Lodgeroom UK

Agreed on all counts, David. A happy Christmas to you and yours.

Trouillogan wrote:Agreed on all counts, David. A happy Christmas to you and yours.

Thank you very much Indeed and we hope to welcome you here to our home sometime. We will be thinking of you. A very happy Christmas to everyone.

David H wrote:

Trouillogan wrote:Agreed on all counts, David. A happy Christmas to you and yours.

Thank you very much Indeed and we hope to welcome you here to our home sometime. We will be thinking of you. A very happy Christmas to everyone.

Take care over what you wish - I am making plans!

Trouillogan wrote:

Richard George wrote:What you all fail to realise (or seems to) is that every lodge is able to initiate members at 18; you just need a dispensation - even the university scheme lodge still have to apply for one, it's just that they do it more regularly.

That is quite true but just you try to get one! Unless there are really exceptional circumstances, it's very difficult. By contrast, University Scheme Lodges get dispensations for 18+ very easily; one could almost say automatically. I stand to be corrected on this but I understand that Apollo and Isaac Newton get annual bloc dispensations for 18+ students under long-standing custom.

No, we apply for a new dispensation each time.

Yes, I was corrected re-Apollo and Isaac newton a few days ago in this thread.

But, of course, I saw that a couple of minutes after I posted!

David;missed you at the York meeting!

I know. I was double-booked, unfortunately. Having said yes to you, John J, and David C, after a couple of midday G&Ts, once I'd looked in my diary when I got home, I had to make a grovelling apology to John!

When's the next one? Shall we do an exchange, and you can come to the next Isaac Newton Mark, on 4 March as my guest?

I'll need to check the wife's work pattern first!

russellholland wrote:Charity is a wonderful practice but Masonry has that in common with thousands of other organisations. I think if Masonry is to be reformed then we need to find some more specific to Masonry. I suggest Masonic Science.

What is 'Masonic Science'?

K

>What is 'Masonic Science'?

How long have you got? There is a lot covered within Masonic Science.

But first, consider Albert Mackey:

The definition of Freemasonry that it is "a science of morality, veiled in allegory, and illustrated by symbols," has been so often quoted, that, were it not for its beauty, it would become wearisome.
http://www.phoenixmasonry.org/the_symbo ... asonry.htm

These days we cannot cope with a science of morality so we say a system of morality. Then we do not tell the brethren what is that system, but veil it in allegory so they cannot easily understand.

Why would we prevent most of the brethren from understanding what is the morality we should practice?

A science of "morality", like any other science enables great effects from small effort - hence can be dangerous. Consider the unethical uses of NLP. http://www.nlpu.com/NewDesign/NLPU_WhatIsNLP.html

And as I have indicated the word "morality" is itself a veiling.

It is necessary to be well advanced in the work of the EA (right relationships) before Nature will admit us into the hidden mysteries of nature and (Masonic) science.

russellholland wrote:But first, consider Albert Mackey:

The definition of Freemasonry that it is "a science of morality, veiled in allegory, and illustrated by symbols," has been so often quoted, that, were it not for its beauty, it would become wearisome.
http://www.phoenixmasonry.org/the_symbo ... asonry.htm

Interesting... that is the first time I have seen Freemasonry defined as a science of morality

I'm more familiar with the definition in current Masonic ritual, which defines Freemasonry as "a peculiar system of morality, veiled in allegory and illustrated by symbols".

Thus we come to some of the genuine secrets - techniques within Masonic Science. One of the most important techniques is veiled by Jacob's Ladder.

The Uninitiated wrote:

russellholland wrote:But first, consider Albert Mackey:

The definition of Freemasonry that it is "a science of morality, veiled in allegory, and illustrated by symbols," has been so often quoted, that, were it not for its beauty, it would become wearisome.
http://www.phoenixmasonry.org/the_symbo ... asonry.htm

Interesting... that is the first time I have seen Freemasonry defined as a science of morality

I'm more familiar with the definition in current Masonic ritual, which defines Freemasonry as "a peculiar system of morality, veiled in allegory and illustrated by symbols".

'Interesting' it may be but it's only the personal opinion of Mackey whom our American brethren appear to revere. I certainly wouldn't hold his writings as having any authoritative standing and definitely not on this side of the pond. But that's just my personal opinion as well!

The Uninitiated wrote:

russellholland wrote:But first, consider Albert Mackey:

The definition of Freemasonry that it is "a science of morality, veiled in allegory, and illustrated by symbols," has been so often quoted, that, were it not for its beauty, it would become wearisome.
http://www.phoenixmasonry.org/the_symbo ... asonry.htm

Interesting... that is the first time I have seen Freemasonry defined as a science of morality

I'm more familiar with the definition in current Masonic ritual, which defines Freemasonry as "a peculiar system of morality, veiled in allegory and illustrated by symbols".

No such definition exists in my ritual.

Peter Taylor wrote:
No such definition exists in my ritual.

That is my point. In the 19th century Mackey only knew the version about Masonic Science.

Still, not much value in wondering about what was lost.

russellholland wrote:

Peter Taylor wrote:
No such definition exists in my ritual.

That is my point. In the 19th century Mackey only knew the version about Masonic Science.

Still, not much value in wondering about what was lost.

I should have said, neither version exists in my Lodge ritual.

My understanding of what 'science' means, is a study of a subject which permits open questioning, testing and change as new information about it is discovered.

Thus a 'masonic science', to me, is an open study of Masonry whereby or whereon (ahem!) anybody can ask and receive the correct answer to any question. Defining itself as a system of purposely veiled allegory (oft used as an excuse for not knowing the answer) and mystery etc is the exact opposite and what with all this internets, it's hardly the work of a genius to find out if the vaguest desire to do so arose. Why obfuscate to the point of confusion and possible error in explanation and understanding? It's not as if Grand Lodge should be fending off new members. Sort of leads me to wonder if it's time Masonry did more than rebrand it's logo in order to fall in with modern times.

Interesting to read around the topic all the same. Thanks for the links, i'll have a look in a mo. In general, I find that if I generate more questions than there are factual answers available, that there's probably less underlying substance than purported to exist. Always happy to be proved bonkers all the same.

Now about these pillars.....

kimosabe wrote:My understanding of what 'science' means, is a study of a subject which permits open questioning, testing and change as new information about it is discovered.
.....

Quite so. Freemasons are well known for speculating, but experiment hardly ever occurs. Thus speculation is the beginning and the end of the process. After ever more repetitions of the same speculations most forums have gone silent.

And yet, prior to 1717 some of the most brilliant men were Freemasons. Were they satisfied with speculation?

And the secrets of the ancient mysteries were protected by the death penalty. Why?

kimosabe wrote:
Thus a 'masonic science', to me, is an open study of Masonry whereby or whereon (ahem!) anybody can ask and receive the correct answer to any question. In general, I find that if I generate more questions than there are factual answers available, that there's probably less underlying substance than purported to exist.

What if there isn't a correct answer? After all that is precisely what science is - continually proving people wrong

And it may well be not that there is less substance, just it doesn't fit your preconception