The Freemasons

robroy1234

Penn - as I have stated previously - I am an Irish Freemason and operate under the Grand Lodge of Ireland, and England is a totally different jurisdiction. Now if other contributors keep on posting about what goes on in England and then accuses myself and others for doing likewise because of guilt by association then they are in the wrong.

Penn

robroy1234 wrote: »

Penn - as I have stated previously - I am an Irish Freemason and operate under the Grand Lodge of Ireland, and England is a totally different jurisdiction. Now if other contributors keep on posting about what goes on in England and then accuses myself and others for doing likewise because of guilt by association then they are in the wrong.

So feel free to point that out if someone says that. But telling people that they can't post something in this thread is backseat modding. If you have an issue with this, PM me.

robroy1234

<snip>

Mod: If you have an issue robroy1234, PM me. Do not bring it up on thread again.

robroy1234

robroy1234 wrote: »

<snip>

Mod: If you have an issue robroy1234, PM me. Do not bring it up on thread again.

ok. penn....

Absolam

A money making group.

eithneoneill wrote: »

But Absolam, only GL sees Freemasonry as a male-only Fraternity. Nothing in Freemasonry, apart from a macho tradition, makes it a fraternity.

Well, the fact that the membership is exclusively male does, in fact, make it a fraternity. You can see it as something else, but it is what it is.

eithneoneill wrote: »

Do you think that women should be excluded from Liberty Equality Fraternity on a grammatical point?

. No, I think women are as entitled as anyone to liberty equality and fraternity. They just can't be Freemasons.

eithneoneill wrote: »

Do you think that if a woman had been first on the moon, it would not have been a leap for "mankind"?

. No, it still would have been a giant leap for mankind. But I suspect someone would have tried to make it a victory for equality too.

eithneoneill wrote: »

It's not because the language can be sexist that we have to be.
Fraternity is a universal concept, not limited to grammatical gender, from the greek φράτηρ, meaning "Member of a community".

. I'm not saying it's sexist, that's your perspective. I think a women is quite entitled to set up a club just like the Freemasons, which allows whatever members it wants, and can even call it the Freemasons. It just won't be the Freemasons.

eithneoneill wrote: »

Not extending fraternal relationships to women, based on an outdated divide between fraternities and sororities is antiquated and not very enlightened...
And the fact that Elizabeth St. Leger, The Lady Freemason, was initiated in Ireland and is recognized and even celebrated by the GL, suggests that she was part of that Fraternity without being a man...

You're absolutely right, on both points. However, choosing not to change the traditions of your club knowing that you are free to associate with whomever you want, and cannot be forced to choose your friends based on what someone else feels is politically correct is an entirely modern and illuminated perspective.

eithneoneill

A money making group.

You don't seem to accept the following truth:
- A woman was a member of that "fraternity"
- There are Freemason lodges who welcome women as members

These two things are facts that make your "fraternity of men" argument much weaker.
That's probably why you refuse the status of Freemasonry to Grand Orient and Droit Humain.
But you cannot erase the Lady Mason Elizabeth from history.

Absolam

A money making group.

eithneoneill wrote: »

You don't seem to accept the following truth:
- A woman was a member of that "fraternity"
- There are Freemason lodges who welcome women as members

These two things are facts that make your "fraternity of men" argument much weaker.
That's probably why you refuse the status of Freemasonry to Grand Orient and Droit Humain.
But you cannot erase the Lady Mason Elizabeth from history.

I guess the truth is what you make it, but facts are facts. It is a fact that a woman was initiated in to Freemasonry. It is a fact that Freemasonry does not accept female candidates. It is a fact there are organisations which style themselves Masonic, but which are not considered to be Masonic by the majority of Freemasonry. These are not arguments, just a statement of how things are, and I'm not offering any judgement on whether this is how things ought to be; I'm simply saying that's the way it is.

It's obvious you want non-Masonic organisations to be recognised by Freemasonry, the question I would ask is why? If you're happy with your organisation, why do you need someone else to approve it?
On the one hand, you say Freemason lodges accept women as members, then you say that they are refused the status of Freemasonry. Your own point is conflicted.

All these Masonic like bodies are not considered Masonic by Freemasons because they do not adhere to the fundamental principles of Freemasonry. It's not a matter of women vs men, it's much simpler. If you want to join our club, you have to abide by our rules. If you don't like them, feel free to have your own club where you make the rules. Which is exactly what Masonic like organisations do, and fair play to them.

robroy1234

Einthe - The Grand Orient has not done itself any favours in trying to curry any favours with the Grand Lodge of Ireland, mainly by trying usurp the history of the Grand Lodge by taking it as its own and stating that there is closeness between Irish Freemasonry and the Orange Order. When an organization attempts to take another organizations history and claim it as its own, it loses credibility. The Grand Orient should only state on its website that it started in 2010, there is no need or reason to cut and paste the Grand Lodge of Ireland history.

robroy1234

To clarify further - Freemasonry in Ireland is governed by the Grand Lodge of Ireland, and that covers the whole island of Ireland. Now there is no jurisdiction over England, Scotland or any other country, even though some Grand Lodges adhere to the Irish constitution they are themselves independent. So what an English Freemason does in England has no bearing on Irish Freemasons here in Ireland. Now our respective Grand Lodges recognizes each other for purpose of visitation and mutual shared history, but operate independently of each other. If at any stage a Grand Lodge is deemed to operate outside the principles of Freemasonry then other Grand Lodges will remove recognition until such a time that offence has been dealt with. In regards to the Principles of Freemasonry there is a provision that all Freemasons obey the law of the land (it is the law of Man and Nature) and do not habour or conceal crimes against such.

Now there have been variance at times in the past, where certain inviolate governments acted against Freemasonry and made laws prohibiting Freemasonry - Hitler's Nazi Germany, Mussolini's Fascist Italy, Franco's Fascist Spain, Pinochet's Fascist Chile, Stalin's Communist Soviet, but these laws were not the laws of Nature and contravene all notion of humanity.

So in respect to those people who keep on bringing up events in England that are both not connected to Freemasonry at all and not connected to Ireland and Irish Freemasonry, and yet keep on tenuously insinuating that we are all involved in criminal activities, then you are wasting your time in trying to force on us a connection and trying to get Irish Freemasons comment on unconnected events and activities.
As for a general discussion on Freemasonry it is ok to debate such things as the rituals, principles, ideas and famous Freemasons, but bear in mind that each and every Grand Lodge are independent very much like the differences between various Christian groups and sects throughout the world.

Now lets have a nice Easter and eat plenty of chocolate.....

eithneoneill

A money making group.

robroy1234 wrote: »

Einthe - The Grand Orient has not done itself any favours in trying to curry any favours with the Grand Lodge of Ireland, mainly by trying usurp the history of the Grand Lodge by taking it as its own and stating that there is closeness between Irish Freemasonry and the Orange Order. When an organization attempts to take another organizations history and claim it as its own, it loses credibility. The Grand Orient should only state on its website that it started in 2010, there is no need or reason to cut and paste the Grand Lodge of Ireland history.

That might be so.
But if the Grand Orient's roots stem in France, most of the Master Masons who joined it when it arrived in Ireland were Masons from the GL.
Thus they carry part of that dual history!

Absolam wrote: »

I guess the truth is what you make it, but facts are facts.

Freemasonry is seeking the Truth amongst all things. So we do not make it what we want, but what it is.

It is a fact that a woman was initiated in to Freemasonry. It is a fact that Freemasonry does not accept female candidates.

It is a fact that a woman was initiated under the GL auspices.

It is a fact there are organisations which style themselves Masonic, but which are not considered to be Masonic by the majority of Freemasonry. These are not arguments, just a statement of how things are, and I'm not offering any judgement on whether this is how things ought to be; I'm simply saying that's the way it is.

From the narrow point of view of the Grand Lodge.
Just like Catholics think they are the true Christianity.

It's obvious you want non-Masonic organisations to be recognised by Freemasonry, the question I would ask is why? If you're happy with your organisation, why do you need someone else to approve it?

The other 2 orders do not crave recognition by the Grand Lodge. They just extend a fraternal recognition to its members despite the lack of reciprocity.
Just like Protestants offer communion to Catholics, who do not reciprocate.
GO and DH would like GL to come to its senses and see the Truth that they are too Freemasons in good standing in the Grand Lodge of the Universe.
But GL prefers to remain isolated: it's their choice.

On the one hand, you say Freemason lodges accept women as members, then you say that they are refused the status of Freemasonry. Your own point is conflicted.

No.
I say authentic Freemasonry has no reason not to initiate women.
But GL considers such initiation heretic with its dogma (where Freemasonry should have no dogma and does not consider disagreement as an heresy...)

All these Masonic like bodies are not considered Masonic by Freemasons because they do not adhere to the fundamental principles of Freemasonry.

By GL Freemasons, who only recognize themselves and do not endure the idea that women are equal in all things that matter to Freemasonry.
You seem worried about "fundamental aspects" as an excuse to reject willing brethren and sisters (like the Lady Mason), but you forget all about them when it comes to sheltering "the boys" who are "part of the club".

It's not a matter of women vs men, it's much simpler. If you want to join our club, you have to abide by our rules. If you don't like them, feel free to have your own club where you make the rules. Which is exactly what Masonic like organisations do, and fair play to them.

If you see Freemasonry as "a club", you have lost your very first lesson learned as an Entered Apprentice.
If you see it as the old gang getting together to gain favor and advantages away from pestering wives... you are falling in the stereotype that explains why membership of the GL is getting smaller and older.

That is not the kind of Freemasonry I am interested in: an empty shell paying lip service to the symbolic knowledge it is suppose to impart.
The kind of society that is using one hand to hide away what the other is doing, when it should be extended in Fraternity to the whole of humanity in open light.

You really do not sell Freemasonry to the 21st century.
GO and DH do.

Torakx

robroy1234 wrote: »

Einthe - The Grand Orient has not done itself any favours in trying to curry any favours with the Grand Lodge of Ireland, mainly by trying usurp the history of the Grand Lodge by taking it as its own and stating that there is closeness between Irish Freemasonry and the Orange Order. When an organization attempts to take another organizations history and claim it as its own, it loses credibility. The Grand Orient should only state on its website that it started in 2010, there is no need or reason to cut and paste the Grand Lodge of Ireland history.

The Freemasons did take inspiration from the Knights Templar.So some amount of "plagarism" must be ok.

http://www.irish-freemasons.org/Pages_KM/Knight_Masonry.html
Infact there is a whole order if thats the correct word, for Knight masons

So im confused now, once again lol
Are the Knights Templars linked with Freemasons or did one copy the other?

I have watched a video showcasing the Freemasons and their lodge, with an interview with the secretary or someone like that.
I believe it was the Grand Lodge of England.
And in that he said that Freemasonry took inspiration from the Knights Templar among other things.

http://www.irish-freemasons.org/Pages_KM/List_Councils.html
Here is a list of councils fo the Knight masons.
Looks very northy to me.
Maybe the link to the Orange order?

Absolam

A money making group.

eithneoneill wrote: »

Freemasonry is seeking the Truth amongst all things. So we do not make it what we want, but what it is.

I must admit I've never noticed that Freemasonry is seeking the truth amongst all things. Perhaps you mean some Masonic like organisations are seeking the truth amongst all things? When they find it I'm sure there's a few religions will be interested.

eithneoneill wrote: »

From the narrow point of view of the Grand Lodge.
Just like Catholics think they are the true Christianity.

Would you prefer it if I said from the majority view of all regular Freemasons? Whether you consider it narrow or not, it remains a fact. And I rather think all Christians think they are the true Christians, or they would just change their religion to the true one....

eithneoneill wrote: »

The other 2 orders do not crave recognition by the Grand Lodge. They just extend a fraternal recognition to its members despite the lack of reciprocity.
Just like Protestants offer communion to Catholics, who do not reciprocate.
GO and DH would like GL to come to its senses and see the Truth that they are too Freemasons in good standing in the Grand Lodge of the Universe.
But GL prefers to remain isolated: it's their choice.

So why do you feel it's such an issue? Regular Freemasonry doesn't recognise Masonic-like organisations, Masonic-like organisations don't crave recognition by Freemasonry. Everyone is getting what they want, where's the problem?

eithneoneill wrote: »

No. I say authentic Freemasonry has no reason not to initiate women.
But GL considers such initiation heretic with its dogma (where Freemasonry should have no dogma and does not consider disagreement as an heresy...)

Since Freemasonry has no dogma, there's no heresy, so no worries there. Freemasonry has a perfectly good reason not to initiate women; the members choose not to. Is there as good a reason for Freemasonry to initiate women?

eithneoneill wrote: »

By GL Freemasons, who only recognize themselves and do not endure the idea that women are equal in all things that matter to Freemasonry.
You seem worried about "fundamental aspects" as an excuse to reject willing brethren and sisters (like the Lady Mason), but you forget all about them when it comes to sheltering "the boys" who are "part of the club".

Well, the Grand Lodge of Ireland recognises over a hundred Masonic organisations around the world, so perhaps a couple more than just 'themselves'. I'm not sure I'd say I endure the idea that women are equal, but I certainly agree with it. In all things, not just those that you think matter to Freemasonry. Over the years Freemasonry in Ireland has sheltered and educated thousands of boys, and girls. Why is that a problem?

eithneoneill wrote: »

If you see Freemasonry as "a club", you have lost your very first lesson learned as an Entered Apprentice.
If you see it as the old gang getting together to gain favor and advantages away from pestering wives... you are falling in the stereotype that explains why membership of the GL is getting smaller and older.

I must have missed seeing you at my initiation, and you really would think I'd have noticed....but anyway, reviewing my ritual, I can assure you there is nothing in the Entered Apprentice degree that denies the Fraternity is a club. And if you believe the Fraternity is getting smaller you're falling for the same misinformation that told you the Orange Order is 'cosy' with Freemasonry. Membership levels are fine, and despite your dire pronouncements earlier in the thread, I think we'll see out a few more generations yet...

eithneoneill wrote: »

That is not the kind of Freemasonry I am interested in: an empty shell paying lip service to the symbolic knowledge it is suppose to impart.
The kind of society that is using one hand to hide away what the other is doing, when it should be extended in Fraternity to the whole of humanity in open light.
You really do not sell Freemasonry to the 21st century.
GO and DH do.

Well, I'm not trying to sell Freemasonry to anyone. Those who like it can join, those who don't, don't have to. But I have to congratulate you; in the space of just a few days you've gone from not knowing if there were any Irish orders welcoming females to being extensively opinionated on how much better they are than Freemasonry, and advocating diligently on their behalf. Well done.

Absolam

A money making group.

Torakx wrote: »

The Freemasons did take inspiration from the Knights Templar.So some amount of "plagarism" must be ok.

Freemasonry doesn't claim the history of the Knights Templar as part of the history of Freemasonry; I think it's fair to say that Robroys objection is to the way the website of the grand orient in Ireland presents the history of freemasonry in Ireland as part of its own history, even though the grand orient didn't come into being until 2010, and the organisations presented in the history would not actually recognise the grand orient as being Masonic, or related to them.

Torakx wrote: »

Infact there is a whole order if thats the correct word, for Knight masons
So im confused now, once again lol
Are the Knights Templars linked with Freemasons or did one copy the other?

Then I'll confuse you further by saying that Knight Masons have nothing whatsoever to do with the Knights Templar, but there is an appendant body of Freemasonry called Great Priory, which is based on the Knights Templar. Obviously, Freemasonry only came into existance some centuries after the Knights Templar were disbanded, so it's Freemasons who are (sort of) copying the Knights Templar. Without the whole slaughtering Saracens and such like, of course.

Torakx wrote: »

Here is a list of councils fo the Knight masons.
Looks very northy to me.
Maybe the link to the Orange order?

. I'm a member of a council of knight masons, and I'm not at all northy. I'm kind of easty, and a bit southy, most of the time. And no, there's still no link to the Orange Order.

Torakx

I did a quick search.
It seems one theory that is fairly popular is that the original Knights Templars broke up and created societies in more accessible countries.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knights_Templar_%28Freemasonry%29

The Knights Templar is an international philanthropic chivalric order affiliated with Freemasonry. Unlike the initial degrees conferred in a Masonic Lodge, which only require a belief in a Supreme Being regardless of religious affiliation, the Knights Templar is one of several additional Masonic Orders in which membership is open only to Freemasons who profess a belief in the Christian religion. The full title of this Order is The United Religious, Military and Masonic Orders of the Temple and of St John of Jerusalem, Palestine, Rhodes and Malta. The word "United" in this title indicates that more than one historical tradition and more than one actual Order are jointly controlled within this system. The individual Orders 'united' within this system are principally the Knights of the Temple (Knights Templar), the Knights of Malta, the Knights of St Paul, and only within the York Rite, the Knights of the Red Cross. The Order derives its name from the historical Knights Templar. One theory of the origins of Freemasonry claims direct descent from the historical Knights Templar through its final fourteenth-century members who took refuge in Scotland, or other countries where the Templar suppression was not enforced. Although the theory may not be dismissed, it is usually deprecated on grounds of lack of evidence by both masonic authorities[1] and historians.

So apparently the Freemasons came about after the Templars disbanded.
And also the Freemasons have several similarities and links.
It doesnt seem like a massive stretch of the imagination to consider the Templars started a new society with similar goals and ideologies.
Now I dont really know what the original Templars real goals were, so im just generalising.

Regarding the Knight Masons.
Why are all the Irish councils based in the north between 1960-1995?
Thats kind of what I ment by northy.
There are more northern locations and dates spread out, aswell.
Did the Knight Masons start out in the north?Edit here: seems theystarted in Cork for the Irish at least.
Which still begs(well for me anyway it begs the question ) the question why so strongly to the north during thi time?

Also what is the Preceptories of High Knight Templars?
http://www.munsterfreemason.com/Order_of_the_Temple.htm

Looks to me to be strongly linked to the Knights Templar.

http://www.munsterfreemason.com/Knight_Masons.htm

By becoming a Knight Mason, one is completing a sequence intimately related to the teaching of Masonry.
There are three Degrees in Knight Masonry formerly known as the Red Cross Degrees:

Another Knights Templar reference? By that I mean the Red Cross.


also who is "The Great Chief"

enno99

robroy1234 wrote: »

To clarify further - Freemasonry in Ireland is governed by the Grand Lodge of Ireland, and that covers the whole island of Ireland. Now there is no jurisdiction over England, Scotland or any other country, even though some Grand Lodges adhere to the Irish constitution they are themselves independent. So what an English Freemason does in England has no bearing on Irish Freemasons here in Ireland. Now our respective Grand Lodges recognizes each other for purpose of visitation and mutual shared history, but operate independently of each other. If at any stage a Grand Lodge is deemed to operate outside the principles of Freemasonry then other Grand Lodges will remove recognition until such a time that offence has been dealt with. In regards to the Principles of Freemasonry there is a provision that all Freemasons obey the law of the land (it is the law of Man and Nature) and do not habour or conceal crimes against such.



Now lets have a nice Easter and eat plenty of chocolate.....

What major differences are there between english freemasonry and Irish freemasonry that you think sets them apart ?

Has the Irish grand Lodge ever been been a logggerheads with other grand lodges ? UGLE or other recognised freemasonic grand lodges

Absolam

A money making group.

Torakx wrote: »

I did a quick search.
It seems one theory that is fairly popular is that the original Knights Templars broke up and created societies in more accessible countries.

It's a popular notion, even amongst Freemasons, but historically there is simply too great a gap between the end of one and the beginning of the other for there to be an continuity.

Torakx wrote: »

So apparently the Freemasons came about after the Templars disbanded.
And also the Freemasons have several similarities and links. It doesnt seem like a massive stretch of the imagination to consider the Templars started a new society with similar goals and ideologies.Now I dont really know what the original Templars real goals were, so im just generalising.

It's not a massive stretch of the imagination, which is what makes it such a popular notion. It's just not historically demonstrable. The wiki quote you pulled though appears to refer to Knights Templar in American (York Rite) Freemasonry, which is quite different to Irish, English or Scottish structures.

Torakx wrote: »

Regarding the Knight Masons.
Why are all the Irish councils based in the north between 1960-1995?
Thats kind of what I ment by northy.
There are more northern locations and dates spread out, aswell.
Did the Knight Masons start out in the north?Edit here: seems theystarted in Cork for the Irish at least.
Which still begs(well for me anyway it begs the question ) the question why so strongly to the north during thi time?

The dates listed are the dates the councils were established. Whilst Knight Masonry was well established in the Republic, it only became popular amongst Masons in the North in the 60s, and then later around the world, which meant a whole lot of new Councils were established in those areas.

Torakx wrote: »

Also what is the Preceptories of High Knight Templars? Looks to me to be strongly linked to the Knights Templar.

As I said in my previous post; Great Priory is based on the Knights Templar. The Great Priory being the governing body, and individual 'lodges' being called Preceptories.

Torakx wrote: »

Another Knights Templar reference? By that I mean the Red Cross.

Probably, since the degrees were worked by Templar Preceptories before becoming part of Knight Masonry.

Torakx wrote: »

also who is "The Great Chief"

The governing officer of the the Great Council of Knight Masons; the Knight Masonry equivalent of the Grand Master.

Absolam

A money making group.

enno99 wrote: »

What major differences are there between english freemasonry and Irish freemasonry that you think sets them apart ?

Has the Irish grand Lodge ever been been a logggerheads with other grand lodges ? UGLE or other recognised freemasonic grand lodges

Irish, English, and Scottish Grand Lodges are all independant of each other; there are substantial variations in structure, administration, ritual etc. All Masonic and Masonic like organisations around the world originally derive from one of the three original constitutions; the unifying characteristic is that all three (and all organisations that are considered Masonic) subscribe to the fundamental principles of Freemasonry (Fundamental Principles of Freemasonry.
Yes there have been disputes between the Grand Lodges over the years, but nothing significant between the three. Other Grand Lodges that have attempted to abandon or modify the fundamental principles (such as the Grand Lodge of France) have obviously been in dispute with the Grand Lodge of Ireland for that reason, which led to periods of their being recognised and not recognised. The most interesting historically was the involvement of Irish Freemasons in the dispute between the "Antients" and the "Moderns" in English Freemasonry which led to England having a United Grand Lodge instead of a Grand Lodge.

eithneoneill

A money making group.

Absolam wrote: »

I must admit I've never noticed that Freemasonry is seeking the truth amongst all things. Perhaps you mean some Masonic like organisations are seeking the truth amongst all things? When they find it I'm sure there's a few religions will be interested.

So what I was told about some GL members is true afterall. They have no idea of what Freemasonry stands for: they read from a book, are prompted for answers they do not understand, and only value the "old boys club" aspect of cooptation.

Would you prefer it if I said from the majority view of all regular Freemasons? Whether you consider it narrow or not, it remains a fact. And I rather think all Christians think they are the true Christians, or they would just change their religion to the true one....

So why do you feel it's such an issue? Regular Freemasonry doesn't recognise Masonic-like organisations, Masonic-like organisations don't crave recognition by Freemasonry. Everyone is getting what they want, where's the problem?

The problem is not ours, but yours!
You still think you are Freemasonry incarnate, when you do not even understand the lessons of Freemasonry.

Since Freemasonry has no dogma, there's no heresy, so no worries there. Freemasonry has a perfectly good reason not to initiate women; the members choose not to. Is there as good a reason for Freemasonry to initiate women?

Some Freemasons initiate women.
Like they did the Lady Mason.
or are you saying that the lodge that initiated the Lady Mason was not a Freemason lodge? And that the Grand Lodge recognition of her contribution is unMasonic?

I must have missed seeing you at my initiation, and you really would think I'd have noticed....but anyway, reviewing my ritual, I can assure you there is nothing in the Entered Apprentice degree that denies the Fraternity is a club.

I am not initiated yet, so of course you would not have seen me,
Especially in a lodge that rejects women ,including their very own Lady Mason.
You should review more than the ritual. You should review the h.'. in which you were first initiated...

Well, I'm not trying to sell Freemasonry to anyone. Those who like it can join, those who don't, don't have to. But I have to congratulate you; in the space of just a few days you've gone from not knowing if there were any Irish orders welcoming females to being extensively opinionated on how much better they are than Freemasonry, and advocating diligently on their behalf. Well done.

I have studied the craft since I was 16, as part of a school assignment.
I was just not aware of how the Irish craft was structured. A few days on the internet and exchanging with various Masons online or face to face (some regular GL masons found your posts quite funny by the way) was enough to see through what GL stands for for most of its members.

It is clear that with Masons who share your "club only and no more than a private club with bar and library, away from wives" view, the universal declaration of human rights would have had no masonic contribution. Fortunately it did!
If it was only a club of men escaping nagging wives, it would have never amounted to anything more than an annex of the Chamber of Commerce of Pleasantville. Which seems to suit you fine. I am a bit more demanding.


I fear that GL is nothing more than a few aging men playing with costumes and words they do not understand the meaning of, and that they are not even arsed to learn.
If that is what Freemasonry is for you, then I am happy that I will be initiated in a Freemasonry that cares for the deeper meaning of its symbols and rituals, for the more esoteric aspect of its origins and purpose.
A Freemasonry that will not look down in a patronizing way to women, who really should not worry their pretty heads about the meaning of things, as long as they cook for the festive boards!

It only took a few days for you to convince me that the GL is to Freemasonry, what the Catholic Church is to the Christian message of Charity and Brotherly Love. (Which of course excludes sisters, as grammar commands it)

I am happy to helped me find true Freemasonry, away from a Freemasonry where all the ashlars go into building the building front to hide empty rooms.

starskey77

A money making group.

i'm a mason, mr murray.

are you the same mr murray who plays center back for cork.

mor- bon- zi beware the all seeing eye

lohal

A money making group.

eithneoneill wrote: »

.
Some Freemasons initiate women.
Like they did the Lady Mason.
or are you saying that the lodge that initiated the Lady Mason was not a Freemason lodge? And that the Grand Lodge recognition of her contribution is unMasonic?
[/B]

As for the Lady Mason if you look into the story more fully she was initiated into the order after seeing the ritual while hiding in the room in her house where a lodge was meeting, unlike today most lodges meet in houses or taverns rather in specially build buildings, and some experts say that she was given a "special Degree" to keep her quiet not one of the 3 mainstream degrees, it then became a good story and was incorporated into the history of Freemasonry.

Many things happened in the past dose not mean they will be repeated.

Absolam

A money making group.

eithneoneill wrote: »

So what I was told about some GL members is true afterall. They have no idea of what Freemasonry stands for: they read from a book, are prompted for answers they do not understand, and only value the "old boys club" aspect of cooptation.

Gosh I wonder who told you that? People who aren't Freemasons perhaps?

eithneoneill wrote: »

The problem is not ours, but yours! You still think you are Freemasonry incarnate, when you do not even understand the lessons of Freemasonry.

I've quite consistently said I have no problem with masonic-like organisations, you're the one expressing the 'problem' with Freemasonry on this thread. And to clarify; we don't think we are Freemasonry incarnate, we just know we are Freemasonry.

eithneoneill wrote: »

Some Freemasons initiate women. Like they did the Lady Mason.
or are you saying that the lodge that initiated the Lady Mason was not a Freemason lodge? And that the Grand Lodge recognition of her contribution is unMasonic?

No, some Freemasons do not initiate women, a Masonic Lodge initiated a woman. Can you see the difference between the two statements? It certainly was a Masonic Lodge, and whilst I think you're over-egging Grand Lodges' recognition of her 'contribution' she certainly is celebrated by Grand Lodge. Is that your best argument for Freemasonry to initiate women? It happened once so it should happen again?

eithneoneill wrote: »

I am not initiated yet, so of course you would not have seen me, Especially in a lodge that rejects women ,including their very own Lady Mason.You should review more than the ritual. You should review the h.'. in which you were first initiated...

So, since you weren't there you don't know what happened? Glad we cleared that up. By the way, I've never come across a Lodge that 'rejects' the Lady Mason? How do you even do that? She existed, it's a historical fact, it admits of no rejection. Is this another one of those grand orient stories about how Freemasons behave?

eithneoneill wrote: »

I have studied the craft since I was 16, as part of a school assignment. I was just not aware of how the Irish craft was structured. A few days on the internet and exchanging with various Masons online or face to face (some regular GL masons found your posts quite funny by the way) was enough to see through what GL stands for for most of its members.

Interesting.. when you say studied do you mean looked at Grand Orient websites? It's just that almost all the inaccurate information you've presented about the Freemasons can be found on their website? I'm not sure why regular GL masons would find my posts funny... but in over 20 years as a Freemason I'll admit I've never met a Freemason who identified himself as a GL mason.

eithneoneill wrote: »

It is clear that with Masons who share your "club only and no more than a private club with bar and library, away from wives" view, the universal declaration of human rights would have had no masonic contribution.

Actually that was your view, not mine. It's interesting that in order to attack Freemasonry you consistently have to tell us what we think and do so that you can disagree with it, rather than disagreeing with what we actually think and do. Interesting also that the 'universal declaration of human rights' is from the grand orient website.

eithneoneill wrote: »

I fear that GL is nothing more than a few aging men playing with costumes and words they do not understand the meaning of, and that they are not even arsed to learn. If that is what Freemasonry is for you, then I am happy that I will be initiated in a Freemasonry that cares for the deeper meaning of its symbols and rituals, for the more esoteric aspect of its origins and purpose. A Freemasonry that will not look down in a patronizing way to women, who really should not worry their pretty heads about the meaning of things, as long as they cook for the festive boards!

I don't think you fear it, I think you desparately want to believe that Freemasonry is as you describe it. The idea that Freemasonry is actually vibrant, well aware of it's heritage and purpose, and sufficiently secure to weather inaccurate accusations, seems to be anathema (to use one of your religious concepts) to Masonic-like organisations. Which is a pity, since Freemasonry doesn't involve itself with them, and is quite happy for them to do their own thing.

eithneoneill wrote: »

It only took a few days for you to convince me that the GL is to reemasonry, what the Catholic Church is to the Christian message of Charity and Brotherly Love. (Which of course excludes sisters, as grammar commands it)

Did I actually convince you of that, or did you join the thread to promote the fact that that is what you think? It just seems that everything you think I believe is something someone else told you, rather than something I actually said?

eithneoneill wrote: »

I am happy to helped me find true Freemasonry, away from a Freemasonry where all the ashlars go into building the building front to hide empty rooms.

If you're happy that you've found an organisation that suits you then I'm honestly glad for you, and I hope you enjoy it as much as I enjoy Freemasonry. Perhaps someday your organisation will come to be recognised by Freemasonry, and you will be able to visit a Lodge and see for yourself what is true about it and what is not.

eithneoneill

A money making group.

Again Absolam,
I have noting but good things to say about Freemasonry, as I plan to join!

I have less good things to say about the Grand Lodge flavor of Freemasonry.
And the fact that you think it is the only flavor does not make it so, it just makes it less digestible.

Absolam

A money making group.

Well, i doubt I can change your opinion of regular Feemasonry. I am happy to help you correct any misconceptions you may have about it though.

robroy1234

Absolam - I think that once someone has absolutely made up their mind and are adamant about it then nothing else will ever make them see differently.

Eithne - I am glad that you are very much interested in Freemasonry and that you shall go to the Grand Orient, however there won't be recognition from the Grand Lodge of the Grand Orient.

eithneoneill

A money making group.

robroy1234 wrote: »

Absolam - I think that once someone has absolutely made up their mind and are adamant about it then nothing else will ever make them see differently.

Eithne - I am glad that you are very much interested in Freemasonry and that you shall go to the Grand Orient, however there won't be recognition from the Grand Lodge of the Grand Orient.

How could I change my mind about an Order who rejects the membership of women on no valid ground other than "our members want to escape their wives"?
I have to experience Freemasonry first-hand to make or change my mind about it. I will with either the Grand Orient or the Droit Humain.
And why would I care for recognition, as in any case the Grand Lodge would bar me from exercising my Masonic right of visitation.

How do you suggest I experience Freemasonry first-hand otherwise, as for you there is only one Freemasonry, the Grand Lodge flavor?

Do you suggest I marry a Freemason?
To bad the ambition of a Free Woman is not to be a "wife" of.
Also they would first have to convert me from being a lesbian!

I am quite happy with the idea that the only way I can experience Freemasonry, and share it with my wife, and with fellow men, is to join either the Grand Orient or the Droit Humain.
The only remaining question that really remains and matters, is which of the two orders should I join.

I am happy to hear from you if you have constructive suggestions about it.
If you two only have one thing to say, which is that I should not worry my pretty little head with men's toys, then I will gladly look the other way, towards the light of knowledge, truth and openness to the world.

I will gladly join an order (which one is the question)
- that allows women to join
- that welcomes LGB people and their partners
- that does not see themselves as just a businessmen club afraid of their wives
- that values people for who they are, what they can be, and not what others think of them
- whose members are not so misogynist that they will not ever again initiate a woman, just because they don't feel like it
- is in touch with the true value and worth of its symbolism and ceremonies, instead of sounding them out from a book to tick a box
- welcomes all Irish masons to visit, even if they are not misogynistic
- but does not welcome people who adhere to extreme views like Orange Order or IRA members (instead of just ignoring their dual membership, after all most of them are men...)
- values their life partners (wife or husband) more than their business partners and at least as much as their lodge sisters and brethren (whose main core belief is not summed up as "Bro.'. before hoe")

And given that the small-minded Grand Lodge has no interest in my membership anyway, it is coming at no loss to them... they think.
Wait till you see the effect of two growing masonic orders on your members: they will join us first clandestinely, then more openly once a critical mass has been reached.
One day you might yourselves knock at our doors, and a female R.'.W.'.M.'. will be at the door. And guess what? She will welcome you like you never really welcomed anyone before. As long as you make yourself known as masons, she will not reject you like you rejected her. She will not turn to the lodge members and ask "why should we reject them?", but "why should they feel welcome?"

Absolam

A money making group.

Well all vitriol aside, I did say I'd try to help you correct your misconceptions so...

No Freemason has offered "our members want to escape their wives" as a valid reason why Freemasonry does not initiate women. Whilst it appears you don't accept that people do have a right to freedom of association, it is nevertheless the case. Simply put, if someone chooses not to have you in their private organisation, it is their right not to do so.

No one has suggested that you should experience Freemasonry first-hand. But if it is your desire, then you can certainly experience something similar in the organisations you have mentioned. My constructive suggestion would be that grand orients are probably more similar than anything else, bar, perhaps, the Eastern Star.

Neither of us has said that you should not worry your pretty little head with men's toys, yet you've twice repeated it. Perhaps you should consider why you ascribe that condescenion to someone who hasn't offered it? It may help you to value people for what they are, and not what others think of them.

You've offered a list of points that you think define the organisation you want to join, and inferred that Freemasonry is deficient in each, so I think it does bear correction.

- that allows women to join
Well, that's a fail for us. It may be our loss, but nonetheless, women cannot join the Freemasons.

- that welcomes LGB people and their partners
Sexuality is not an issue in Freemasonry. You believe it is, my experience is that it is not.

- that does not see themselves as just a businessmen club afraid of their wives
I think you might have put that in for the silliness factor, but there are plenty of Freemasons who are not businessmen, and a fair few who aren't afraid of their wives/partners/girlfriends/boyfriends/significant others.

- that values people for who they are, what they can be, and not what others think of them
Freemasonry has a pretty decent record in the field of charity, education, and general outreach. And we've been on the receiving end of sufficient calumny not to consider people solely on the opinions of others.

- whose members are not so misogynist that they will not ever again initiate a woman, just because they don't feel like it
An admirable barb, but if I may, not choosing to associate with women in one particular area of ones' life doesn't make someone a misogynist. Do you call gay men misogynists because they don't date women? Or do you allow that they are free to choose the company they keep?

- is in touch with the true value and worth of its symbolism and ceremonies, instead of sounding them out from a book to tick a box
As I said before, you've never been in a Masonic Lodge. Could it be you are valuing us based on what others think of us?

- welcomes all Irish masons to visit, even if they are not misogynistic
All Irish Master Masons are welcome to visit Irish Lodges, whether or not they are misogynistic. People who call themselves Masons, but are not recognised as Masons, are not.

- but does not welcome people who adhere to extreme views like Orange Order or IRA members (instead of just ignoring their dual membership, after all most of them are men...)
That's a tricky one, but I did address it before in our discussion. Freemasonry has no involvement in politics. Whilst certain political views are abhorrant to me, I understand that once Freemasonry as an organisation takes a stance on one political view, it will, even just by default, be taking a stance on others, which must eventually cause discord between members, and result in disharmony. I would far rather be part of an organisation where an Orangeman and an IRA man can meet peacefully in friendship without the interference of politics, and perhaps see each other as individuals instead of opponents, than one which promotes or denounces political perspectives, regardless of how justifiable it may seem at the time.

- values their life partners (wife or husband) more than their business partners and at least as much as their lodge sisters and brethren (whose main core belief is not summed up as "Bro.'. before hoe")
Wow, I'd really rather you didn't sum up my core beliefs on my behalf. It's hard to be valued for who I am when you put such dreadful words in my mouth!
I value my wife and family above all else, my Masonic brothers almost as much, and my business partners by their worth. Perhaps you might refrain from impugning people you don't even know?

I'll be very interested to see if your oracle proves true. I must admit that I suspect it's just wishful thinking though.

eithneoneill

A money making group.

Absolam wrote: »

You've offered a list of points that you think define the organisation you want to join, and inferred that Freemasonry is deficient in each, so I think it does bear correction.

We both know that this is not what I think Freemasonry is.
Just what i think the Grand Lodge flavor of Freemasonry is.
Grand Orient and Droit Humain Freemasonry, for men and women, is none of what was listed. That is why I am investigating which of these two is a worthwhile Freemason organization.

In a way I listed what is unmasonic about the Grand Lodge as presented by you two guys.

I am still baffled that you would welcome a racist murderous supremacist apologist (not convicted, hopefully), but can't stand the idea of a decent woman joining.

Absolam

A money making group.

I understand you believe there are different kinds of Freemasonry. I think you understand that I believe there is one kind of Freemasonry (which is actually composed of different kinds of Freemasonry, by the by), and other Masonically styled organisations. I'm not trying to convince you to my point of view, it's quite obvious that these are simply different perspectives.

You say you've listed what is unmasonic about what we've presented, but your points are not what we've said; they're what you've said.

You've said yourself that you have had no experience of any 'flavors' of Freemasonry yet you've liberally awarded prejudices and attitudes to one, whilst lauding the others. Does that strike you as valuing people for who they are, what they can be, and not what others think of them?

If you're baffled that I would welcome a racist murderous supremacist apologist (not convicted, hopefully), but can't stand the idea of a decent woman joining, then that may be because I never said either of those things. You said it.

You appear to be intent on a mission to facilitate your own prophecy; if you convince everyone that regular Freemasonry is a terrible terrible thing, then perhaps everyone will hear about 'the good version' and join up. I honestly don't think it's going to work. Especially if you're doing it on a conspiracy theory forum... any minute now Getz will be along to explain that this a false flag operation designed to distract everyone from the real Masonic world domination agenda.

eithneoneill

A money making group.

It is not my fault if this is the only thread where Freemasonry is discussed.... I did not pick the forum, just the thread...
And you were happy with it till now!!?
I did not say that I did not experience Freemasonry. Just that I was not initiated.
I have experienced the external face of the three Orders, and I will not be lauding a red-face shouting at me to get out of the way of peaceful men-on-men bar time.

Absolam

A money making group.

Even on Boards it's not the only thread, or the only forum.
If you haven't been initiated then really, you can't say you've experienced Freemasonry. At best you've experienced an outside point of view. Not really the same thing?
When the red face shouted at you to get out of the way of peaceful men-on-men bar time, did he use those words? Was it in a Masonic Lodge (quick tip, there are no bars inside Masonic Lodges, and outside of a Lodge a red face may or may not be a Mason), or a gay bar? Or are you just attributing an attitude and behaviour to someone the way you have attributed them to me?

eithneoneill

A money making group.

Absolam wrote: »

Even on Boards it's not the only thread, or the only forum.
If you haven't been initiated then really, you can't say you've experienced Freemasonry. At best you've experienced an outside point of view. Not really the same thing?
When the red face shouted at you to get out of the way of peaceful men-on-men bar time, did he use those words? Was it in a Masonic Lodge (quick tip, there are no bars inside Masonic Lodges, and outside of a Lodge a red face may or may not be a Mason), or a gay bar? Or are you just attributing an attitude and behaviour to someone the way you have attributed them to me?

Given that your old-school flavor of Freemasonry will never allow me (or any decent woman, except the Lady Mason) to experience it first-hand, I do not see what your flavor of Freemasonry can add to the lives of women in Ireland, apart from the lives of a few servile wives.

Absolam

A money making group.

Are these decent women and servile wives like the red face man? I'm just wondering if you're assuming again.

Are we now judging Freemasonry purely on what it adds to the lives of women in Ireland? Not being an organisation for women, it seems a rather unfair criteria.

However, unlike other Masonic-like organisations, 'old school flavour' Freemasonry in Ireland over the last couple of centuries has fed, clothed, housed and educated thousands of women through the Masonic charities and girls school, and continues to provide education grants to girls from primary through to completing university, whilst raising funds for womens shelters (amongst other charities) around the country. Many of those women are not 'servile wives', and those that are probably wouldn't thank you for the epiteth, and would prefer a more compassionate consideration. Freemasonry may not add a great deal to the lives of women in Ireland, but the little it does goes a reasonable distance.

eithneoneill

A money making group.

Absolam wrote: »

Are these decent women and servile wives like the red face man? I'm just wondering if you're assuming again.

Are we now judging Freemasonry purely on what it adds to the lives of women in Ireland? Not being an organisation for women, it seems a rather unfair criteria.

However, unlike other Masonic-like organisations, 'old school flavour' Freemasonry in Ireland over the last couple of centuries has fed, clothed, housed and educated thousands of women through the Masonic charities and girls school, and continues to provide education grants to girls from primary through to completing university, whilst raising funds for womens shelters (amongst other charities) around the country. Many of those women are not 'servile wives', and those that are probably wouldn't thank you for the epiteth, and would prefer a more compassionate consideration. Freemasonry may not add a great deal to the lives of women in Ireland, but the little it does goes a reasonable distance.

How paternalistically kind of you.

Absolam

A money making group.

So, we're to be sneered at for not helping, and sneered at for helping? Thanks for valuing us for who we are!

eithneoneill

A money making group.

Absolam wrote: »

So, we're to be sneered at for not helping, and sneered at for helping? Thanks for valuing us for who we are!

No, you are sneered at for thinking that women can only be helped, but that they cannot help (except in the kitchen).
For not seeing women as equal in humanity, in the grand lodge of life.

You are sneered for promoting an old fashion paternalistic Freemasonry, instead of embracing the Lady Mason's heritage. (Elizabeth Aldworth, born Saint Leger, a female Freemason)

Absolam

A money making group.

I never said that women can only be helped, that's you ascribing attitudes again. You said you couldn't see what Freemasonry added to the lives of women, and I showed you what it has added.

I never said that women cannot help, I never mentioned kitchens, that was all you.

You're telling me I do not see women as equal in humanity, even though I said I do.

You're telling me to embrace a heritage that doesn't exist.

Frankly, I'm feeling a bit oppressed!

eithneoneill

A money making group.

Absolam wrote: »

I never said that women can only be helped, that's you ascribing attitudes again. You said you couldn't see what Freemasonry added to the lives of women, and I showed you what it has added.

I never said that women cannot help, I never mentioned kitchens, that was all you.

You're telling me I do not see women as equal in humanity, even though I said I do.

You're telling me to embrace a heritage that doesn't exist.

Frankly, I'm feeling a bit oppressed!

It is true that the "Lady Freemason", Elizabeth St. Leger, was initiated before the Grand Lodge even existed.
And she was not expelled when the Grand Lodge was founded.
And she is still honored in the masonic museum at Molesworth Street.

So it makes here a mason immemorial, in a way, and it makes women membership an immemorial masonic right that the Grand Lodge members have just decided to deny.
It makes it an heritage that is at the same time recognized and refused.

Maybe that is what makes you feel oppressed: having to actively repress that part of your heritage against your natural logic and fraternal drive.

Truth is never oppressing.
Women are oppressed by discrimination.
Let's not try to inverse roles!

But if you feel oppressed by the Truth, then I will not argue any further with you. We would not want your pretty little head to get a headache.

lohal

A money making group.

eithneoneill wrote: »

Truth is never oppressing.
Women are oppressed by discrimination.
Let's not try to inverse roles!

Just out of interest why is it oppression to have a male only organisation? would it not be more oppressive if every organisation and or body was forced to be mixed all the time, for example I cant go to my local (publicly Funded) Swimming Pool a few times a week because it's ladies only, am I being oppressed? No, that's just the way it is.

eithneoneill

A money making group.

lohal wrote: »

Just out of interest why is it oppression to have a male only organisation? would it not be more oppressive if every organisation and or body was forced to be mixed all the time, for example I cant go to my local (publicly Funded) Swimming Pool a few times a week because it's ladies only, am I being oppressed? No, that's just the way it is.

Would you like it if your library was women-only, all day, everyday, forever, just because the librarians tends to be women and men don't read as much as women?
That is very similar to what happens with the Grand Lodge Freemasonry pretending women are not fit for Freemasonry.
There are fit for it.
Some lodges initiate them.
Grand Lodge of Ireland does not. So it can only claim to be representative of men-only Freemasonry.
It is not representative of Freemasonry for women and men. Their loss.

lohal

A money making group.

eithneoneill wrote: »

Would you like it if your library was women-only, all day, everyday, forever, just because the librarians tends to be women and men don't read as much as women?
That is very similar to what happens with the Grand Lodge Freemasonry pretending women are not fit for Freemasonry.

Please show me the quote, link, etc to where GL says women are not fit to join? not being allowed is different to not being fit?

Torakx

lohal wrote: »

Please show me the quote, link, etc to where GL says women are not fit to join? not being allowed is different to not being fit?

Apparently Freemasons stick to the old traditions.
One of which was that women were lesser than men.At least that was the general misconception of those times.
An example of this, was men playing womens roles in theatrical plays.
Do Freemasons still do this also? Or are women allowed play the female roles in their inhouse plays?

lohal

A money making group.

Torakx wrote: »

Apparently Freemasons stick to the old traditions.
One of which was that women were lesser than men.At least that was the general misconception of those times.
An example of this, was men playing womens roles in theatrical plays.
Do Freemasons still do this also? Or are women allowed play the female roles in their inhouse plays?

Still no link or quote just opinion I prefer Facts for my debates

Absolam

A money making group.

eithneoneill wrote: »

It is true that the "Lady Freemason", Elizabeth St. Leger, was initiated before the Grand Lodge even existed. And she was not expelled when the Grand Lodge was founded. And she is still honored in the masonic museum at Molesworth Street.

All this is certainly true, I just don't see why you think it's a foundation for the rest of your statement?

eithneoneill wrote: »

So it makes here a mason immemorial, in a way, and it makes women membership an immemorial masonic right that the Grand Lodge members have just decided to deny. It makes it an heritage that is at the same time recognized and refused.

No, it makes her, likes others, someone who was initiated into Freemasonry. There are no masons immemorial, never mind ones who were only initiated. Being initiated doesn't confer a right to be initiated on anyone else, regardless of sex. Lady Aldworth wasn't a brave suffragette who courageously agitated for women's rights, she was a girl who got caught spying on her father. What kind of hertaitage does that bestow on anyone?

eithneoneill wrote: »

Maybe that is what makes you feel oppressed: having to actively repress that part of your heritage against your natural logic and fraternal drive. Truth is never oppressing. Women are oppressed by discrimination. Let's not try to inverse roles! But if you feel oppressed by the Truth, then I will not argue any further with you. We would not want your pretty little head to get a headache.

Actually, I think it was you telling me what I think and say, and telling me how I behave.
Plenty of religions have used their 'truth' to oppress people, and it's interesting that you seem to think it's the role of women to be oppressed by discrimination, but ignore the people oppressed by it. Thanks for calling me pretty though, I so rarely get such compliments.

Absolam

A money making group.

Torakx wrote: »

Apparently Freemasons stick to the old traditions.
One of which was that women were lesser than men.At least that was the general misconception of those times.
An example of this, was men playing womens roles in theatrical plays.
Do Freemasons still do this also? Or are women allowed play the female roles in their inhouse plays?

Freemasons do generally adhere to Masonic tradition, but there's nothing in Masonic tradition that says women are lesser than men.
Nor was it traditional to view women as lesser than men; it was a societal norm in some societies, as it is arguably a societal norm in some societies today. That members of the Freemasons should conform to societal norms is hardly shocking, or an inditement of the Order, only of the society it existed in from our modern perspective.
Your example of women in theatre isn't exactly congruent; at the time of Shakespeare a female actor was considered societally lower than a prostitute, so men played female roles.
I've never seen a Masonic play, but I have heard they are used in some forms of American Freemasonry. If those plays take place inside a Lodge then men would have to play the female roles; not because actresses are more despised than prostitutes, but because women aren't allowed inside Lodges. The conclusion of similarity is dispelled when you consider the context.

Torakx

lohal wrote: »

Still no link or quote just opinion I prefer Facts for my debates

Im not really debating.
I dont have a vested interest, immore curious than anything.
That depends on if Absolam is actually a Freemason, as that is where I got this info from regarding traditions.
However nobody has commented on who plays the female roles in Freemasons in house plays.And this is the second time I brought it up.
So I must take that silence as a yes.Which leads me back to why this was a tradition in the first place, way back in those days when this practise was common.

Did some research.It appears in 1660 women were allowed to join in theatrical plays.
The reason I read they didnt like this beforehand was because they wanted them to stay as housewives.
And by "they" I mean men of that time in general who ran the country.
Im curious why this tradition has stuck for so long within Freemasonry, despite society progressing.
I know Freemasons have made some changes as we have im sure discussed some of them in previous posts.

What is it about women that would detract from being a Freemason?

Sorry posted this after an hour or two rsearch, I consider it covered more or less...for now
My research brought me to more interesting topics which I will post below.

eithneoneill

A money making group.

Torakx wrote: »

What is it about women that would detract from being a Freemason?

Nothing does.
There is something with the Grand Lodge of Ireland that they will not accept women in their midst.
Maybe something to do with a fear of spiders. Not sure really.

But there are other Freemason orders (Grand Orient, and Droit Humain) who welcome women.
There should soon be enough women Master Mason in Ireland to form ma lodge if they wanted to. But why would they form their own "Vagege Lodge" when they can freely mix with fellow Freemasons in mixed lodges.
It will probably never happen in Grand Lodge lodges, but other Freemasons have no issues. They have no "lady issues".

(Not sure what you mean by "house plays", but if you mean the rituals in the Tyled Lodge, then there is no such thing as "male" or "female roles". It's not like they are some theatrical orgies...)

Torakx

My research took me to a forums where Freemasons were posting.
And therein I found some reference to Rolf Harris and his song "Two Little Boys".
Apparently to some there it had masonic hints.
http://staffs.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=gotopost&board=New&thread=2342&post=37961

And from my previous research on the Knights Templar I can say it is probably down to this line in particular, but may be wrong and missed other hints.

Il post the song lyrics from that thread and bold the "hints" I suspect.

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]"When We Were Two Little Boys"

Two little boys had two little toys
Each had a wooden horse
Gaily they played each summer's day
Warriors both of course
One little chap then had a mishap
Broke off his horse's head
Wept for his toy then cried with joy
As his young playmate said

Did you think I would leave you crying
When there's room on my horse for two
Climb up here Jack and don't be crying
I can go just as fast with two
When we grow up we'll both be soldiers
And our horses will not be toys
And I wonder if we'll remember
When we were two little boys

Long years had passed, war came so fast
Bravely they marched away
Cannon roared loud, and in the mad crowd
Wounded and dying lay
Up goes a shout, a horse dashes out
Out from the ranks so blue
Gallops away to where Joe lay
Then came a voice he knew

Did you think I would leave you dying
When there's room on my horse for two
Climb up here Joe, we'll soon be flying
I can go just as fast with two
Did you say Joe I'm all a-tremble
Perhaps it's the battle's noise
But I think it's that I remember
When we were two little boys

Do you think I would leave you dying
There's room on my horse for two
Climb up here Joe, we'll soon by flying
Back to the ranks so blue
Can you feel Joe I'm all a tremble
Perhaps it's the battle's noise
But I think it's that I remember
When we were two little boys"[/FONT]
I dont know if it was the Knights Templar faction of Freemasons or another when I was researching the councils relating to the northern Irish comments of mine, but I did come across the sigil of two knights sharing a horse, which supposedly represented the fact that they came from humble backgrounds and had to share etc.

So it makes me wonder did Rofl Harris have several meanings for this song in mind?
Was he possibly a Freemason?
And what might his other songs represent? As in, are their any other possible Masonic meanings in those too.
One song = possible coincedence, but a few songs makes me really wonder.
I have only had time to search on the one so far though.
Any other info appreciated, for my curiosity.

Torakx

eithneoneill wrote: »

Nothing does.
There is something with the Grand Lodge of Ireland that they will not accept women in their midst.
Maybe something to do with a fear of spiders. Not sure really.

But there are other Freemason orders (Grand Orient, and Droit Humain) who welcome women.
There should soon be enough women Master Mason in Ireland to form ma lodge if they wanted to. But why would they form their own "Vagege Lodge" when they can freely mix with fellow Freemasons in mixed lodges.
It will probably never happen in Grand Lodge lodges, but other Freemasons have no issues. They have no "lady issues".

(Not sure what you mean by "house plays", but if you mean the rituals in the Tyled Lodge, then there is no such thing as "male" or "female roles". It's not like they are some theatrical orgies...)

It was implied by a Freemason here that they do in house theatrical plays for entertainment I presumed, If you read back a ood ways it may be found.I didnt get the idea form anywhere else anyway.But Absolam has denied it happens in Ireland, so Not sure where the conflict arises there, since Robroy an Irish Freemason was the one who implied it, unless I am very mistaken, which is possible.Might have to recheck the posts.

By fear of spiders I guess you mean the motto "Weaving spiders, come not here"

I also found this site just now too.
http://www.co-masonry.org/Site/English/

Maybe you should consider linking to these Masonic societies instead.American Freemasonry or maybe more precisely Co-masonry, seems to accept all sexes etc.
In my view and from my research Freemasonry in general seems to come from a broken foundation that does not suit a civilised people.
I am very big on working from a good foundation and see not profit or gain in building on something as broken as the old principles.

Nothing wrong with new idea.
I say forget all masonic societies.I came from a cult background and since leaving and finding myself, I find it almost heart breaking to see people seeking out to be lead, because ultimately that is was most societies do.They create a culture which leads the general people that live under it.Despite any good sounding principles the self that comes from any system not of your own is not your true self in my view.
My heart rejoices when I see people seeking enlightenment through the self and not through any society or set of rules etc.

Going to edit this for more of an explanation lol
When I left that cult (which had some of the strongest morals of any religion around)I lost most of my morals and went on a little rampage of rebellion.This is known as post cult syndrome.When you lose your sense of self and your mind is trying to find its footign again to make new roots.
This shows me quite clearly that the high morals I had were not my own and while I acted like a nice person I mostly did it because that was what I did while identifying myself as a member.It was part of the "way".

Now I have much higher morals since I have decided to make them based on my own self made principles.
I actually care for people and it feels different to back then.Its not under and guise or want for reward, its genuine.

This is a small part of what I mean by seeking enlightenment through the self.And something I dont think you will ever attain going through ANY organisation or society etc.

So to me to become part of one of these societies, would be to ruin all my good work.
If being a part of a group is deemed to some as reaching your peak or becoming a better person, then I do believe I have already passed that bar and I am only starting out being in my early 30's lol
Which doesnt say much for that bar to be honest.
If someone needs to be told/shown how to be a good/better person, then they are in trouble already.If they truly find themselves and see their worth, they will already know a good person and follow that example.
And I apply that to all people of all walks of life no matter how foul they may appear.The fouler they act the more I see they are lost.

Brown Bomber

A group to make contacts.

eithneoneill wrote: »

- is in touch with the true value and worth of its symbolism and ceremonies

Any chance you could expand on this?

Absolam

A money making group.

Torakx wrote: »

Im not really debating.
However nobody has commented on who plays the female roles in Freemasons in house plays.And this is the second time I brought it up.
So I must take that silence as a yes.Which leads me back to why this was a tradition in the first place, way back in those days when this practise was common.

I did.. it's in the post directly above yours.