Lodges and Masonic visitors are not really made to feel welcomed in theirs. Instead of the benefits of a true fraternity where you practice universal Brotherhood, the Lodge behaves more like a club or tight knit clique. Such attitudes are a microcosm of some Grand Lodges who do not like to communicate or cooperate with others. Some Grand Lodges even want to go so far as to control communications between Masons. To illustrate, communications between Brothers in two different Grand jurisdictions is theoretically suppose to go through the Grand Lodges. If we were to take this to the extreme though, it would be a violation of Masonic law to communicate through e-mail or any other Internet protocol. It was this logic which led to my censorship on the Internet about a year and a half ago by my Grand Master at the time.
Let's consider another incident though; Masons in the Philippines recently wanted to hold a reception for all Masons in the area, regardless of the jurisdiction they belonged to. As I understand it, the idea wasn't to hold Masonic communications but rather to simply enjoy some Brotherly love and harmony. Learning of this meeting, the Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of the Philippines (GLP) issued an order prohibiting members of his Grand jurisdiction from participating in the reception. The thinking here was that Masons in the GLP would risk exposure to clandestine Masons which, I presume, would result in some adverse affect (although I'm not too sure what).
As I interpreted the purpose of the meeting, it was intended to simply be a "mixer" whereby the parties get to know each other, and essentially would be no different than if Masons were to meet with the Knights of Columbus, Elks, Moose, etc. Even the clergy practices such "mixers" for the purpose of promoting understanding and building goodwill between religions. Interestingly, Freemasonry appears to be one of the few institutions that openly resists any attempts to promote such understanding and goodwill.
As we all know, there is a variety of interpretations of how Freemasonry is to be implemented; the Grand Lodges, the Grand Orients, Co-Masonry, Prince Hall, and others. To my knowledge, none practice devil worshiping, but rather, peace, cooperation, citizenship, community involvement, and philanthropy. I find this all rather ironic; on the one hand, Freemasonry practices religious tolerance, yet on the other it steadfastly opposes fraternal tolerance. So much so, one could conclude that Masons treat Masons like some Religions treat Masons (badly).
All of this points at the territorialism ingrained in Freemasonry and instead of being a universal system aimed at promoting Brotherhood, it has become a series of "good ole boy" clubs, hence the proliferation of politics in our institution in recent times. The difference between a true fraternity and a club is you either believe and practice its social principles on a universal basis or you do not. In this way it is somewhat like an organized religion in that you have the "faith" and the various churches to implement it. The difference in Freemasonry though is that the churches (Lodges) do not cooperate and try to sequester their flocks from each other. The Grand jurisdictions should be reminded that it is not a question of protecting the sovereignty of a particular jurisdiction, but practicing True Masonry instead. Those that practice territorialism in Masonry have essentially taken a beautiful concept and turned it into nothing but a club.
When we read of Freemasonry in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries we marvel at how Masons traveled the world and were warmly received by their Brethren. True there were differences between the Grand Lodges of England, Scotland, and Ireland, but on the whole they tried to promote the universality of the fraternity. And it was this thinking which led to the conquering and settlement of not just villages, cities and states, but whole countries and continents.
Now, instead of finding ways to work together, we viciously fight over territory and who has the correct interpretation of Freemasonry. One thing is certain, fraternal tolerance is essentially no different than religious tolerance, and as long as we practice one and not the other, we will look as foolish as the religious institutions that censor us.
Keep the Faith.
NOTE: The opinions expressed in this essay are my own and do not necessarily represent the views or opinions of any Grand Masonic jurisdiction or any other Masonic related body. As with all of my Masonic articles herein, please feel free to reuse them in Masonic publications or re-post them on Masonic web sites (except Florida). When doing so, please add the following:
Article reprinted with permission of the author and www.FreemasonInformation.com
Please forward me a copy of the publication when it is produced.
To receive notices of Tim's writings, subscribe to his Discussion Group.
You can also "tune in" to Bro. Tim's audio podcasts at the "Lodgeroom International" (UK):
podcast.lodgeroominternational.com/
Also be sure to check out Tim's "Pet Peeve of the Week" (non-Masonic related) at:
www.phmainstreet.com/timbryce.htm
Copyright © 2008 by Tim Bryce. All rights reserved.
posted by:
|
Melbourne
|
Advertisement
Advertisement
-
Re: MASONIC SOVEREIGNTY
Sun, April 13, 2008 - 4:21 AMNice read bloke. Thank you.
While I agree with the idea and practice of tolerance, especially in this institution of ours, I think I perhaps misunderstood Bro Bryce's statement concerning "interpretations of how Freemasonry is to be implemented". I took it as we shouldn't believe any other "Masonic" groups are clandestine and since we all promote "peace, cooperation, citizenship, community involvement, and philanthropy" we should all be buddy buddy. Now I certainly would never stop talking to some one because I found out they were a co-mason, and I have never understood the reasoning behind disassociation with Prince Hall, I simply find it hard to consider Co-Masonry as legitimate in my mind.
My OBLG, states who I will and who I will not accept as a Mason. Just because someone way before me broke their's and gave away signs and tokens and felt it was perfectly acceptable to invite Atheists or a Woman, does not mean I should now accept their group.
As to the other problem Singular Entity lodges, I find this disturbing. Why should a Lodge not make traveling members feel at home? Is it not a benefit and privilege of being a MM? These such Lodges are breaking the basic principle of Brother Love. In my mind, heart and soul there is no distinction of MY Lodge YOUR Lodge ideology. If you are a Brother, from a recognized lodge, then you should be welcomed and feel welcomed in My Lodge and the other way around. These Cliques are dangerous, they allow dishonest people to run around in our Fraternity and make a mockery of our values. They allow "Brothers" to get away with things that are immoral and illegal, just because they are a part of the "IN" crowd.
The Grand Jurisdictions need to take control of said Lodges. Order and integrity must be maintained.
I hope I didn't upset too many people or any body too much.
Just my views. -
-
Re: MASONIC SOVEREIGNTY
Mon, April 14, 2008 - 6:30 AMOh so much here.....
Simply put in my mind....my GL may say that my LODGE can not communicate with another LODGE or GL but as and individual Mason they have no right to tell me who I can and can not sit down with or talk to. I have a constituional right in this country to peacfully assemble. I like the idea of having a gathering Masons from all Jurisdictions in the area. It is just sad to see some Grand Lodges act in such unmasonic ways. Masons should be about universal brotherhood and not exclusivity. Absolute power corupts absolutely. -
-
Re: MASONIC SOVEREIGNTY
Mon, April 14, 2008 - 8:49 AM"but as and individual Mason they have no right to tell me who I can and can not sit down with or talk to"
That may be so, but in your obligation - freely taken - there is reference to not having "masonic discussion" with Masons who are clandestine or irregular. So - in a way, they can - and we each agreed to it.
I believe as you do, and I feel it educational to talk with other Masons. The issue before me is the extent to which I can do that and not violate my freely-taken obligation.
~Steve -
-
Re: MASONIC SOVEREIGNTY
Mon, April 14, 2008 - 12:21 PMWell siting down in a public area or in a private home is very diffrent than a lodge room. Having a conversation with a man (or woman) who calls themself a mason is very different from participating in a planed Masonic event. Having an open gathering in public where masons of all stripes as well as non masons may meet is not the same as a focused Masonic gathering. Strickly speaking we should have had some kind of test in place for all the Masons at Pennsic but since we trust masons and Pennsic goers I think we just asked for dues cards. What happens if a Woman Mason shows up? We are not having a masonic meeting although some of felt that way.
I may have obligations not to sit down in a masonic meeting with a clandestine mason but all people have a claim on my kind offices more especially masons. And if someone would identify themself as a mason and need my help i am no going to whip out a book to check if they are on an aproved list. That kind of thinking is what is wrong with Masonry today.
Futhermore my constitutional rights superceed any obligation to any organization I have to pay money to to belong. Like I said before they can stop me from going to a clandestine lodge as a representative of my jurisdiction or in some official masonic capacity but they couldn't do it if I went as and individual man. They can stop lodges from communicating officially but they can't keep you and I from talking or keep us from talking to others here.
-
-
-
