Ask us about Freemasonry - Who keeps the Bitcoin system down? We do!

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Ask/Tell > Ask us about Freemasonry - Who keeps the Bitcoin system down? We do!

«‹›4 »

Sub Rosa: Jun 9, 2010

WebDog posted:

One of my great-grandparents was a mason and his father was an Oddfellow - are there any relations between the two guilds and is there any meaning to having a past family member be in one should you end up joining?

They are both similar but no formal connection of any sort.

No meaning beyond the obvious finding it meaningful to share that connection. The son of a Mason is called a Lewis and in some jurisdictions that only allow men to join at 21, a Lewis may join at 18, but that's pretty much it. And he would still be voted on normally.

# ¿ Dec 23, 2012 02:55

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 29, 2024 17:18

Sub Rosa: Jun 9, 2010

Ari posted:

my state (Florida) requires a candidate to have been born physically male, to physically still be male, and to dress and act as a male while at any masonic event or meeting.

I'n surprised to hear there is an actual policy on transgender inclusion but :florida:. I guess I think it's weird to be accommodating to (pre/non-op) trans women but exclude outright trans men.

# ¿ Dec 23, 2012 16:29

Sub Rosa: Jun 9, 2010

Colonial Air Force posted:

Also most of the Founders we have who were also Masons were Deists, so at least in the US you wouldn't need to "hide" that (although you'd never be asked either).

This is oft claimed but not to my knowledge true. Franklin is the closest, but more so in his youth, and he more often identified himself as a Christian with Deist leanings. It is also the case that Deism was sometimes controversial in those times. I actually think that Franklin stopped attending lodge after a Deist was kicked out for not believing in a God that rewards good and punishes evil.

# ¿ Dec 25, 2012 19:10

Sub Rosa: Jun 9, 2010

WAFFLEHOUND posted:

Pretty sure there's a lot of solid evidence for this, actually.

Everytime I've went looking for it I haven't found it.

Colonial Air Force posted:

Well he stopped claiming he was a Deist because it wasn't popular. That doesn't mean he wasn't a Deist.

I'm not saying that isn't possible, but I don't really think it's true to how he presented himself. And while we was the sort to care about public opinion, he was also the sort to argue for his favored beliefs.

# ¿ Dec 25, 2012 19:27

Sub Rosa: Jun 9, 2010

Lovable Luciferian posted:

One of them (one I was very fond of) passed on just eight or nine hours after my visit.

Wow. That hits me right in the, eh, apron.

# ¿ Dec 27, 2012 03:49

Sub Rosa: Jun 9, 2010

mrbill posted:

Endowed Member

I chuckle every time.

Congrats, Brother!

# ¿ Jan 3, 2013 13:25

Sub Rosa: Jun 9, 2010

Ari posted:

I've chosen not to bring it up to him, as he does definitely know me (greeted me by name tonight, I didn't even know he was showing up).

I really have a strong gut feeling that this is not the Masonic thing to do. A soft whisper of correction in the ear from a Brother he has a good impression of and personal connection to seems much more powerful to me than the political grandstanding of the GM Conference.

Ari posted:

To avoid the risk of causing trouble for myself

This really sort of makes me cringe about the state of Masonry today: that Masons hold their tongue and hands against impropriety of many sorts due to fears of reprisal. What Brotherhood, that?

I hope you will reconsider saying something to him. In private, with brotherly love. There is and will be enough public reprisal and it will be overturned, but all of that is antagonistic. While that will lead to this policy being overturned, it will not penetrate his heart in the way a gentle reproach from a friend and Brother in private may.

# ¿ Jan 4, 2013 13:13

Sub Rosa: Jun 9, 2010

Innerguard posted:

has never taken office during that whole time.

True secret of a long happy life.

# ¿ Jan 19, 2013 06:46

Sub Rosa: Jun 9, 2010

Very Nice Eraser posted:

Gotcha. I don't want to spoil this thread and the information is just a Google away. But I do have some questions regarding the spiritual overtones of the rituals. To be vague, how do those Masons whose religious beliefs don't include an afterlife or resurrection deal with the relevant rituals?

I don't need to literally believe in something to see it as having a symbolic meaning that is positive and instructive. I take that perspective in all my studying of wisdom traditions of various sorts, including Freemasonry.

Very Nice Eraser posted:

On a different subject, earlier in this thread a few people posted that no man has the authority to change the underpinnings of Masonic tradition

Not only no man, but no institution. Freemasonry has landmarks that cannot be changed, period. If they were changeable, even if they weren't changed, what you have wouldn't be Masonry. Perhaps what you would have would be something better. Perhaps a way to change obsolete landmarks should have been included. But it wasn't, and it can't be added now.

# ¿ Jan 23, 2013 16:27

Sub Rosa: Jun 9, 2010

Very Nice Eraser posted:

But if the definition were revised (which does happen) and the community chose to accept a definition that included my cat, he would in fact be a Maine Coon. Not by today's definition, sure, but what does that matter tomorrow?

Thoughts?

We can all agree to call bullshit roses, but it still stinks.

# ¿ Jan 25, 2013 03:38

Sub Rosa: Jun 9, 2010

Effingham posted:

The Lodge can be opened on any degree -- the business is pretty much the same.

This varies by state. In some jurisdictions, business can only be done on the third, which makes plenty of symbolic sense if you think about it.

# ¿ Feb 9, 2013 06:51

Sub Rosa: Jun 9, 2010

QPZIL posted:

Granted, I love reading mystic texts, but I put Pike in the same "fascinating and crazy" camp as Aleister Crowley. I love reading both of their works, but as people they're off the deep end.

There are lots of negative things to be said about Crowley, and I've said them all, but crazy isn't really one of them.

Also I'm really strongly thinking of demitting, but it isn't something I've found a lot of clear answers about. Most of the information I've found is more to the purpose of changing lodges. Masonry would be great if not for all the loving Masons, and there is a further reason some in the thread are privvy to. Anyone have bullet points?

# ¿ Mar 8, 2013 19:33

Sub Rosa: Jun 9, 2010

Glorified Scrivener posted:

In Montana the Code/Statutes of the Grand Lodge state that any member in good standing, against whom charges are not pending, can request a dimit in writing at any stated communication.

Your post was very helpful, but this brings up a follow up question. Can charges be brought against a Brother after he demits?

# ¿ Mar 9, 2013 00:54

Sub Rosa: Jun 9, 2010

Glorified Scrivener posted:

There will be some variance in who has jurisdiction depending on the constitution and rules of the governing grand lodge.

Which of course would be even further complicated if the Mason in question resides in a state he holds no affiliations in

# ¿ Mar 12, 2013 01:11

Sub Rosa: Jun 9, 2010

ArchDemon posted:

Just realized there was a thread here. I am currently master of St. George Lodge #239, Kentucky. If any brothers care to come to Louisville for a visit, send me a PM. We're holding degrees about once every two months at the moment.

I went to a Third Degree in Kentucky once. Never again.

# ¿ Mar 12, 2013 06:04

Sub Rosa: Jun 9, 2010

QPZIL posted:

What do you guys know about the Independent Order of Odd Fellows? It seems to be similar to Masonry, but more focused on philanthropy.

I'm in both. IOOF is very similar to Masonry but not in a "Hey, you're ripping us off!" way. IOOF was hit much harder by the generational downturn in interest in fraternal societies. IOOF was once larger than Masonry in the states, back when societies such as ours really sort of functioned as health/etc/burial insurance.

The biggest change in the last twenty years was IOOF started allowing women as full members. Plenty of old fogies were grumpy about it at the time, but there was no mass exodus of membership. Not that at this point we have enough membership to ever really qualify anything as a mass exodus I guess.

When I joined I went through a one-day class, and did not have any option to do otherwise. To say it cheapened the experience is to say the least. I don't think the initiation rituals of either body should be cheapened, and we already have enough problems getting together proficient ritual teams to provide a good experience when we are trying (or so has been my impression everywhere I've traveled).

When the initiation rituals seem like a cheap parlour show, and not something important and valuable that should be studied, what's the surprise when people don't value it and study it?

# ¿ Mar 19, 2013 00:00

Sub Rosa: Jun 9, 2010

FreshFeesh posted:

I wonder if making a Mason "at sight" is an ability retained by PGMs or if that's an ability reserved for the sitting GM only. It's very likely jurisdictional.

I really can't imagine a jurisdiction where anyone other the the GM could do it. The reason the GM can do it is because he can create a lodge from thin air in which he is the only voting member, and then vote you in, all in a moment of technicality.

At least that is how it was explained to me.

# ¿ Mar 21, 2013 06:52

Sub Rosa: Jun 9, 2010

An Old Boot posted:

- Since there is secrecy about what a degree entails, there can't be any advanced warning. In the case of a woman, this could be read very, very badly. I won't go into more details on what this means, since you can look them up yourself if you're that curious, just, like I said, try not to ruin it for other people.

I am a Mason and I still don't understand what people mean by this.

An Old Boot posted:

It's not saying that all women are prone to have shitfits over something like that, or that none of them can handle it, but given the current climate of gender relations in American society at the very least, well. I have to admit, I'd probably be more than a little uncomfortable, if not a little/a lot frightened for my safety given the disorientation involved, no matter how many reassurances I got. It's just that kind of thing. Men are more comfortable with it, don't need to think as much about that aspect of it, whereas women probably wouldn't be.

Except there are plenty of other example institutions such as IOOF or pseudomasonic magical orders that initiate women as full members and also have unknown initiation rituals that are going to involve similar elements as Masonry. There is no avalanche of hysterical women forcing people to break their oaths in court.

# ¿ Apr 8, 2013 18:42

Sub Rosa: Jun 9, 2010

mrbill posted:

Think about the very first part of the EA ceremony.

Still not really getting it. I've only seen EAs in my home jurisdiction so maybe we do something different.

Colonial Air Force posted:

chest bared. Then they'd be paraded around the room, still blindfolded and bare-chested

Yeah, nope. I was never bare-chested.

We put our candidates in clothing like this.

You'll notice there are flaps in the chest area which may be opened and all modesty be retained.

Sub Rosa fucked around with this message at 08:02 on Apr 10, 2013

# ¿ Apr 10, 2013 07:42

Sub Rosa: Jun 9, 2010

SaNChEzZ posted:

That would have been fun, also our footwear only goes up to about a size 10, I'm a 13. It didn't work too well.

Actually the pants were too small for me and I spent my entire EA trying to not let my pants drop around my ankles. They only did once.

So once again, prospective members, wear clean underwear is the best and only piece of advice you need to be prepared.

One of the member's wives sew me custom pants for FC and MM.

# ¿ Apr 11, 2013 21:48

Sub Rosa: Jun 9, 2010

Grandmaster.flv posted:

No but really they seem like a bunch of good dudes and I'm looking forward to starting the process. I can't wait to be an Illumiatus

Illuminatus

Carbolic posted:

what attributes about Masonry (apart from it defining itself as excluding women) require it to be men's-only.

Tradition is what requires it. Tradition and nothing else. Tradition is very important in Masonry, and some traditions called landmarks are by definition not changeable.

This doesn't mean I really think Masonry is a genderless institution. Masonry sets out to be a gendered organization in every way, and I would argue it succeeds. While much of society has changed in regards to gender roles since Masonry started, gender itself is still something that is very real. Not to deny the identity of agender or non-binary folks, but both male and female genders are real and they are not the same.

So unless you think that gender is purely a social construct or that gendered institutions, no matter how old or historically significant don't have the very right to continue to exist...

Carbolic posted:

At some point "freedom of association" stops making sense when you have never met the vast majority of people you are "associating" with.

Doesn't make sense to you. All Masons worldwide have a distinct affinity. Why do I need to have met some percentage of the membership to know that I share that affinity when it is an affinity that we take to be very important?

Carbolic posted:

Should boys' schools admit females? - Yes, unless they can show there's a societally beneficial reason to having only boys at the school.

Shouldn't the reverse be true? If they are in general socially beneficial, shouldn't it instead be that the requirement be shown that excluding girls has a larger negative effect than the general positive done by the school to compel it to accept women or stop existing?

I would make that exact case in regards to Masonry. Masonry either is allowed to be male only or it stops existing. Masonry in general does a tremendous amount of social good. Can you really demonstrate a corresponding social ill equal to or greater than that good caused by excluding female members? I know you cannot.

Carbolic posted:

Should women be allowed to become priests? - Plenty of religious denominations manage to have female ministers so I don't really see why the Catholic church has to be any different.

Just like how boys and girls are different, Catholics and Protestants are different. Difference exists in the world. If you think erasing difference and promoting homogeneity and assimilation equals equality you must be very white first off and etc. Whitewashing difference is harmful to minorities of all sorts, and is generally a practice that comes from a place of blind privilege. All those things you write about equality and social benefit sounds remarkably :godwinning:

when you also seem to be all for erasing real and historically rooted valid difference because it fits your narrow minded view of an ideal society. I would encourage you to develop an appreciation for and acceptance of diversity in the world.

And for the record, if it wasn't the case that the structure of the organization makes it so this vote would never be able to happen, if we could vote on allowing women in, I'd vote let women in.

I also don't think the Catholic religion shouldn't let women be priests, but then not agreeing with the Catholic religion is why I am not Catholic. If I was a Catholic woman who wanted to become a priest, I would realize that I don't agree with my own religion and I would convert to one compatible with my beliefs, not expect over a thousand years of belief and tradition to change to accommodate my wishes because I personally feel in some way wronged by being excluded.

Sub Rosa fucked around with this message at 20:42 on Apr 14, 2013

# ¿ Apr 14, 2013 20:39

Sub Rosa: Jun 9, 2010

Carbolic posted:

By that logic, a society in which only boys' schools (and no girls' schools) existed would be fine, because each individual boys' school did more good than harm.

I do not believe that follows. That's a theoretical that maximizes the harm. Even then I would think it would be a mistake to blame the boy's schools instead of whatever power relations are preventing there also being girl's or coed schools.

Carbolic posted:

Can you explain what social good is done by Masonry that could not be done equally or better by an organization that was exactly identical except for admitting women?

I can happily posit a theoretical Masonry that accepts women and admit it would have no reason it would not be able to do as much or more good. I honestly would hope and expect it would do more good in that case. I'd join such an organization if it existed, and I would prefer it to the one I'm currently part of.

That fact remains, however, that this is not an option on the table. The facts are that Masonry does a tremendous amount of good, and it will either survive as is and continue to do that good, or cease to be.

Carbolic posted:

I am curious how you read my position as promoting homogeneity and erasing difference.

You literally said you don't understand why the Catholic Church has to to be different.

Carbolic posted:

When you talk about "erasing real and historically rooted valid difference" that is precisely the kind of argument that has been used over the centuries first by apologists for slavery, then apologists for segregation, and now people resisting same-sex marriage. Yet giving black people or gay people rights hasn't erased difference or made society more homogeneous.

Actually I'm queer and pretty much against "gay marriage" because I think it's wrong for LGBT organizing to focus on gaining more privileges for the privileged instead of actually dealing with the more serious injustices people in the queer community face. And I think it has ended up being the spearhead of activism because the affluent white men bankrolling organizations like the HRC are just as classist, racist, and sexist as straight affluent white men. Proposing that queer people need to fit our relationships into a heterogeneous mold patterned after heterosexual marriage so that we can get access to what should be rights and not privileges is precisely the sort of difference erasing and assimilationism that I'm talking about.

And I do think similar things can be said about the transformative effect the civil right movement has had on the cultures of racial minorities. So if you "act white" you are "one of the good ones" and allowed access to positions of power in oppressive power structures. I certainly don't think segregation was better, but the point is that the actual seat of power never changed, we just get to borrow some if we participate in our own subjugation.

So I think giving up difference in exchange for privileges from power structures that will never really serve us is a devil's bargain that I don't agree with. For more on this from a radical queer perspective, I'd suggest http://www.againstequality.org/

# ¿ Apr 15, 2013 05:09

Sub Rosa: Jun 9, 2010

Carbolic posted:

If you were a Catholic woman who wanted female priests, you'd leave, but as a Mason who wishes women could join, you're staying.

Actually I've long been considering demitting.

Carbolic posted:

To move in a more constructive direction, how accepting are most lodges of LGBT members? (Transgender issues were discussed very briefly at the start of the thread, but I haven't noticed a discussion about LGB issues). Does this tend to be a function of the social mores where the lodge is located?

Varies greatly by location.

Carbolic posted:

Am I correct from reading the OP that Masonic lodges do not take political stances on issues, and thus would have no particular position on same-sex rights or same-sex marriage (or Obamacare, or immigration reform, or whatever)?

Correct.

Sub Rosa fucked around with this message at 03:16 on Sep 24, 2019

# ¿ Apr 15, 2013 17:04

Sub Rosa: Jun 9, 2010

lord1234 posted:

Not to bring this around, but can you point me to a post that defines what the solution here is?

Believe me, there isn't one.

# ¿ May 13, 2013 17:33

Sub Rosa: Jun 9, 2010

Solvent posted:

As of last communication, just a few months ago, the Grand Lodge of Florida will recognize neither African American Master Masons, nor Prince Hall lodges.

They never to my knowledge recognized Prince Hall in Florida, but not recognizing a regular MM for being black is, well, I can't believe that, do you have a source for this?

I can believe an individual lodge doing something like this, but not a Grand Lodge. And I would think that the Past Master in question should be able to complain to California's Grand Lodge and get it all straightened out. A Florida lodge not extending visition rights to a regular Mason in good standing with a Lodge they recognize is the kind of thing that should and would be worked out between Grand Lodges and I would imagine would end up with the Florida GL telling the subordinate lodge that they have to let him in.

Edit: And here is the official summary of changes from the last communication which mentions nothing of the sort? http://www.glflamason.org/documents/Monthly%20Mail/06-Jun/2013/4%20Summary%20of%20Legislation%202013.pdf

Sub Rosa fucked around with this message at 19:05 on Jun 23, 2013

# ¿ Jun 23, 2013 19:00

Sub Rosa: Jun 9, 2010

Solvent posted:

"How is writing a letter to the Grand Lodge of Florida going to anything other than create disharmony?"

(1) I hate this attitude because it excuses so much bullshit. Masonry is worse because of it for so many reasons. (2) He would theoretically write his own GL so they can take umbrage on his behalf, not Florida's GL.

# ¿ Jun 27, 2013 06:51

Sub Rosa: Jun 9, 2010

Solvent posted:

Not to defend any kind of racist behavior, but if any lodge doesn't want to accept a brother for any reason, who am I to stop them? So long as it's not a lodge I'm affiliated with, why should I/we attempt to make an issue out of it?

The right of visitation is a big deal, enough to be considered a landmark by plenty.

# ¿ Jun 30, 2013 08:58

Sub Rosa: Jun 9, 2010

1. Follow your own moral compass
2. Don't get caught

# ¿ Aug 6, 2013 17:35

Sub Rosa: Jun 9, 2010

KittyEmpress posted:

If such a law a truly passed what would the response of the Masons be?

Women would then be welcome to apply and get unanimously blackballed. So then clearly they aren't being excluded because of their gender, but rather because the organization requires all prospective members to be voted on and members are free to vote their consciences.

# ¿ Aug 29, 2013 00:36

Sub Rosa: Jun 9, 2010

Loomer posted:

The Grand Lodge published an additional clarification later in the quarterly magazine (I think. Possibly just on the website) that only bans esotericism that doesn't relate to masonry. Exactly where you draw the line between the parts of esotericism that do relate to Masonry and the parts that don't is a mystery to everyone still.

Especially when the initial statement mentions Rosicrucianism.

# ¿ Sep 30, 2013 06:43

Sub Rosa: Jun 9, 2010

When I was an EA/FC the Tyler encouraged me to eavesdrop.

QPZIL posted:

To give you an actual answer - don't reveal any of the words of the ritual, don't reveal any of the obligation, don't reveal the passwords/grips/signs/due guards... and that's mostly it. You can tell her that you had dinner, then were prepared in a certain way and went through an initiation. You can tell her we wear silly aprons, and that you pretty much just had to promise to keep the secrets. It's more open than most initiates think, but just use your own judgement.

I once heard a brother put it this way: "This obligation (pointing to wedding band) trumps any other obligation including this (pointing to S&C ring) one." And I've certainly met some Mason's wives who could put lots of brothers to shame in terms of Masonic knowledge and there is no way they don't all the things referenced above.

# ¿ Oct 8, 2013 02:17

Sub Rosa: Jun 9, 2010

The requirement varies by jurisdiction. Some places are purposely vague enough that it would certainly be enough. Others start throwing in language about believing in bodily resurrection or that your conception of deity rewards good and punishes evil. Even in the latter jurisdictions most of the time you will not be asked in detail about your religious belief. If you feel no tug of conscience in answering the question "Do you believe in God?" with a simple "Yes." it is good enough for most.

# ¿ Nov 1, 2013 00:41

Sub Rosa: Jun 9, 2010

Sub Rosa fucked around with this message at 03:21 on Sep 24, 2019

# ¿ Jan 19, 2014 21:41

Sub Rosa: Jun 9, 2010

Sub Rosa fucked around with this message at 03:21 on Sep 24, 2019

# ¿ Jan 20, 2014 17:07

Sub Rosa: Jun 9, 2010

Sub Rosa fucked around with this message at 03:22 on Sep 24, 2019

# ¿ Jan 20, 2014 21:58

Sub Rosa: Jun 9, 2010

Sub Rosa fucked around with this message at 03:22 on Sep 24, 2019

# ¿ Jan 21, 2014 01:18

Sub Rosa: Jun 9, 2010

Don't we have a Satanist in this thread, actually?

# ¿ Feb 7, 2014 01:53

Sub Rosa: Jun 9, 2010

Emron posted:

So essentially, you allow atheists. I'm reporting you for being an illicit lodge. Make your time.

Thelemites aren't atheists, but I would blackball anyone I knew was a member of the OTO.

# ¿ Feb 7, 2014 02:15

Sub Rosa: Jun 9, 2010

Jehovah = Adonai za-Baoth = Lord of Hosts = Baal za-Baoth = Beelzebuth = Beelzebub

# ¿ Feb 7, 2014 02:32

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ Apr 29, 2024 17:18

Sub Rosa: Jun 9, 2010

patentmagus posted:

Nah, not that interesting because people who believe in satan pretty much have to believe in God because of the whole thrown out of heaven thing.

Well, actually.... some Gnostic christians believe Jehovah is a demiurge who very literally is the architect of the universe, but that he created the universe and mired humanity in ignorance and illusion out of some misguided and immature jealous desire, and that actually Lucifer began the process of the redemption of mankind from ignorance by encouraging the eating of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge.

# ¿ Feb 7, 2014 02:56

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Ask/Tell > Ask us about Freemasonry - Who keeps the Bitcoin system down? We do!

«‹›4 »