It's not just the Scouts: Freemasons declining in membership.

[EdGoble]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

(Not writing directly to you but to readers more generally)

Origins have a lot of tradition and not a lot of evidence. Stevensons The Origins of Freemasonry: Scotlands Century is probably the best history book that looks at what can be established. There is a connection to the guilds, but whether the signs are exactly the same is somewhat unclear. Certainly Schaw appears to have made use of the trade guilds while adding more esoteric elements arising in the Renaissance. The English guilds were also unique in apparently already having a somewhat mythic history purportedly going back to Egypt and Solomon. Yates makes a big deal of the Rosicrucians but again there's a lot speculative there. Sevenson largely follows Yates there. Of course what the Rosicrucians were is again tainted with legend and speculation. While pagan neoplatonism is a distinct background coming out of the broad hermetic tradition again it's worth noting that there's a lot speculative. The 16th century stuff is really hard to establish so it's usually worth a skeptical eye - although 18th century is better documented.

Dear Cousin,

It wasn't really my purpose to really get deep into the history.  However, with all due respect, I refer you to Henry Adamson (1581–1639), was a Scottish poet, historian and Rosicrucian.  In 1621, Adamson wrote a poem, entitled, Muses Threnodie: of Mirthful Mournings on the death of Mr. Gall, in which he wrote:

Quote

Thus Mr Gall assured it would be so
And my good genius doth surely know:
For what we do presage is not in grosse
For we be brethren of the Rosie Crosse;
We have the Mason word, and second sight,
Things for to come we can foretell aright. 

A Masonic Scholar, commenting on this, writes:

Quote

The fact that a connection is made between Freemasonry and Rose-Croix [in Adamson’s poem] at such an early stage is most significant.  Furthermore, a ‘divertissement’ published in Poor Robin’s Intelligence for 10 October 1676 mentions both “the Ancient Brother-hood of the Rosy-Cross” and the “Company of accepted Masons” as dining together.  More important still, in a letter of ‘A. Z.’ printed in the Daily Journal of 5 September 1730, the writer states:
“there is a Society abroad, from whom the English Free Masons . . . have copied a few Ceremonies, and take great Pains to persuade the World that they are derived from them, and are the same with them. They are called Rosicrucians . . . On this Society have our Moderns, as we have said, endeavored to ingraft themselves, tho’ they know nothing of their more material Constitutions, and are acquainted only with some of their Signs of Probation and Entrance . . .” 

(See Leon Zeldis, “An Esoteric View of the Rose-Croix Degree,”  Pietre-Stones Review of Freemasonry, 
http://www.freemasons-freemasonry.com/zeldis11.html)

And another Masonic Scholar writes:

Quote

. . . I believe that freemasonry was developed by the intellectuals of the “Age of Enlightenment” . . . [T]he first recorded initiation of an Englishman into freemasonry was that of Elias Ashmole, one of the earliest fellows of the Royal Society . . . I think that in order to put their new revolutionary thoughts and ideas into a practice, . . . [T]hey needed a formal structure . . . They took the form of those [stonemason's] guilds as that structure . . . 

(Southchurch Masonic Study Circle, http://www.southchurch.mesh4us.org.uk/pdf/PGK-origins.pdf)

And I refer you to Tobias Churton, Freemasonry: The Reality, Chapter 9, The Scottish Evidence, and Chapter 10, The Great Masonic Highjack (referring to when the Rosicrucian-Speculative-dominated "takeover" happened).  Anyway, my purpose here isn't really to get deep into the history of this, as I don't have a lot of interest in this anymore.

Edited May 23, 2018 by EdGoble

[EdGoble]

1 hour ago, poptart said:

Ok, that's where I still disagree with you.  I'm also a mason and have had more than a few past masters in the family, father was the only person never to become a mason, was too busy being a drunk and abusing my mom and myself and doing shady things.  Anyway, the only way you'd ever get out of something like that would be if you were made a mason on site and that is at the will and pleasure of the Grand Master of each state.  You have to be someone very very extraordinary so unless you start a new religion or something (I was thinking of starting my own belief system called blingtology, instead of guardian angels we have pimps keepin it real....) that's not happening lol.  On a serious note, even then it would be super rare, Grandmasters have irritated others in the past and been ousted from their seat of power it's happened.  While some things we bend on like taking obligations on your holy text of choice, the hand shakes you're doing or you're not going through the degrees, simple as that.  If you did approach them with that attitude I can guaruntee you some of the people in lodge would get a little irritated.  We have Catholics in lodge who technically aren't supposed to be there because of the papal bull, yet they sit as brothers with the rest of us, little unreasonable to expect the fraternity to cater to your whim I think.   Here in the states we're about as liberal as they come religion wise, for someone who claims to have an advanced knowledge of our fraternity to demand an exception over something that is as dear to us as say your undergarments reeks of entitlement, a big problem nowadays. 

I see that you too are a Mason disrespectful of my real concerns.  This is like a Mormon Bishop spitting on the real concerns of history that a Mormon ready to leave the Church has.  Simple as that you say.  No.  This is as simple as you people being too good for people like me in your minds, making the kinds of accusations that you have made.  I came to you people with real concerns.  What I have asked is very rational, and was in good faith to find out if it was possible, not that I demanded it.  Not that I expected it would really happen.  You should be flattered that I loved your society enough to care enough to find out and go out of my way to see if I could join somehow.  You should be glad that there are people out there like me that love Masonry, if only we could be a part of it, but have only been denied, because we cannot be raised.  Lucky for you that there are some that love it but have no issues that cannot be overcome and can join.

I am only not a brother because I cannot be.  But it is as if somehow I had maligned your fraternity and committed some unpardonable sin for even asking simple questions to find out if I could be accomodated, and this is the attitude that I received in return, and you have just further reinforced the hard feelings.  I don't get it.  You like pushing people away from you and blaming it on them when they come to you with real questions?  The least you can do is accommodate people to answer their questions respectfully and with charity and at least a little bit of goodwill.  Instead, you act like I'm some sort of Cowan that was trying to break into your lodge or something, or like I'm some kind of Anti Mason trying to attack your society.

I have studied this thing very in-depth going on many decades, from some of your very own best scholars as well as from some of the best Rosicrucian scholars as well, from whom I quote, and from whose books I own, purchased from your own bookstores and online outlets.  You people have done to me what you have done to me, and it is what it is, and I want nothing to do with you.  As for the history, I refer you to the documentation that I have provided.

Edited May 23, 2018 by EdGoble

[poptart]

3 minutes ago, EdGoble said:

I see that you too are a Mason disrespectful of my real concerns.  This is like a Mormon Bishop spitting on the real concerns of history that a Mormon ready to leave the Church has.  Simple as that you say.  No.  This is as simple as your old boys club being too good for people like me, making the kinds of accusations that you have made.  I have no respect for your disrespect of my position, just as much as your brethren at the Utah Grand Lodge, who I also have no respect for because of what they equally did to me, and how they metaphorically spat on me when I came to them with real concerns.  What I have asked is very rational, and was in good faith to find out if it was possible, and this is the attitude that I received in return, and you have just further reinforced the hard feelings.

I have studied this thing very in-depth going on many decades, from some of your very own best scholars as well as from some of the best Rosicrucian scholars as well, from whom I quote, and from whose books I own, purchased from your own bookstores and online outlets.  You people have done to me what you have done to me, and it is what it is, and I want nothing to do to you.  As for the history, I refer you to the documentation that I have provided.

That's actually more Scottish rite than blue lodge, I'd check out morals and dogma. 

Look, now you're starting to irritate me, I've been honest and upfront.  You have BYU grads at the grand lodge in Utah, take it up with them.  Also good old boys club?  Considering how far a temple reccomend can get a young mormon fresh back from his mission career wise i can say you guys took good notes from us!  if it makes you feel any better as a fraternity we don't have nearly the people we used too, like protestantism we're on the way out.  You think we're bad?  The Catholic Orders make us look like saints as far as admittance goes, atleast you would be allowed in, it's the handshake thing.  Curious, ever take this up with your Bishop?  I'd be genuinly curious what he'd have to say about this. 

[EdGoble]

23 minutes ago, poptart said:

That's actually more Scottish rite than blue lodge, I'd check out morals and dogma. 

Look, now you're starting to irritate me, I've been honest and upfront.  You have BYU grads at the grand lodge in Utah, take it up with them.  Also good old boys club?  Considering how far a temple reccomend can get a young mormon fresh back from his mission career wise i can say you guys took good notes from us!  if it makes you feel any better as a fraternity we don't have nearly the people we used too, like protestantism we're on the way out.  You think we're bad?  The Catholic Orders make us look like saints as far as admittance goes, atleast you would be allowed in, it's the handshake thing.  Curious, ever take this up with your Bishop?  I'd be genuinly curious what he'd have to say about this. 

I don't think you are bad, and I do thank you for your honesty.  I think you could just be a little bit more understanding and have a little bit more empathy for people that cannot have what you have, who had a real desire, but were denied, by you and your brethren, and by your rules.  How am I supposed to know your rules without asking?  Answer that.  And why did I get treated the way I did for merely asking?  And so now, why do you continue on with this, putting this on me?  It is your rules.  I'm the one that needed to know.  You people didn't have to respond the way you did.  Period.

You say you are irritated at me.  Sorry.  But facts of history are facts about what happened to me, and how your rules are what they are.  You have no compassion for my position?  No empathy for my position?  Neither do your Grandmasters.  So be it.  That says what it says about you.  It has nothing to do with me.  This is history to me.

I've been to my Bishop 20+ years ago when I started trying to join, and he told me not to.  I was smarter than that though, because I knew that there was nothing wrong with me joining as far as joining goes.  I just could never get past the handshake thing.

Edited May 23, 2018 by EdGoble

[The Nehor]

To quote Monty Python: “..I see.  Well, of course, this is just the sort blinkered philistine pig-ignorance I've come to expect from you non-creative garbage....  You sit there on your loathsome spotty behinds squeezing blackheads, not caring a tinker's cuss for the struggling artist. You excrement,... you whining hypocritical toadies with your colour TV sets and your Tony Jacklin golf clubs and your bleeding masonic secret handshakes. You wouldn't let me join, would you, you blackballing bastards. Well I wouldn't become a Freemason now if you went down on your lousy stinking knees and begged me.”

[EdGoble]

15 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

To quote Monty Python: “..I see.  Well, of course, this is just the sort blinkered philistine pig-ignorance I've come to expect from you non-creative garbage....  You sit there on your loathsome spotty behinds squeezing blackheads, not caring a tinker's cuss for the struggling artist. You excrement,... you whining hypocritical toadies with your colour TV sets and your Tony Jacklin golf clubs and your bleeding masonic secret handshakes. You wouldn't let me join, would you, you blackballing bastards. Well I wouldn't become a Freemason now if you went down on your lousy stinking knees and begged me.”

We can always count on you to make things lively.

[poptart]

8 hours ago, EdGoble said:

I don't think you are bad, and I do thank you for your honesty.  I think you could just be a little bit more understanding and have a little bit more empathy for people that cannot have what you have, who had a real desire, but were denied, by you and your brethren, and by your rules.  How am I supposed to know your rules without asking?  Answer that.  And why did I get treated the way I did for merely asking?  And so now, why do you continue on with this, putting this on me?  It is your rules.  I'm the one that needed to know.  You people didn't have to respond the way you did.  Period.

You say you are irritated at me.  Sorry.  But facts of history are facts about what happened to me, and how your rules are what they are.  You have no compassion for my position?  No empathy for my position?  Neither do your Grandmasters.  So be it.  That says what it says about you.  It has nothing to do with me.  This is history to me.

I've been to my Bishop 20+ years ago when I started trying to join, and he told me not to.  I was smarter than that though, because I knew that there was nothing wrong with me joining as far as joining goes.  I just could never get past the handshake thing.

Thing is with the fraternity, we're not the Anglican or Catholic Church, while the Grand Lodge of England can get everyones attention it's not absolute so it varies from place to place.  I'm a bit suprised you had this much of an issue, you're in Utah?  Think they would have done something since you're state is the heart of Mormon Country.  Why did your Bishop say no to joining?  I'd read this, from the past grand master of masons, a member of the LDS church.

http://freemasonsfordummies.blogspot.com/2008/03/utah-gm-glen-cook.html

 

[EdGoble]

Yes, Utah.  I have met Glen Cook back when I was first investigating Masonry, but he was one that was actually nice to me and understanding about it.

My Bishop went off of the Anthony Ivins book Mormonism and Freemasonry (I think), and probably off of the Handbook of instructions, both of which basically state the kind of stone age position of the Church which says that the Church advises its members not to join with oath-bound societies, and in a stone-age way, lumps Masonry in with it.  While I respect the Church's position, I don't agree with it on this.  For example, see this:

https://bycommonconsent.com/2006/09/07/oath-bound-organizations/

Another concern of the Church is that people that join Masonry would be taken away from their Church duties if they spend too much time with the fraternity.  This concern could be applied to any activity though.

It is interesting that the Ivins book, from one perspective says that its ok to be a Mason *if one is already a Mason*, and join the Church and be in full fellowship, without one's privileges in the Church or in the priesthood being limited.

But  from the other side of the issue, it is saying that the Church *discourages* members that are *not* already Masons from joining.  I don't get that.  It is Ok to remain a Mason if one is already a Mason if one joins the Church.  But it is not ok to join if one is not yet a Mason, but a member of the Church.  That seems to be a policy that is inconsistent and strange, yet in some ways I can understand that it is somewhat pragmatic.  So basically, they are discouraging it, but will do nothing to someone that does join.  Strange.  I don't personally agree with it.  But it is what it is.

I am not sure if this position of the Church has ever changed, and if I remember vaguely, there was something in the Handbook of instructions that still discourages it.  However, from the point of view of someone that knows a lot about Masonry, there is no difference between Freemasonry and any other fraternity, and the oaths are merely symbolic.

My issues with performing the Masonic modes of recognition and other things, however, is entirely a personal matter.  I am not criticizing other LDS members who are Masons if they feel comfortable with it.  I do not.

Edited May 23, 2018 by EdGoble

[HiJolly]

Lo, How a Rose E'er blooming... 🙂 

[The Nehor]

The irony of the Church discouraging oath bound societies while tolerating the weird Order of the Arrow in the BSA is quite stark. I was offered membership in the Order a few times in scouts. I turned it down each time. The whole thing was just strange.

[poptart]

2 hours ago, EdGoble said:

Yes, Utah.  I have met Glen Cook back when I was first investigating Masonry, but he was one that was actually nice to me and understanding about it.

My Bishop went off of the Anthony Ivins book Mormonism and Freemasonry (I think), and probably off of the Handbook of instructions, both of which basically state the kind of stone age position of the Church which says that the Church advises its members not to join with oath-bound societies, and in a stone-age way, lumps Masonry in with it.  While I respect the Church's position, I don't agree with it on this.  For example, see this:

https://bycommonconsent.com/2006/09/07/oath-bound-organizations/

Another concern of the Church is that people that join Masonry would be taken away from their Church duties if they spend too much time with the fraternity.  This concern could be applied to any activity though.

It is interesting that the Ivins book, from one perspective says that its ok to be a Mason *if one is already a Mason*, and join the Church and be in full fellowship, without one's privileges in the Church or in the priesthood being limited.

But  from the other side of the issue, it is saying that the Church *discourages* members that are *not* already Masons from joining.  I don't get that.  It is Ok to remain a Mason if one is already a Mason if one joins the Church.  But it is not ok to join if one is not yet a Mason, but a member of the Church.  That seems to be a policy that is inconsistent and strange, yet in some ways I can understand that it is somewhat pragmatic.  So basically, they are discouraging it, but will do nothing to someone that does join.  Strange.  I don't personally agree with it.  But it is what it is.

I am not sure if this position of the Church has ever changed, and if I remember vaguely, there was something in the Handbook of instructions that still discourages it.  However, from the point of view of someone that knows a lot about Masonry, there is no difference between Freemasonry and any other fraternity, and the oaths are merely symbolic.

My issues with performing the Masonic modes of recognition and other things, however, is entirely a personal matter.  I am not criticizing other LDS members who are Masons if they feel comfortable with it.  I do not.

That's your call to make, not mine or anyone elses.  I'll add, there are plenty of others who join even though their own religions have misgivings, don't think it's just you.  If it makes you feel any better those "handshakes" are known by everyone and are just as honorbound to keep quiet about them, they are held in very very high esteem.  If I was helping you through the degree work I'd do what I could and that's a lot more than most would.  No way would I give anyone a pass without the proper prep, religious reasons or not.  I had to keep quiet about my affiliations at my old parish, we all make sacrifices at times. 

Funny, I always laugh at the old phrase you can be anything you want, it should be a two parter just like the greatest commandment, How hard are you willing to work and what are you willing to sacrifice?

[EdGoble]

46 minutes ago, poptart said:

That's your call to make, not mine or anyone elses.  I'll add, there are plenty of others who join even though their own religions have misgivings, don't think it's just you.  If it makes you feel any better those "handshakes" are known by everyone and are just as honorbound to keep quiet about them, they are held in very very high esteem.  If I was helping you through the degree work I'd do what I could and that's a lot more than most would.  No way would I give anyone a pass without the proper prep, religious reasons or not.  I had to keep quiet about my affiliations at my old parish, we all make sacrifices at times. 

Funny, I always laugh at the old phrase you can be anything you want, it should be a two parter just like the greatest commandment, How hard are you willing to work and what are you willing to sacrifice?

Well, I'm starting to sound like a broken record, so I better not post much more on this thread, and others are probably tired of me responding.  And my critics on this message board make it a game out of finding fault with me anyway, and trying to provoke me.

But I'm sure that everyone that ever had a reason for not being able to be a part of it had something they were unwilling to sacrifice that somehow in their minds was more important or not negotiable, and therefore would not be sacrificed.  Everybody can choose to sacrifice something, or have that ability, having free will.  The question is probably better stated, is this reluctance merely fear based, or is there substance to this as a real concern?  And if I followed through, what would I have to gain by sacrificing a position of emotional well-being in able to take the plunge?  Is there something to the concern that I would be entering into something where something greater will be compromised, and something spiritually lost?  While I don't judge other LDS members that have taken the plunge and gone ahead, would I personally feel good about making a choice like that?  I can't say that I would, for my own well being, so I'm better off staying in the state that I am, and being on the outside.  But I think that I am among the small number of people who have been extremely thoughtful and soul searching about such a decision, while others just do it without putting much thought into it.  But ultimately, though others may not suffer spiritual loss by a decision like this, I think I would, because I would know what I would be performing myself, even though I would not be saying anything about it to other people.  So as for me, I'm better off just staying as I am, and staying away.

Edited May 23, 2018 by EdGoble

[poptart]

2 hours ago, EdGoble said:

Well, I'm starting to sound like a broken record, so I better not post much more on this thread, and others are probably tired of me responding.  And my critics on this message board make it a game out of finding fault with me anyway, and trying to provoke me.

But I'm sure that everyone that ever had a reason for not being able to be a part of it had something they were unwilling to sacrifice that somehow in their minds was more important or not negotiable, and therefore would not be sacrificed.  Everybody can choose to sacrifice something, or have that ability, having free will.  The question is probably better stated, is this reluctance merely fear based, or is there substance to this as a real concern?  And if I followed through, what would I have to gain by sacrificing a position of emotional well-being in able to take the plunge?  Is there something to the concern that I would be entering into something where something greater will be compromised, and something spiritually lost?  While I don't judge other LDS members that have taken the plunge and gone ahead, would I personally feel good about making a choice like that?  I can't say that I would, for my own well being, so I'm better off staying in the state that I am, and being on the outside.  But I think that I am among the small number of people who have been extremely thoughtful and soul searching about such a decision, while others just do it without putting much thought into it.  But ultimately, though others may not suffer spiritual loss by a decision like this, I think I would, because I would know what I would be performing myself, even though I would not be saying anything about it to other people.  So as for me, I'm better off just staying as I am, and staying away.

It was because I'm bi, date more men than women (Don't like family values here in the states, too much degeneracy and out of wedlock births for my liking) And have my own beliefs in deity that kept me away from your church, that and the holier than thou/i'm rich because God loves me deal with it you filthy queer gentile attitude I ran into in Washington state.  I'm honestly waiting for someone to pull another prop 8 tier stunt and deal with antifa showing up and tossing molontov cocktails at the closest temple, the USA is at that level of intolerance and anger now.  That's just me anyway.  Point is, just about every organization has bad people in it, sucks but thats life. 

You know, if you feel that strongly good for you, I'm not going to say much more than this, but there are people who really should not be in the fraternity for personal religious reasons and did sell out just for personal gain.  If you held out for something that strongly, good for you.  Unlike most people in the world you have principles and won't sell out, you have no idea how rare that is especially nowadays.