If we have a certain vision of what our Lodge, and Freemasonry should be, then we must have standards by which we judge men suitable for the Degrees of Masonry. Ultimately, holding standards is the only way we can cause Freemasonry to reflect what we expect it to be.
Do we want Freemasonry to be a men’s club, suitable for all men who seek to live moral lives, or do we want it to be a Craft that is suitable for only the very best of men?
If we seek education and spiritual/philosophical discussion in our Lodge, what standards of intellectual curiosity should we maintain?
If we want our Lodge to be led well, what standards should we expect a man to meet before we ballot favorably on his Petition?
If we hope that the Masons of our Lodge can become excellent ritualists, what standards should we expect our candidates to meet?
I think it is crucial that the men we accept be men of intelligence and good moral and ethical grounding. Not every Mason has of a philosophical, metaphysical or intellectual nature, but we do need more of those men. The issue of desired quality is a tricky one, I think. I want all kinds a good men, (just having cerebral oriented brethren would not be good for the craft, we need more doers than thinkers) and in today’s world that is hard enough to find. What I think we need is to think about what quality of man we want to attract. Our public image right now is so confusing, and unfortunately associated with paranoia or unfounded claims that serious world affecting men might well steer clear. For every minute of press we get for our charities, there are hours of conspiracy theories in media. Our presence in the world of serious philosophical or scientific work is completely absent, and most of our serious spiritual voices are too cautious to present publicly. In our golden age the membership rolls of the Royal Society (scientific body) and the Grand Lodge of England had many of the same names. As you all know, in the world of politics, many of the renaissance thinkers who heralded the modern democracies were publicly known to be Masons. These luminaries attracted similar men, and the Lodges of those years had the opportunity to consider and initiate men of tremendous qualities. I think we need to choose the qualities we want, and present those qualities to the world, rather than just consider them in applicants.
In my view, one of the tremendous benefits of Freemasonry is that it puts men, otherwise completely different from each other, into a place where they can truly get to know each other. As a younger guy, I learned from the old guys in my Lodge. As an old guy now, I learn from the younger guys. It's not just age though, it's political and cultural too. Red and Blue mingling and getting along, men from different cultural upbringings getting along, all learning about and from each other.
With that in mind, I guess I've got three standards in my mind that I think we should hold every candidate to. The first two are easy enough to figure out, the last much harder.
1. I don't want to Initiate any man whom I would not be confident leaving my granddaughters with. Because, ultimately, that is exactly what we are doing, with our family involvement in Masonry, our youth groups, and the rest.
2. I don't want to Initiate any man for whom the financial costs involved would be a harm to his family. I've watched this happen a time or two, and it isn't good. If a guy can't afford Freemasonry (and there are some out there who can't) that money needs to go to support of his family.
3. I don't want to Initiate any man who is dogmatic in his beliefs. I do not want a man who would claim that Hindus pray to a demon sitting in my Lodge. (And there are men who make that exact claim) I do not want a man who would declare a call girl unworthy of respect sitting in my Lodge. (And there are those out there as well.) I do not want a man who says that he can not talk with, or respect people from the opposite political party sitting in my Lodge. (And there are millions of those.) I do not want a man who would discriminate against other men because of their race, cultural background, or sexuality in my Lodge. (Some of these still around, but less than in the past.) I do not want a man who holds any faith or spiritual or religious practice in contempt in my Lodge. (Unfortunately, still plenty of guys like this around.)
I guess that those are my three standards. Trustworthy around children, able to pay the costs without harming oneself, and non-rigid in belief. Give me those three things and I think a man will be an asset to Freemasonry. Lacking any of the three, he is a liability to the Craft.
Number one, I really respect that you’ve stimulated the questioning and self reflection process. That in itself sets the mind to be open to seeing truth, no matter what the truth looks like.
Second point, I’ve seen there’s a hunger growing in spiritual groups for real metaphysics that is backed by reproducible experiments with mind. A hunger for more than just a social club, at least from what signs I’ve seen. It’s up to the organizations that have the ability to serve a higher quality meal to be visible enough to be found, and provide access to those that are hungry for more than junk food. I vote (as if I could vote) for a little more transparency, especially when advertising the esoteric meetings. Baby steps. 🙏🏼⚛️
I think that you are no doubt right. Freemasonry, following the World Wars largely focused on its social and charitable endeavors. All right and good, as that served the men of the time. But it largely forgot its philosophical and esoteric endeavors, not so right and good, because so many are looking for just those things today.
I've written about how many people a Tarot group can turn out for a large event, compared to how many Freemasonry can turn out. And I've written about how much more money Tarot people are willing to pay for such things than Masons are. And I think it is because those Tarot events are keeping with the zeitgeist, whereas Freemasonry is not. That's why Tarot events can be so much more successful.
People attending Tarot events, and paying a lot of money to do so, are doing it because they are in search of the esoteric, in a socially affirming group, with a wee bit of charity sprinkled on top. Too many of our Lodges have the socially affirming and the charitable bit down, but they are afraid of providing the esoteric, and through that fear they are putting themselves outside of the zeitgeist.
Ultimately, Freemasonry is the stream from which all of this is born. We wouldn't have Tarot as we understand it today if it wasn't for the Freemasons who developed it, and that's just one single example. So why on earth are we sometimes so afraid to explore our right philosophy and history?
There is a shadow work book on Tic Tok that has sold over a million copies so far. What the public is consuming is junk food with high consequences. My friend bought it and I asked to prescreen, and it’s not the greatest angle.
There is a lot of really shallow mysticism I've seen on Youtube too. There are of course many great things, but it seems that one has do dig through a mountain of nonsense to find them.
I think it is crucial that the men we accept be men of intelligence and good moral and ethical grounding. Not every Mason has of a philosophical, metaphysical or intellectual nature, but we do need more of those men. The issue of desired quality is a tricky one, I think. I want all kinds a good men, (just having cerebral oriented brethren would not be good for the craft, we need more doers than thinkers) and in today’s world that is hard enough to find. What I think we need is to think about what quality of man we want to attract. Our public image right now is so confusing, and unfortunately associated with paranoia or unfounded claims that serious world affecting men might well steer clear. For every minute of press we get for our charities, there are hours of conspiracy theories in media. Our presence in the world of serious philosophical or scientific work is completely absent, and most of our serious spiritual voices are too cautious to present publicly. In our golden age the membership rolls of the Royal Society (scientific body) and the Grand Lodge of England had many of the same names. As you all know, in the world of politics, many of the renaissance thinkers who heralded the modern democracies were publicly known to be Masons. These luminaries attracted similar men, and the Lodges of those years had the opportunity to consider and initiate men of tremendous qualities. I think we need to choose the qualities we want, and present those qualities to the world, rather than just consider them in applicants.
In my view, one of the tremendous benefits of Freemasonry is that it puts men, otherwise completely different from each other, into a place where they can truly get to know each other. As a younger guy, I learned from the old guys in my Lodge. As an old guy now, I learn from the younger guys. It's not just age though, it's political and cultural too. Red and Blue mingling and getting along, men from different cultural upbringings getting along, all learning about and from each other.
With that in mind, I guess I've got three standards in my mind that I think we should hold every candidate to. The first two are easy enough to figure out, the last much harder.
1. I don't want to Initiate any man whom I would not be confident leaving my granddaughters with. Because, ultimately, that is exactly what we are doing, with our family involvement in Masonry, our youth groups, and the rest.
2. I don't want to Initiate any man for whom the financial costs involved would be a harm to his family. I've watched this happen a time or two, and it isn't good. If a guy can't afford Freemasonry (and there are some out there who can't) that money needs to go to support of his family.
3. I don't want to Initiate any man who is dogmatic in his beliefs. I do not want a man who would claim that Hindus pray to a demon sitting in my Lodge. (And there are men who make that exact claim) I do not want a man who would declare a call girl unworthy of respect sitting in my Lodge. (And there are those out there as well.) I do not want a man who says that he can not talk with, or respect people from the opposite political party sitting in my Lodge. (And there are millions of those.) I do not want a man who would discriminate against other men because of their race, cultural background, or sexuality in my Lodge. (Some of these still around, but less than in the past.) I do not want a man who holds any faith or spiritual or religious practice in contempt in my Lodge. (Unfortunately, still plenty of guys like this around.)
I guess that those are my three standards. Trustworthy around children, able to pay the costs without harming oneself, and non-rigid in belief. Give me those three things and I think a man will be an asset to Freemasonry. Lacking any of the three, he is a liability to the Craft.
Number one, I really respect that you’ve stimulated the questioning and self reflection process. That in itself sets the mind to be open to seeing truth, no matter what the truth looks like.
Second point, I’ve seen there’s a hunger growing in spiritual groups for real metaphysics that is backed by reproducible experiments with mind. A hunger for more than just a social club, at least from what signs I’ve seen. It’s up to the organizations that have the ability to serve a higher quality meal to be visible enough to be found, and provide access to those that are hungry for more than junk food. I vote (as if I could vote) for a little more transparency, especially when advertising the esoteric meetings. Baby steps. 🙏🏼⚛️
I think that you are no doubt right. Freemasonry, following the World Wars largely focused on its social and charitable endeavors. All right and good, as that served the men of the time. But it largely forgot its philosophical and esoteric endeavors, not so right and good, because so many are looking for just those things today.
I've written about how many people a Tarot group can turn out for a large event, compared to how many Freemasonry can turn out. And I've written about how much more money Tarot people are willing to pay for such things than Masons are. And I think it is because those Tarot events are keeping with the zeitgeist, whereas Freemasonry is not. That's why Tarot events can be so much more successful.
People attending Tarot events, and paying a lot of money to do so, are doing it because they are in search of the esoteric, in a socially affirming group, with a wee bit of charity sprinkled on top. Too many of our Lodges have the socially affirming and the charitable bit down, but they are afraid of providing the esoteric, and through that fear they are putting themselves outside of the zeitgeist.
Ultimately, Freemasonry is the stream from which all of this is born. We wouldn't have Tarot as we understand it today if it wasn't for the Freemasons who developed it, and that's just one single example. So why on earth are we sometimes so afraid to explore our right philosophy and history?
There is a shadow work book on Tic Tok that has sold over a million copies so far. What the public is consuming is junk food with high consequences. My friend bought it and I asked to prescreen, and it’s not the greatest angle.
There is a lot of really shallow mysticism I've seen on Youtube too. There are of course many great things, but it seems that one has do dig through a mountain of nonsense to find them.