From: ptrei@BISTROMATH.MITRE.ORG
Newsgroups: alt.magick
Subject: Re: masonic morals & dogma
Date: 10 Apr 92 20:42:40 GMT


shava@hermes.oit.unc.edu (Shava Nerad Averett) writes:

> I have access to a book which I am not supposed to have access to.
> Although the book says: "This book is to be returned to the mother
> lodge upon the descease of the member who has custody of it." (or
> somesuch), I have a copy of a morals and dogma manual for the southern
> (US) scottish rite masons.  Obscure used book stores in tiny little
> towns are wonderful things...

     Even huge non-obscure used book stores in megapoli are wonderful:
if you're ever in New York, check out the Strand. This is Pike's
"Morals and Dogma", right? I don't have a copy myself, but it's still
in print, and without the impressive warning label. From your
description, it sounds like I ought to pick it up.
 
     While Pike played an important part in Masonic history, he was
more philosophically inclined than the average Mason. Not all (or even
many) Masons are familiar with his ideas, any more than most
Christians are familiar with Thomas Merton or CS Lewis.

> One thing that I went through this book with a fairly fine comb to
> find, is to try to clue out the foundation of the idea of excluding
> women...  

> No where in the very thick volume (over 800 pages, as I remember) does
> the author have a word to say against women, or women's competance.

and in another post...

> There is only *one* reason for the masons to be segregated by sex,
> IMO, and that is that they are a men's lodge.  Like a men's medicine
> society of the Hopi.  I actually have no particular problem with that.

     I've think you've hit the nail on the head. We are a "men's
society", and on integration would cease to be such.

     While I remain pretty well untouched by the current "mens
movement", there does seem to be a special social dynamic in some
(heterosexual) single-sex groups. It is not sexual in nature, but
rather sex's negation. Since no one in the group regards any of the
others as a potential mate, all sexual politics are swept to one side,
and "what really matters" can be concentrated upon.

     If we started to admit women, it "just wouldn't be the same".
It's very hard (perhaps impossible) to decide how much of that
sentiment is for reasons we'd both find acceptable.

> In this day and age, I find it uncomfortable that the masons have not
> integrated. [...] I think that the AF&AM should allow lodges to
> integrate male & female by vote of the lodge membership.

     It's been tried. There are schismatic "co-Masonic" groups which
admit both men and women. They have never been very successful.
Rather than integration, I'd prefer to see a parallel system of
women-only lodges, with their own Grand Lodge(s) every bit as
sovereign and independent as the current ones, dealing with them as
equals.  [I'm not going to hold my breath on this happening :-( ]

> ...it [non-integration] means that the masons tend to attract men who
> prefer to associate more with other men than with women...

     I think you're off base here. As a means of getting away from
women, Freemasonry is pretty ineffective. Many US lodges meet only one
night per month, 10 months a year.  A *very* busy lodge might triple
that. It's simply not a daily, or even a weekly thing.

[As a side note, I should mention that we regard family as more
important than Masonry.  When a married man applies to become a Mason,
the investigating comittee makes sure his wife approves before
proceeding - her objection stops the application.]
							Peter Trei
							Senior Warden
							Wilder Lodge AF&AM
							Leominster
							Massachusetts

    +--------------------------------------------------------------------+
    | Peter Trei, a travelling man.  PTrei@mitre.org !linus!mbunix!ptrei |
    | Disclaimer: My employer pays me for my skills, not my opinions.    |
    | Remember now thy Creator in the days of thy youth...               |
    +--------------------------------------------------------------------+