What does this mean to you?

D. W. Brown · 04-25-2006, 02:12 PM

In an effort to understand that all Freemasons interpret meanings differently, as has been obvious over the years since our inception. I thought it might be a good idea to bring up terms from past writings of our forefathers for us to discuss and see if we can come to a "true" understanding of their meanings.

Given all the controversy brewing today in our craft I thought a quote from Anderson's Constitution would be an appropriate one to start with.

"A Mason is oblig'd by his tenure, to obey the moral Law; and if he rightly understands the Art, he will never be a stupid Atheist, nor an irreligious Libertine*."

gingerman · 06-10-2006, 05:35 PM

Interestingly, I have recently been rereading a classical work on this subject: [i]De Rerum Natura[i] by Lucretius. It is a poetic exposition of the philosophical school of Epicureanism. I realize that Masons have often been accused of being Epicureans, but this, like so many other claims just ain't true. Or, perhaps more true than most believe.

Epicureans are the folks that made the orgy popular in ancient Rome. This too was a misreading of the material. Epicureans were encouraged to maximize pleasure in life. The reason for this is that there was thought to be no after life. No punishment, and no reward. This physical existance was thought to be all there is. The book explains why this is, and I'm not going to go into the details here. If anyone is interested, I'll talk about it, but it ain't the point just now.

The point is that being irreligious doesn't necessarilly lead to libertinism. The true believers in Epicureanism realized that there is a price to pay in this world for our actions. If you drink too much, you get a hangover, and the hangover negates the pleasure of the drinking. If you over indulge in sexual adventures, you catch diseases and there's always the shotgun (or point of the spear) wedding as a possibility.

So, a true Epicurean believed in moderation in all things. Not because of pie in the sky or a pitchforkin' to come in the afterlife, but because it maximized the pleasure available in this life. A practical philosophy, grounded in science, that, without the trappings of religion, lead not to libertinism, but to moderation.

Steve, M.M.
in Maryland

David Herman · 06-13-2006, 12:13 AM

I've given no small amount of thought to this over the years, and I've satisfied myself that athiesm generally equates with being areligious, and being irreligious generally equates with agnosticicm. But I am certainly open to other interpretations.

WyndellF · 07-31-2007, 07:19 PM

I hate to 'necro' an old thread but here goes...

Atheism to me is the believe that there is no supreme being
and
irreligious Libertine is one that has no bounds or restrictions on their conduct. I think the explanation in the EA explains the reasons...

Psi Brr · 08-07-2008, 12:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by D. W. Brown

"A Mason is oblig'd by his tenure, to obey the moral Law; and if he rightly understands the Art, he will never be a stupid Atheist, nor an irreligious Libertine*."

I am not yet a Mason, though this is how I would interpret the phrase:

"Walk your path with a temperant gait."

D. W. Brown · 08-07-2008, 09:02 PM

Ok since we are opening this one back up

. Does this even belong in Freemasonry at all. What advancements can we offer the human race if we close our minds to possibilities at all? This to me is a ball and chain to advancement of the art and humans in general. Our quest should be for knowledge and let that take you where it may, spirituality, Science etc. but do go there following the moral law. Ok, you can leave the first third of it in.

Psi Brr · 08-07-2008, 10:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by D. W. Brown

Ok since we are opening this one back up

. Does this even belong in Freemasonry at all. What advancements can we offer the human race if we close our minds to possibilities at all? This to me is a ball and chain to advancement of the art and humans in general. Our quest should be for knowledge and let that take you where it may, spirituality, Science etc. but do go there following the moral law. Ok, you can leave the first third of it in.

I think it does need to be there. There's a message in there, though it's not a literal one; it's thematic. It's shows you where the goal posts are; kick the ball between them. -OR- There are thousands of paint shades in the world; does even the most talented, prolific artist use all the paints?

I believe this to be an archaic (in the sense of being ancient, not outdated) dilineation between two moral extremes. This is what led me to consider the notion of temperance.

Thank you for chiming in on this topic. I love discussing stuff like this.

Bob Hunter

D. W. Brown · 08-07-2008, 11:42 PM

I think in politics they call that a "move to the middle" approach.

I don't let it constrain my being one bit. I don't believe in any one thing but instead take in the wonder of all things and how they are connected. Try and gain the knowledge to understand how I fit into this big picture and how to best contribute too it's benefit.

Psi Brr · 08-08-2008, 06:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by D. W. Brown

I think in politics they call that a "move to the middle" approach.

I don't let it constrain my being one bit. I don't believe in any one thing but instead take in the wonder of all things and how they are connected. Try and gain the knowledge to understand how I fit into this big picture and how to best contribute too it's benefit.

A-MEN! I couldn't have said it better. Nothing is more disconcerting than bouncing around like a BB in a boxcar spiritually or philosophically.

Next phrase? Let's work this discussion. It's one of the healthiest forums on the site, and there's a great deal of potential for mutual growth here.

chgregory · 08-24-2008, 02:14 PM

My Brothers,

It seems that this thread has been asleep for a long time, and it raises some interesting questions.

The entire quote from The Book of Constitutions was published in February, 1723, and in it, amongst other things, Anderson inserted "The Charges of a freemason, extracted from the ancient Records of Lodges." The first is headed "Concerning God and Religion," and reads as follows:

A Mason is oblig'd, by hiS Tenure, to obey the moral Law and if he rightly understands the Art, he will never be a stupid Atheist, nor an irreligious Libertine. But though in ancient Times Masons were charg'd in every Country to be of the Religion of that Country or Nation, whatever it was, yet 'tis now thought more expedient only to oblige them to that Religion in which all Men agree, leaving their particular Opinions to themselves; that is, to be good Men and true, or Men of Honour and Honesty, by whatever Denomination or Persuasion they may be distinguish'd; whereby Masonry becomes the Centre of Union, and the Means of conciliating true Friendship among Persons that must have remain'd at a perpetual Distance.

This Charge might certainly have been worded more clearly, and has led some people to believe that even a belief in God had ceased to be obligatory. But it should be recollected that the Charge was probably drawn up by Anderson, a Scottish Presbyterian Minister, and was approved by, amongst others, the Rev. J.T. Desaguliers, a French Protestant Divine. It is inconceivable that either of these Clergymen would have acquiesced in the removal of that Landmark-the belief in God--from the Constitutions of the Craft; but we must remember that both of them would desire to emphasize that the Craft was open to others than those whose religion was that of the Established Church of England. Anderson's accuracy in transcription has been found at fault on several occasions, and his wording of this Charge need not be construed with minute exactness. A careful perusal of contemporary evidence will aid in its true construction, and negative the assumption of atheistic principles. The correct interpretation seems to be that the phrase "Irreligious Libertine" was intended to designate the Freethinker of the present day; and that Anderson, in framing the clause, wanted to make it as wide as possible without including the man with no belief in God. It was not to admit the Atheist, but to enable brethren with different religious opinions to meet together in amity.

In 1723 the fraternity was in a youthful state, and while the charges were written to be as broad as possible, it was impossible for these men, however forward thinking they may have been to foresee our world. Since most of those involved in creating the charges were ministers of their day, they used the church terms and might well have been a lot more clear had they used plain language.

I believe Anderson was attempting to be broad in his acceptance and still exclude those without any kind of acceptance of diety. This assumption may not suit everyone, but I have read the entire text and that is the opinion I think makes most sense to me.

S&F,