🚀 go-pugleaf

Hello Ron,


Friday July 15 1994 20:49, Ron Boutwell wrote to John Herold:

 RB> That's not all we will do.  The world is full of MEN WHO ALREADY AVOID
 RB> MASONRY BECAUSE WE EXCLUDE WOMEN.  That number can only increase after
 RB> a public battle and don't try to use the "historical and contemporary
 RB> Masonry" expalaination on them becasue they will not accept it.  THIS
 RB> IS NOT THE GOOD OLD DAYS ANYMORE! We do have to adjust our strategy in
 RB> accordance with the decade in which we live.

Masonry has survived the test of time, changing social attitudes, and the
publics perception.  The means by which it has survived is by having for it's
foundation certain unchangable rules.  These unchangable rules form the
infrastructure of the fraternity.  It has been a long time since I have read
the 21 things of masonry that "Will not be changed", of which one is the
admission of a woman.  Changing any of one of these tenants could open the
others for change as well, thus opening a complete rebuilding of the
infrastructure of the fraternity.  No one knows what this will do to the Order,
however, everyone agrees that it is quite possible that Masonry will never be
the same again. Will it endure the test of time?  No one is sure.  To disturb
this foundation, for whatever reason, could enhance or destroy the cornerstone
of Freemasonry. The risk is too great.

 RB>   We can't keep playing
 RB> "cloak and dagger" Masonry games anymore where we refuse to tell a
 RB> potential Mason ANYTHING ABOUT MASONRY saying "That's a secret I can't
 RB> discuss it at all."  When it's not REALLY a secret, we just have fun
 RB> trying to pretend SOME things are secrets when they are not.  You used
 RB> to could do that years ago and it would cause no harm.  Now it just
 RB> helps our attackers do a better job by supporting their SECRET SOCIETY
 RB> allegations.

I agree that too little is told about Masonry.  Most of the time it is because
Masons are afraid they may tell more than they should, thus violating their
Oath.  Ignorance of the craft is the main reason.  There is enough to discuss
without discussing ritual, and give ample information.  Why hold any secrets?
The answer is much simpler than "having fun".  Without some secrets we have no
way of knowing who has been "Regularly" inducted into a lodge and who is an
impostor.

 RB>   The same goes for this purely masculine stance.  IF WE
 RB> ARE GOING TO BE PURELY MASCULINE GUYS WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO COME UP
 RB> WITH BETTER EXCUSES.  And I used the term excuse purposely since
 RB> logically, rationally, objectively, and to SOME DEGREE MASONICALLY we
 RB> can not justify the stance much better than the US Masonic system can
 RB> justify racial exclusion.

We don't need to justify our stance.  We need only to observe it and protect
our tenants.  Masonry has never supported the exclusion of any person by race.
In Northern California, we have Masons who are minorities.  Not enough, but the
do get admission.  Then why aren't there more.  Simple, we may never eradicate
the prejudice of one mason at the ballot box.  One such mason does not
represent a fraternity.  The messages I read here concerning recognition of
"Prince Hall" says it best.  The majority are for it.  Hopefully, in time,
those who's hearts are hardened, my pass and open a new era of universal
acceptance, but only through educating each new mason, will this come about.

 RB> This is all my opinion.  I have heard a lot of people saying that if I
 RB> can't justify it myself, I don't understand Masonry.  I have heard the
 RB> lame excuse of "This is how we always did it, therefore we should
 RB> always continue to do it." or "The original operative lodges were all
 RB> male so we should be too."  We can agree that these excuses will not
 RB> hold water objectively.  But if I don't understand Masonry as you say,
 RB> and if there IS A GOOD ENOUGH REASON THAT WILL OBJECTIVELY JUSTIFY
 RB> THIS STANCE I have yet to hear anyone offer it.  The argument that it
 RB> should be obvious to an Mason that understands Masonry is all well and
 RB> good but everyone who is a proponent of female exclusion has STILL
 RB> DANCED AROUND HAVING TO OFFER A REAL HONEST TO GOD OBJECTIVE,
 RB> RATIONAL, AND INTELLIGENT justification.  If things are going to stay
 RB> the same, we will eventually need one.
 RB> in Masonry anyway, what'the loss?"  But once again, be objective.

It is possible that a candidate finds exception with some part of our teachings
and oaths.  It is his responsibility to decide if he can and will support these
parts during each of the three degrees.  If not, he is free to stop the
ceremony and leave.  In continuing and taking the oath under false pretense
does him or us no good.  I know how embarrassing it would be to do so, however,
if he is true to himself, he should have.  I believe that every candidate is
told up front, before his application is read in lodge, that this is a
fraternity for men only.  In California, the wife must give her permission for
her husband to join.  There was no deceit.  If the candidate accepts these
conditions, then his support of them should be expected, even demanded.

Best wishes,

Len Morgan, P.M. II

 * Node 2 for 12/2400 Baud: 1:203/731 916-922-1288

--- GoldED 2.42.G0615+Concord 0.01 beta.5a
 * Origin: QST BBS Sacramento's Premier Ham BBS H16 916-920-1288 (1:203/730)