LEST WE FORGET

A MASONIC CREED
Freemasonry teaches the universal principle of unselfish friendship and promotes those moral precepts which are in keeping with all great faiths. In pursuing this doctrine, the following, though not exclusive, is considered to be basic:

MASONIC BELIEFS
Mankind was created by one God.

This one God is the author of all life.

God's existence is revealed to man through faith and the Book of Holy Scriptures.

The Book of Holy Scriptures is the Ultimate Authority or Great Light of Freemasonry.

The soul of man is immortal.

Man's commitment to Divine Providence determines his destiny.

Man's reverence for God is best exemplified by his actions toward his fellow man.

Considering the universality of Freemasonry, its teachings cannot be defined in any single statement or established profile. The following is considered to be representative of its fundamental precepts and constitutes basic:

MASONIC TEACHINGS
Man's first duty is to love and revere God, implore His aid in all laudable undertakings, and seek His guidance through prayer, embrace and practice the tenets of religion, extend charity and sympathy to all mankind, shield and support the widow and orphan, defend virtue, respect the aged, honor the bonds of friendship, protect the helpless, lift up the oppressed, comfort the downcast, restore dignity to the rejected, respect the laws of government, promote morality, and add to the common stock of knowledge and understanding.




Edited by 2B11044 - January/15/2015 at 8:41pm

Sorry, but those are not necessarily the beliefs of all Masons or Grand Lodges

But some GLs do require a specific profession of faith, I.e., Christian

I'd be interested to know which Grand Lodges you are referring to that require a specific profession of Christianity, Bro Cooksic.
Please provide us with more details.
Thank you.
Fraternally and Respectfully

Bob Chadwick
Palm Bay #397
Palm Bay, FL

Adept? wrote: 2B11044 wrote:  embrace and practice the tenets of religion This is the only part I 100% disagree with.  Spirituality, and faith are not synonymous with religion.  I truly and firmly believe that spirituality brings people together, while religion separates them.  That is where the beauty in Freemasonry lies... not one religion, but one faith; is required for membership.  Simply a faith in a supreme being.

I agree with this to a point. People seperate themselves, religion is just the vehicle or justfication for the seperation. People proceeded religion.

Not all lodges or grand lodges beleave in a supream being for exampl  the Grand Orient De France atheists  can join the GODF is the larges in France

It is always parlous for an individual Mason to declare what is, or is not, Freemasonry.

^^The declaration that the Swedish Rite is not Freemasonry

Adept? wrote: ...but for an organisation claiming to be Blue Lodge Freemasonry to require a specific belief in any faith or denomination is not blue lodge Freemasonry...

You may want to take this up with your Grand Lodge since they recognize the Grand Lodge of Sweden as does all of the other Grand Lodges in the US and Canada, the UGLE, the Grand Lodge of Scotland and the Grand Lodge of Ireland. (see links below). 

http://www.msana.com/downloads/usa_recognitions2013.pdf

http://www.msana.com/downloads/canada_recognitions2013.pdf

Edited by YES - February/13/2015 at 12:43pm

thank you for the vocabulary lesson, as stated above I assumed it was a misspelling of perilous. don't I have egg on my face. but hey, I learned a new word. Granted one that has the exact same meaning as a word I already knew, but... whatever. as far as the recognition goes, I am aware that we have recognition...and that means absolutely nothing to me. I stand by my statement above if an organisation claiming to be blue lodge Freemasonry requires anything more than a belief in a Supreme Being ie. specific denominations such as Christianity Judaism Islam Hinduism Buddhism..etc. It is not blue lodge freemasonry, but a perverted adaptation of it. I suppose I should not have stated it was a fact. I guess it's just my firm belief and what I've been taught for the last 9 years that I've been a member...and therefore my... not so humble opinion. I'm all for brotherhood but perhaps we should not have recognition with an organization such as that. I don't know for sure but I would venture a guess that approximately 97 percent of the world's lodges have the exact same requirement that we do here in the united states. you must believe in a diety. whatever denomination you choose is private and is not to be spoken of in lodge, except maybe to determine the volume of Sacred Law that should be on the altar. religion and politics... two subjects off limits as topics of conversation in open lodge by our constitution here in Maine and if I'm not mistaken the United States as a whole.

Edited by Adept? - February/13/2015 at 1:31pm

YES wrote: Adept? wrote:  I assume the word that you were trying to use is "perilous". parlous  adjective par·lous \ˈpär-ləs\ : full of danger or risk http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/parlous   perilous  adjective per·il·ous \ˈper-ə-ləs, ˈpe-rə-\ : full of danger http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/perilous

Two different spellings of the same word.  Parlous is a middle English 'altered' spelling of perilous.

Re: parlous, Middle English. Yeah, I'm that old.

kev146g wrote: ...  Any way it does not matter if they are clandestine, irregular or bogus they are still masons just a different type of mason.

Sorry Mr. kev146g, I disagree.

Cookslc wrote: Re: parlous, Middle English. Yeah, I'm that old.

Your forgiven  .... i believe that I'm actually older than you. You bio doesn't give your yob.  But, your University date puts you about 10 years after me.

Welcome back to the forums.

Adept? wrote: ...I stand by my statement above if an organisation claiming to be blue lodge Freemasonry requires anything more than a belief in a Supreme Being ie. specific denominations such as Christianity Judaism Islam Hinduism Buddhism..etc. It is not blue lodge freemasonry, but a perverted adaptation of it...

Edited by YES - February/14/2015 at 9:39am

@ YES

I disagree with H L Haywood's implication that the GLofE became non-Christian when it formed in 1717.    The fact is the Lodges were still Christian and worked under the various Old Constitutional MS which required Masons to be Christian.   Due to other conflicts of the different MS, Rev. & Dr. James Anderson was asked to write the Book of Constitution published in 1723.  ... There may have been some discord as described by Haywood due to Christian theology.  I'll have to research that.

YES wrote:    .... …”tis now thought more expedient only to oblige them to that Religion in which all Men agree, leaving their particular Opinions to themselves…” Anderson’s Constitution of 1723 However, this statement is open to interpretation and met with some resistance at the time:  .....

Masons of the time did not understand the full implication of that statement.   ... However, the Rituals in use were Christian.   It was about 1730 the Rituals were revised to removed the Christian aspects.   The first non-Christian (a Jew) as admitted & initiated into Freemasonry in 1732.

It has been a while since I researched this topic. I have to locate my notes & references.  This is what I have wrote:

The  Rituals were revised by Dr. James Anderson.  He was an ordained a minister in the Church of Scotland in 1707 and after moving to London, a Presbyterian Minister.  It was Rev. James Anderson (under guidance & at the request of Desaquliers) that removed the obvious Christian references from our Rituals in the early 1730's so that men of all faiths could join Freemasonry.


 

Just to clarify, I am not saying that the current requirement of a belief in a Supreme Being should be changed, but historical fact is historical fact.  

Adept? wrote: Adept? wrote:    Although, if it is an appendant body of some kind then that is different. The York rite requires you to swear an oath of allegiance to the Christian faith when you reach a certain degree. (Which is why I've never joined York rite.) EDWMAX wrote: The Swedish Rite is a 'York Rite' based system where the 'Craft Lodges' were never separated from the higher degrees. So basically what I said... The Swedish Rite first 3 degrees would be considered part of the York rite system (an appendant body) just like the Scottish rite has its own set of the first 3 degrees. Blue lodge Freemasonry admits all, and the Scottish rite admits all... The York rite, and York rite based rites such as the Swedish Rite are (what I will label) "Christian freemasonry" which as I stated before, that I believe to be in contradiction with traditional blue lodge Freemasonry for the majority of the world, and taking away from the beauty and harmony that it can create when the boundaries of specific religion are erased. Thanks to edwmax for the clarification

It could be argued, if not a fact, that the original requirememnt to be a Christian had more to do with English Law than it did with Masonic Law.

BigBob wrote: It could be argued, if not a fact, that the original requirememnt to be a Christian had more to do with English Law than it did with Masonic Law.

This is true as the Christian requirement has much more to do with the spread for Masonry by the Romans, Comacine Masters, and Catholicism.   And historically Masonry has a much longer history of requiring its Members to be Christian than the current non-Christian requirement of 'modern specultive' Freemasonry of the last 250 years.   Traditional Masonry of the opertive Guilds was Christian due to the fact the 'owners' (Church or King/Government) required all workers to be so. 

Edwmax where have i said this


Apparently, you do not support the very Constitutions to which you Obligate yourself to uphold. If you think you can visit & sit in a GOOF Lodge, then do so and brag about it in your Lodge when you return.

all I said was that they are mason just not the same as most of us and tbh i would talk to them as masons but being careful what was said ( even if they already know )

kev146g wrote: Edwmax where have i said this Apparently, you do not support the very Constitutions to which you Obligate yourself to uphold. If you think you can visit & sit in a GOOF Lodge, then do so and brag about it in your Lodge when you return. all I said was that they are mason just not the same as most of us and tbh i would talk to them as masons but being careful what was said ( even if they already know )

OK ...

kev146g wrote: Edwmax I think you will  find that the GODF are not clandestine just not recognised by most grand lodges. In fact GODF and the other French GL (cant remember the name) are have a big meeting in a few months which may lead to them been recognised. Also GODF is recognised by a few other European and south American grand lodges. Any way it does not matter if they are clandestine, irregular or bogus they are still masons just a different type of mason.

Your statement as you wrote it.

UGLE Constitution wrote: .... 8. The Grand Lodge is aware that there do exist Bodies, styling themselves Freemasons, which do not adhere to these principles, and while that attitude exists the Grand Lodge of England refuses absolutely to have any relations with such Bodies, or to regard them as Freemasons.   ...

Your GL states they are NOT Masons, but you say they are.   Therefore, your opinion conflicts with the Constitution to which you obligated yourself to uphold.

Unrecognized masons are clandestine.  They are not masons and should not be treated as such.   But I'm not saying they should be treated any different or given respect then you would a non-mason neighbor.

edwmax wrote: "...Because of the Christian nature of the Swedish Rite, I assumed the Rite had more influence from the York systems..."

I am unfamiliar with the inner workings of the Swedish Rite, but certainly the degree structure bars a resemblance to the Rectified, of which I am a member. It would be my suggestion they were both influenced by the Strict Observance.

Cookslc wrote: And, without disputing it, I am not clear what the "pure Rite of the York" would be.