[hiram]

Originally Posted by looksee

? But no-one is looking for a Bishops Conference Forum, or a Knights of Columbanus Forum.

Exactly. Which is why I requested this forum.

[HellFireClub]

Originally Posted by hiram

Actually my Wife is in the process of sussing out the prospect of setting up an Eastern Star branch of Masonry for women.

She could always take a leaf from the book of Catherine Babbington & try hiding in the cupboard!

http://www.cornerstonepublishers.com/babington.pdf

[looksee]

Originally Posted by hiram

Exactly. Which is why I requested this forum.

I suppose that reply might make sense to someone,it doesn't make much sense to me.

However, will the Mod of this forum be the arbiter of what can and cannot be discussed? Someone comes along and says, do you do x at your meetings, and you say 'sorry, can't tell you that', poster argues that if it is going to be a forum about Freemasonry you must expect to answer questions about it. Will the mod pop up and say 'if hiram doesn't want to discuss that point you can't insist that he does'. That's going to put a bit of a damper on discussion!

[Absolam]

There's an 'irregular' Masonic organisation for women which is quite popular in the UK, one of their members gave a talk after summer lodge in Molesworth St last year. Not Eastern Star but they might be helpful to someone looking to set up something similar in Ireland.

[Absolam]

Originally Posted by looksee

I suppose that reply might make sense to someone,it doesn't make much sense to me.

However, will the Mod of this forum be the arbiter of what can and cannot be discussed? Someone comes along and says, do you do x at your meetings, and you say 'sorry, can't tell you that', poster argues that if it is going to be a forum about Freemasonry you must expect to answer questions about it. Will the mod pop up and say 'if hiram doesn't want to discuss that point you can't insist that he does'. That's going to put a bit of a damper on discussion!

I would suggest the mods role would be simply to keep discussion on topic, as usual, and to shut down the threads that turn into all out flame wars. There will be subjects that Masons simply won't discuss, although I suspect that's far less than non-Masons might think. The fact that Masons don't discuss something doesn't stop anyone else from doing so. But it will be the case that some questions won't be answered by Masons, and if that causes some frustration, then the mods should keep a lid on how that frustration is expressed. To address the example, the mod should be popping up to say "If Hiram doesn't want to discuss that point, that's up to him, he's as free to express himself (or not) as you are, just don't throw the toys out of the pram". I don't think that anyone sensible will expect that just because there's a Masonic forum they'll be able to demand answers from Masons on the forum. But the forum would at least provide an opportunity to ask, and have a better chance of getting a decent answer.

[HellFireClub]

Originally Posted by Absolam

I would suggest the mods role would be simply to keep discussion on topic, as usual, and to shut down the threads that turn into all out flame wars. There will be subjects that Masons simply won't discuss, although I suspect that's far less than non-Masons might think. The fact that Masons don't discuss something doesn't stop anyone else from doing so. But it will be the case that some questions won't be answered by Masons, and if that causes some frustration, then the mods should keep a lid on how that frustration is expressed. To address the example, the mod should be popping up to say "If Hiram doesn't want to discuss that point, that's up to him, he's as free to express himself (or not) as you are, just don't throw the toys out of the pram". I don't think that anyone sensible will expect that just because there's a Masonic forum they'll be able to demand answers from Masons on the forum. But the forum would at least provide an opportunity to ask, and have a better chance of getting a decent answer.

I don't get the issue regarding the contribution someone might wish to not make, if you get asked a question and you are part of an organisation that wishes to keep the answer to that question secret, can you not just decline to answer the question?!? If you ask me how much money I have in my bank account, I don't have to answer! You asking isn't a breach of the general charter, me refusing to answer isn't a breach of the charter, so where's the problem?!?

[Absolam]

Yes, that's what I was trying to say, maybe a bit too convolutedly. A quick scan of the various CT threads shows that some people feel they have a right to an answer, and can get quite aggressive when they don't get one. I think the forum should provide an opportunity to people who are genuinely curious but want to be able to engage outside of what are usually quite loaded discussions.

[looksee]

But how can it not be loaded when it is supposed to be a discussion forum but the basic information to clarify discussions is not necessarily available. The entire forum would be wide open to accusations of being a Conspiracy Theory.

The original premise for the forum came from a mason, or a strong supporter of the masons, who says that discussions go off-topic because people do not understand it. But if they are looking for information and it is not available inevitably people are going to speculate and throw out wild ideas.

And no, it is not the same as other societies having 'secrets'. No-one is asking the GAA to give details of their committee meetings, any more than the masons would be expected to give details of their committee meetings, but if you were to ask in the GAA what their rules were or what official stance they held on an issue, or who their officials were, there would be no problem about the information being available.

As for the comparison with the Bishops' Conference, I think if an individual member of the BC came on here and suggested that there should be a forum to discuss the Bishops' input into the Catholic church the other Bishops would be very unhappy about one self-appointed spokesperson telling the world what they were at!

I really don't care one way or the other about the Masons, I don't believe all the conspiracy theories, or rather I don't care about them, let them get on with it. But to have a forum that is entitled to only discuss what the (self-appointed) experts say they can discuss? I suppose it could be stuck in with Religion then you could have the 'you can only discuss if you are not criticising us' rule.

[slowburner]

I can't think of any other forum where certain, harmless, non-divisive, inoffensive subjects would be taboo.
Or where no rationale would be offered for preventing discussion of those subjects.
Or where the agenda and purpose of the forum cannot be openly stated.

The way I see it panning out, is that you would have perfectly innocent questions from folks who are just interested/curious, and those questions would be met by a brick wall.
I can't see that being of any use to anyone other than members of the organisation.

I have no problem with the organisation, or its members, indeed a relation of mine was assisted by them many years ago, in a far away place, and for that I am grateful, but I just don't see such a forum fitting in with the Boards ethos.

Hence,
-2 to counteract my original +1

[Absolam]

Originally Posted by looksee

But how can it not be loaded when it is supposed to be a discussion forum but the basic information to clarify discussions is not necessarily available. The entire forum would be wide open to accusations of being a Conspiracy Theory. The original premise for the forum came from a mason, or a strong supporter of the masons, who says that discussions go off-topic because people do not understand it. But if they are looking for information and it is not available inevitably people are going to speculate and throw out wild ideas.

My feeling is that the basic information to clarify most discussions is available; that's what makes the forum worthwhile. And where the information for some discussions might not be made available, at least there might be some sensible rebuttal of the wilder ideas. I'm quite tickled by the idea that if the forum got the go ahead it might eventually be the basis for someone's conspiracy theory. I can imagine a few boardsies are already rehearsing their arguments.....

Originally Posted by looksee

And no, it is not the same as other societies having 'secrets'. No-one is asking the GAA to give details of their committee meetings, any more than the masons would be expected to give details of their committee meetings, but if you were to ask in the GAA what their rules were or what official stance they held on an issue, or who their officials were, there would be no problem about the information being available.

Actually, Masonic rules (Laws & Regulations) are already publicly available, as are the names of Masons in senior office (ie Grand Lodge etc so the equivalent of 'officials'). A lot of those names are on the Grand Lodge website. Some Masons are more conversant than others with Masonic rules, but I can't see any issue with a Mason answering questions about them. The official stance on issues is a little more problematic, as Grand Lodge doesn't comment on political or religious matters etc, so the official stance on many things is 'Freemasonry takes no stance on these issues'.

Originally Posted by looksee

As for the comparison with the Bishops' Conference, I think if an individual member of the BC came on here and suggested that there should be a forum to discuss the Bishops' input into the Catholic church the other Bishops would be very unhappy about one self-appointed spokesperson telling the world what they were at!

This is an exceptionally good point; I very much doubt anyone would put themselves forward as an official spokesperson for Freemasonry and I doubt even more that Grand Lodge would endorse a spokesperson. Opinions expressed would have be clearly those of the poster alone.

Originally Posted by looksee

But to have a forum that is entitled to only discuss what the (self-appointed) experts say they can discuss? I suppose it could be stuck in with Religion then you could have the 'you can only discuss if you are not criticising us' rule.

I think criticism has to be an expected part of the forum. And I think the forum should be entitled to discuss anything related to Freemasonry, short of flaming. Just some discussions won't neccasrily get definitive answers on some subjects from Freemasons.

Originally Posted by slowburner

I can't think of any other forum where certain, harmless, non-divisive, inoffensive subjects would be taboo. Or where no rationale would be offered for preventing discussion of those subjects. Or where the agenda and purpose of the forum cannot be openly stated.

I don't think any harmless, non-divisive, inoffensive subject could be taboo, and I don't think any discussion should be prevented, unless it's off-topic, or deliberate flaming, as per the rest of boards. I'm sure Hiram can give us a concise statement of agenda and purpose for the forum.

Originally Posted by slowburner

The way I see it panning out, is that you would have perfectly innocent questions from folks who are just interested/curious, and those questions would be met by a brick wall.
I can't see that being of any use to anyone other than members of the organisation.

That hasn't been the case on the CT threads, where we've had quite a few innocent and no so innocent questions asked and answered quite well. I do think with a dedicated forum it would be easier to answer innocent questions without getting caught up in spurious arguments, as happens a lot in CT.

[slowburner]

Originally Posted by Absolam

... There will be subjects that Masons simply won't discuss, although I suspect that's far less than non-Masons might think.

...Just some discussions won't neccasrily get definitive answers on some subjects from Freemasons.

Originally Posted by Absolam

I don't think any harmless, non-divisive, inoffensive subject could be taboo, and I don't think any discussion should be prevented, unless it's off-topic, or deliberate flaming, as per the rest of boards. I'm sure Hiram can give us a concise statement of agenda and purpose for the forum.

Some fairly contradictory stuff there, my friend.

[Absolam]

The point I was trying to make is that no subjects that are actually related to Freemasonry should be off limit for the forum; non Masons (or Masons) should be able to post and at least get an answer. They may not get the answer they want from a Mason poster, but the subject matter ought not to be taboo for the forum.

For example, if someone asks "what are the secrets of the society with secrets", they're not likely to have Masons falling over themselves with full and frank expositions. But it doesn't mean the topic would be taboo, or undiscussed.

[CFC1969]

Setting up a freemasonry forum is an excellent idea

[hiram]

Originally Posted by Absolam

The point I was trying to make is that no subjects that are actually related to Freemasonry should be off limit for the forum; non Masons (or Masons) should be able to post and at least get an answer. They may not get the answer they want from a Mason poster, but the subject matter ought not to be taboo for the forum.

For example, if someone asks "what are the secrets of the society with secrets", they're not likely to have Masons falling over themselves with full and frank expositions. But it doesn't mean the topic would be taboo, or undiscussed.

Originally Posted by Absolam

The point I was trying to make is that no subjects that are actually related to Freemasonry should be off limit for the forum; non Masons (or Masons) should be able to post and at least get an answer. They may not get the answer they want from a Mason poster, but the subject matter ought not to be taboo for the forum.

For example, if someone asks "what are the secrets of the society with secrets", they're not likely to have Masons falling over themselves with full and frank expositions. But it doesn't mean the topic would be taboo, or undiscussed.

Hi, Hiram here. Just to clarify. The forum WOULD try to conform to Boards ethos. I am a Mason. But the forum would only deal with Craft Masonry, up to the 3rd degree. All other Orders are an aside, and a whole different matter. These are the areas of Masonry which Do contain secrets...much like the recipe of Coke is Secret. 90% of Craft Masonry is in the Public Domain. Google it. I can guarantee that I could provide links in Google to any if the Questions pertaining to "secrets". It is the Explaining of the Craft that I will be focusing on...especially to New candidates..of which there are many. Also, over 130 replies is encouraging. Anyone know what the next step is??

[slowburner]

Originally Posted by hiram

Anyone know what the next step is??

Acquiring the virtue of patience

Some time back, you mentioned that you were surprised by the abundance of masonic symbols on gravestones.
This happens to be a subject in which I have a great deal of interest, and with no agenda; masonic or otherwise.
I'd be very interested to know which of these symbols you believe to be unique to freemasons.