CoachN
Builder Builder
Yup, and thanks.
Ashlar2006
Masonic Mafia
Since the working tools are not "secret"...... I was reading the EA degree of the Emulation ritual and I see the chisel is one of the working tools of an EA . Is this correct Winter ? And if so , do you think it was removed from the Preston/Webb ritual because it is one of the working tools in the YR ? It does have the same basic description .
Ashlar2006
Masonic Mafia
Just for further information.....
THE SHORT TALK BULLETIN The Masonic Service Association of the United States Volume 2 Number 3 March
THE SHORT TALK BULLETIN The Masonic Service Association of the United States Volume 2 Number 3 March
Ashlar2006
Masonic Mafia
Not a problem .
I can not find anything on the "Why" yet , but thought others might like to read up on the working tools that were removed .
removed12612
Guest
Could the change in the working tools be a by-product of the Ancient-Modern discussions back during the time of Pike.....
Winter
I've been here before
The Modern vs. Ancient schism was settled( mostly) in 1813 when Pike was 4 years old, so I doubt that was the issue.
removed12612
Guest
OK.... maybe his dislike of the P/W ritual is based on his not being happy with the outcome between the Ancients & Moderns....
On a side note, I just noticed that M&D was written 27 years after my Lodge was Chartered....
I do wonder....how does M&D come in to play when discussing the Craft Lodge degrees.... isnt M&D a book to go along with the degrees of the SR?
G
Gary
Guest
M&D comes into play, because I was talking about Masonic Education. I was quoting from M&D, AND the Two Lectures on Masonic Symbolism. The Book Esoterika, which I also referenced, was specifically written to address Craft Lodge Symbolism.
M&D is relevant regardless of which Ritual we discuss. The principles given in M&D aren't any different than the principles presented in the Craft Lodge. The SR rituals just present the information in a different way that's all. The funny thing is that the people who run off to join appendant bodies without doing the work of the Craft Lodge fail to recognize this.
The common thread here is that regardless of the "Ritual" (or Craft Lodge vs. SR/YR bodies) the 'Song Remains The Same'. We lack mentors who teach and inspire those who join this fraternity to seek further light. It's like the blind leading the blind. To put in more modern terms, the Ruffians have infiltrated the process, and are put in the 'mentor' positions. What becomes of the Mason who gets his information from a source lacking in Masonic knowledge?
No matter how you present the material, you will have some who take interest, and a majority that don't. The majority that don't are there for reasons that support running of the machine, and not the individual cogs in that machine. Just as Pike saw it in his day, we see it in ours.
That may be why the SR took off in popularity. It would seem that Pike re-wrote ritual, to try and get others to see what they were missing by not studying what they already had in their Craft Lodges. Funny thing is that he found that the same thing happens no matter what 'forum' the Ritual is presented in. That would have been a good reason for him to limit the publication of his books to the circle of Masons who were actively interested in such study and discourse.
Winter
I've been here before
The only way this will be solved is to go back to a true initiatic experience. Where a the new Brother learns what he must before being elevated to the next level. The ones who do not have the patience for the study and learning will not proceed. (We should ideally be about a quarter of the size we are) But too many Lodges and Grand Lodges would see the lack of numerical growth as a failing as opposed to the failing we have now of lack of knowledge.
PatrickWilliams
I could tell you ...
Well .... yes and no. Yes; going to a true initiatic experience would be a groovy, groovy thing. No; we have NO IDEA of what Freemasonry looked like at any time before Anderson and his ilk got hold of things. We're told that the emulation ritual (and other early rituals) were based on a combination of all the rituals that were out there and practiced by the various Lodges extant at the time (which indicates that there were Lodges before the GL formed), however, they also claimed to have destroyed all these ancient rituals to 'keep them from falling into the wrong hands'.
Now ... would Freemasonry today benefit from a more exclusionary practice???
Winter
I've been here before
Absolutely, 100%, without a doubt! How can you even suggest that we wouldn't benefit by only allowing the best into the Order and raising standards?
PatrickWilliams
I could tell you ...
Oh, I certainly agree that the better quality the raw materials the better quality the finished product. No argument from me. However, what effect would a limitation like that have on our Fraternity???
1. Constantin Stanislavski. Need I say more? Well, yes, of course I do. Stanislavski was a Russian actor, director and teacher of actors. (I have no idea if he was also a Freemason.) In his book An Actor Prepares he writes (and I'm paraphrasing here): There are two kinds of people who join the theatre arts: those who want to learn the craft, and those who want to socialize and dance. Now, old Stan despised the socialize and dance crowd. He really detested them. But his analogy holds true. There are two kinds of people who come to any endeavor: those who are serious and those who want to play. The same is true of Masonry. But I don't detest the socialize and dance crowd, because them paying their dues makes it possible for me to be serious about the Craft. Without them, there might be 5 or 6 members in my Lodge.
2. Who gets to decide who's a dancer and who's serious? I dunno about you, Brother, but I haven't figured out exactly how to look into a man's heart and see what's really there.
Winter
I've been here before
First, I would never detest a Brother. But I do get very disgusted at the wasted opportunity that many squander, and cringe every single time one of these super-level "Oh, I'm a 32nd Degree Mason!" pretenders opens their mouth in public and make us look ridiculous because they were never instructed correctly to begin with and can't be bothered to open a frackin' book or even browse a web page.
Secondly, I do not agree with Stanislavski's theory as applied to masonry, that we "need" the paper-masons in order to survive. It is wrongheaded thinking like this that allows the problems to persist. According to you,
What you more likely actually have is a problem inherited from previous generations of Masons when they thought that they would need the building you meet in because there would always be hundreds of Masons paying dues there. And now you think that you can't have a Lodge without a building so you recruit and bring in substandard Brothers and don't really care if they stay active as long as they pay their dues so you can keep the lights on another month.
Secondly, I do not agree with Stanislavski's theory as applied to masonry, that we "need" the paper-masons in order to survive. It is wrongheaded thinking like this that allows the problems to persist. According to you,
How? What is the correlation between the number of wannabes in your Lodge and how serious you are about the Order?
What you more likely actually have is a problem inherited from previous generations of Masons when they thought that they would need the building you meet in because there would always be hundreds of Masons paying dues there. And now you think that you can't have a Lodge without a building so you recruit and bring in substandard Brothers and don't really care if they stay active as long as they pay their dues so you can keep the lights on another month.
G
Gary
Guest
Looking at the big picture here, you could equate this to the several cogs in the machine that make it work. The circle of Masonic Education minded brethren (our cog) may or may not care for the other cogs and the way they work, but without them the machine wouldn't be what it is.
I submit that as much as we want things to be smaller and more inclusive of our standards, I don't see that it will be that way any time in the near future (if ever at all).
What we will wind up doing is what we have done in the past. We will continue to have a guild within the fraternity that keeps the Symbolism alive and educates those who want to be educated. The others will continue to provide an audience for such efforts regardless of whether they want to or not.
I submit that as much as we want things to be smaller and more inclusive of our standards, I don't see that it will be that way any time in the near future (if ever at all).
What we will wind up doing is what we have done in the past. We will continue to have a guild within the fraternity that keeps the Symbolism alive and educates those who want to be educated. The others will continue to provide an audience for such efforts regardless of whether they want to or not.
G
Gary
Guest
I disagree. We don't ALL accept it, we are just presently out numbered. Maybe we need to form more encampments of the KoTN.
PatrickWilliams
I could tell you ...
The correlation, my Brother, is not the number of wannabes vs. how serious I am. The correlation is how the money that the wannabes give the Lodge insures its survival.
Not precisely. I certainly could meet in a Lodge anywhere (even in a tent) and be happy. HOWEVER, yes, former generations built an enormous Lodge complex (including an Italianate mansion and one of the few remaining neo-Eqyptian Lodge buildings in the country). It would now be a crying shame to let that fall out of Masonic hands (even if we could find some sucker to buy the monster). But that, in and of itself, has NOTHING TO DO with my feelings. Until such time as I can reliably look into the heart of another man and see what depths lay there hidden, how can I judge his decision to come to Freemasonry? How can you?