My Freemasonry is Freemasonry.

tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14848224.post-35798884590547098542008-07-16T15:16:00.000-07:002008-07-16T15:21:55.834-07:00My Freemasonry is Freemasonry.I've been watching closely an exchange if ideas in a Yahoo group I started some time back. For those not familiar with it, it is the <a href="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FreemasonInformation/">Freemason Information</a> Yahoo group.<br /><br />The discussion recently has turned to the validity and ownership of the Fraternity itself. The position that "My Freemasonry is Freemasonry" seems to be a dominant theme. <br /><br />Something interesting from this exchange is the different perceptions of the various disciplines. That each is uniquely Freemasonry, the individual being unique unto itself, and each being Freemasonry. <br /><br />I don’t think there will ever be a one true discernment of what it truly is, as it is perceived differently by different groups. Even as you go through time, is the Freemasonry of today, charities and all, perceived by its membership in the same way it would have been 100 years ago, 200 years ago...? Is the Freemasonry of today, the Freemasonry it was then, truly?<br /><br />Fundamentally, I think that it is OK to see if differently. But, it raises the specter of ownership. Who’s is better, which is how this may have become a my Masonry is not your Masonry discussion.<br /><br />The fact remains that there are a variety of groups in existence that lay claim to some lineage to Freemasonry. Be it MWPHGL, the UGLE, or GoDF, the various state GL's in the U.S., or everything in between. With so many splinters from the same ashlar, each being different and unique, do they not come from the same of type of stone. Can they all be Freemasonry?<br /><br />In their way, I would say yes. Do they differ in shape, texture, and size, yes. Is one better than the other? I can't make that call. Each appeals to a segment or group within society for what ever reason, and each contributes to the common stock. Why not share not learn from one another?<br /><br />From the inside looking out perspective, I don’t see the need for fundamental acceptance of all nascent groups, otherwise, anyone could start their own splinter group and demand to be recognized. But, if a group has worked and proven its shape, then I see no reason to not at least entertain the notion of recognition to some degree. Be it to acknowledge the existence of, open lines of communication with, and perhaps even allow open individual visitation. I think that the prohibition of this is a fulcrum to leverage a position of dominance in the field. Its consequence however is a wholesale disregard for other splinters of the same stone.<br /><br />Can we deny the fact that there exists something else that lays claim to the heritage that we hold so dear?<br /><br />This is merely my opinion as a a Mason in the “regular” system knowing that other traditions exist under the same canopy of heaven. <br /><br /><div style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.freemasoninformation.com/">Freemason Information</a> | <a href="http://www.myspace.com/freemasoninformation">Masonic MySpace</a><br /><a href="http://www.cafepress.com/masonictraveler">Cool Masonic Apparel</a> | <a href="http://www.freemasoninformation.com/mainpages/masonicdecals.html">Masonic Decals</a><br /><a href="http://groups.google.com/group/fmidiscussion">Masonic Discussion</a><br /><br /><a href="http://technorati.com/tag/Freemasonry" rel="tag">Freemasonry</a> | <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/Freemason" rel="tag">Freemason</a> | <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/Masonic" rel="tag">Masonic</a> | <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/yahoo" rel="tag">Yahoo</a> | <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/opinion" rel="tag">opinion</a></div><div class="blogger-post-footer"><script type="text/javascript"> </script> <script type="text/javascript" src="http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/show_ads.js"> </script></div>Masonic Travelerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17688459525360750872masonictraveler@gmail.com