aylok2006 wrote:

Thanks for the reply Bro. Bondi. I do know a Brother whose wife belongs to the Eastern Star. Rather, I am curious of what is going on in that aspect in Europe in particular ...
S&F

I actually want to respond to this with a quote from the UGLE written in the March 1999 'Grand Lodge News'. I don't know if the rest of Europe takes on the same view. Has anyone else ever ran into this statement? I know that America generally does not agree with it.

"Except that [Feminine and Mixed Lodges] admit women, they are, so far as can be ascertained, otherwise regular in their practice ... Brethren are therefore free to explain to non-Masons, if asked, that Freemasonry is not confined to men ... The Board is also aware that there exist other bodies not directly imitative of pure antient Masonry, but which by implication introduce Freemasonry, such as the Order of the Eastern Star. Membership of such bodies, attendance at their meetings or participation in their ceremonies is incompatible with membership of this Grand Lodge." -UGLE-

>One of the main reasons for the division is ironically to create a greater sense of unity within the synagogue as a community. Division of the sexes prevents families from forming smaller groups within the synagogue.

eucliptia

Can you provide any source for this.

It is so opposite of what I was taught in Catholicism - a family that prays together stays together.

Cheers

Russell

holland wrote:

It is so opposite of what I was taught in Catholicism - a family that prays together stays together.
Russell

In Judaism, there are prayers that is said as a community (some require the presence of ten worshippers), prayers said within the home (i.e., the family), and prayers said as individuals.

Division is only within the synagogue where prayer is done in one voice: the community. So even if a family member is halfway around the world, they are still praying together within the community.

In the home, there is no division. And this is where the majority of ritual and observance takes place. After all, you live at home, not the synagogue. And you spend the majority of your week at home. It is the place where families pray specifically as a family.

Of course, arguments such as yours are used to justify the removal of the division among the Conservative and other movements. I am not Orthodox so while I understand and respect the division, I do not practice it myself unless I visit an Orthodox synagogue.

Good question! You'd make a formidable Jew .. just kidding, although we do love questions.

Eucliptia,

a very good explanation on Judaism .

Most of the prayers are community prayers and as you said - some require the presence of ten worshippers (minyan). It is recommended that one should say most of the prayers within the community, within the Synagogue because they are prayers for the community. If however due to the circumstances, he is not able to attend the prayers in the Synagogue, they might be said at home. At home, there is division, if one prays at the same time the community prays in the Synagogue.


_________________
גם זה יעבור

aleph wrote:

Eucliptia,
At home, there is division, if one prays at the same time the community prays in the Synagogue.

True, but this is a specific exception and does not discount prayers meant for the home. My point was: the home is where a great deal of observance and consequently prayer takes place, where there is [typically and most often] no division. While I'm sure you know this, I want to make sure that those who are unaware can understand. It is contrary to having most if not all of your religious observance at a place of worship than at home, as quite a few non-Jewish groups tend to practice.

In either case, I'm afraid we've strayed off topic. My apologies for this.

eucliptia wrote:

It is contrary to having most if not all of your religious observance at a place of worship than at home, as quite a few non-Jewish groups tend to practice.

I should also add that some Jewish groups (if not individuals within the group) tend to practice this as well!

eucliptia wrote:

aleph wrote:

Eucliptia,
At home, there is division, if one prays at the same time the community prays in the Synagogue.

True, but this is a specific exception and does not discount prayers meant for the home. My point was: the home is where a great deal of observance and consequently prayer takes place, where there is [typically and most often] no division. While I'm sure you know this, I want to make sure that those who are unaware can understand. It is contrary to having most if not all of your religious observance at a place of worship than at home, as quite a few non-Jewish groups tend to practice.

In either case, I'm afraid we've strayed off topic. My apologies for this.

Quite so, I must admit. Back to the topic in another sense. Even though Masonry is not (and cannot be) considered a religion, there is a requirement for the presence of a certain number of Brethren in order to open a Lodge. One might say a masonic minyan


_________________
גם זה יעבור

holland wrote:

Brother

I belonged from about 10 years to a Co-Masonic lodge (under Le Droit Humain) working a scottish ritual (Adyar ritual).

The primary differences compared with most all-male lodges that I have visited or joined are:

- a greater interest in the spiritual meaning of the work
- a richer ritual
- acceptance of visitation from brethren pretty much regardless of Grand Lodge affiliation.

The ritual differences include:

- processing into a darkened lodge room
- use of a thurifer and incense
- ritual lighting of candles
- invocation of the elementals in EA degree
- an empty chair in the North
- slight differences in degree signs

It is a matter of regret that my current GL does not permit visitation

Cheers

Russell Holland

I found a website that alleges that LDH (as well as some Grand Orient lodges) removed the prohibition of political, religious, and/or social discussions. While I know it is not typical of Co-Masonic obediences per se, is it true for either organization?

>I found a website that alleges that LDH (as well as some Grand Orient lodges) removed the prohibition of political, religious, and/or social discussions. While I know it is not typical of Co-Masonic obediences per se, is it true for either organization?

I have limited exposure to LDH lodges, but it was normal there not to discuss politics or religion. I am not sure about social discussions because I don't really know what they are.

Cheers

Russell

I have read the postings on "Women in Freemasonry" with great interest.

Surely the point is whether we want our Freemasonry to evolve into something else which would not be "Freemasonry as we know it, Jim !". One of the basic qualifications for affiliation into our ranks is to be a "Man" etc.

I am quite comfortable with the ladies joining allied orders like the "Eastern Star", "Daughters of Isis", "Heroines of Jericho" and so forth, inviting Brethren to their deliberations if they wish. They are not however, Masonic in themselves although they may come under the Masonic "umbrella" in any given jurisdiction.

In my humble opinion, once women are accepted into the Masonic "Fold" then Freemasonry will have moved into a realm which is not Freemasonry. If I may give an analogy, in my view, once a Jew accepts Jesus as his redeemer and saviour, he or she has become a Christian. Now, however laudable or admirable this may seem to those concerned, he or she is no longer Jewish, he or she has become something else entirely which negates some of the fundamental tenets of Judiasm. This explains why the "Jews for Jesus" group are oxymoronic. Of course, in a free society they have an absolute right to call themselves anything they wish, as long as they do not try to coerce anyone else into their beliefs !

As far as the "Partition" between men and women in the Synagogue is concerned, I am entirely in favour of it. In a religious forum where both men and women are present, I have to admit that instead of concentrating on the "Infinite",my thoughts have, on occasion, strayed to the "mundane" .......

If the ladies wish to form themselves into groups that practice Masonic values, even perform ceremonies which are to all intents and purposes the same as ours, that is their absolute right, but is my right as a Mason to wish to have a lodge where I know that the only intercourse comtemplated is Masonic !

With kind fraternal regards,

Bro. Doug Banin.

Brethren all,

In Belgium we went to some hard times regarding Freemasonry. In the 19th century, there was a group of Masons that started disregarding some of our traditional landmarks, i.e. no more VSL on the altar, admitting discussions about religion and politics, admitting women into Masonry and so on. For this we lost our official recognition from the UGLE for many decades. Only 25 years ago, regular Freemasonry arose in my country, and I am proud belonging to this obedience. Now, as you know a landmark marks the boundaries of something (e.g. a piece of land); in metaphorical sense, this implies for us that once this boundary has been passed, one can no longer speak of Freemasonry, be it that the 'other' system can and surely will be very valuable as such, but it is not Freemasonry.
Perhaps you might think this viewpoint is old-fashioned and conservative, but we went through the issue "in real life". I have many many friends amongst the irregular Freemasons, and accept them as Brothers, but at the end of the day, we cannot call them Freemasons since we obey (or have to obey) our Landmarks. So, discussing women in Freemasonry is of the same nature: perhaps/surely of very great value, but no longer traditional and accepted Freemasonry.
To add one other thing, in our times, with our values and Declaration of Human Rights, admitting women should be possible from the legal point of view. Question of course is if Freemasonry and law are to be mixed, so that the Landmarks must be altered? I don't have a clear answer on this one for the time being.

"Du choc de idées, jaillit la lumière"

lobbus wrote:

I have read the postings on "Women in Freemasonry" with great interest.

If I may give an analogy, in my view, once a Jew accepts Jesus as his redeemer and saviour, he or she has become a Christian. Now, however laudable or admirable this may seem to those concerned, he or she is no longer Jewish, he or she has become something else entirely which negates some of the fundamental tenets of Judiasm. This explains why the "Jews for Jesus" group are oxymoronic. Of course, in a free society they have an absolute right to call themselves anything they wish, as long as they do not try to coerce anyone else into their beliefs !

There is a falacy in your perception and maybe that's the point here. You're perceiving something based on information that may not be entirely accurate.

If a person is born Jewish or converts to Judaism, it never goes away. If a Jew converts to Christianity, they become a Jewish Christian --and I'm not talking about Messianic Jews (aka Jews for Jesus). A person can try to deny their Jewishness but it isn't something you can get rid of the way a Christian can convert to Judaism and simply stop being Christian. You can also believe that Jesus is your "lord and savior" and still be Jewish without attaching yourself to the Messianic Jewish category: just Jewish ... If a Jew converts to Atheism, they become a Jewish Atheist. There are Jewish Bhuddists, Jewish Agnostics, Jewish Catholics, etc.

I know you mean no disrespect, but Judaism and one's "Jewishness" is a very tricky subject. Perhaps you should try out a different analogy.

Eric Vermeiren wrote:

... but at the end of the day, we cannot call them Freemasons since we obey (or have to obey) our Landmarks.

In a statement made by the UGLE regarding Feminine and Co-Masonry after considering us "otherwise regular" they state: "Brethren are therefore free to explain to non-Masons, if asked, that Freemasonry is not confined to men."

So if the UGLE is allowed to call us Masons without disobeying those Landmarks, I'm pretty sure you can too. You just can't sit in Lodge with us or invite one of us to yours since "otherwise regular" is still irregular.

"There is a falacy in your perception and maybe that's the point here. You're perceiving something based on information that may not be entirely accurate.

If a person is born Jewish or converts to Judaism, it never goes away. If a Jew converts to Christianity, they become a Jewish Christian --and I'm not talking about Messianic Jews (aka Jews for Jesus). A person can try to deny their Jewishness but it isn't something you can get rid of the way a Christian can convert to Judaism and simply stop being Christian. You can also believe that Jesus is your "lord and savior" and still be Jewish without attaching yourself to the Messianic Jewish category: just Jewish ... If a Jew converts to Atheism, they become a Jewish Atheist. There are Jewish Bhuddists, Jewish Agnostics, Jewish Catholics, etc.

I know you mean no disrespect, but Judaism and one's "Jewishness" is a very tricky subject. Perhaps you should try out a different analogy."


I thought the topic was "Women in Freemasonry".....

I do not agree with you. As a Jew of some sixty years standing, I am of the opinion that a Jew ceases to be a Jew in the "Jewish" meaning of the word the moment they embrace another religion. That is my opinion only, and it is no less (or more) valid than yours. If you do not like my analogy, that is regrettable,but I will live with it.

This does not alter the fact that "my" Freemasonry would not be the same if the ladies were to be admitted to "Regular" (another word you don't like ! ) lodges, and would, I feel, reduce the Order to the level of just another social club. I regret it if this does not sit well with you.

By the way, "fallacy" is spelt with two "ells" !

Regards,

Lobbus

lobbus wrote:

This does not alter the fact that "my" Freemasonry would not be the same if the ladies were to be admitted to "Regular" (another word you don't like ! ) lodges, and would, I feel, reduce the Order to the level of just another social club. I regret it if this does not sit well with you.

By the way, "fallacy" is spelt with two "ells" !

Regards,

Lobbus

First off, forgive my sometimes dyslexic keyboard.

Second, I agree with you. The point of this topic is Women in Freemasonry (as in Feminine Masonry and Co-Masonry). And that has nothing to do with admitting women to into regular (a word I have no problem with) lodges. And I, for one, do not wish to force or endorse the forcing of Malecraft Lodges to admit women. What's the point? We have our own Lodges and we're satisfied with what we have which is certainly far from a "social club".