|
Paramemetic posted:Anyhow, little things can change. My lodge is working on altering bylaws to change dues (currently $50 plus the grand lodge assessment) among other things, which is something we first have to submit to the grand lodge, and if approved we then have to notify every member by mail, and then pass by 2/3 majority of all members who attend the meeting. If it isn't already in your by-laws or draft proposal, I humbly suggest adding language to the effect that dues will automatically increase to match increases in the grand lodge assessment. We did this in my mother lodge a few years ago, after repeated increases in the GL assessment amount put us in the position of sending significantly more to the Grand Lodge than we retained. Assessments have gone up a couple of times since then and its been very helpful not to have to go through the process of amending the by-laws each time.
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2013 21:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 21:23 |
|
|
Glorified Scrivener posted:If it isn't already in your by-laws or draft proposal, I humbly suggest adding language to the effect that dues will automatically increase to match increases in the grand lodge assessment. We did this in my mother lodge a few years ago, after repeated increases in the GL assessment amount put us in the position of sending significantly more to the Grand Lodge than we retained. Assessments have gone up a couple of times since then and its been very helpful not to have to go through the process of amending the by-laws each time. Currently there is no provision for dues to ever increase, but we do charge our GL assessment on top of dues, so we pay $50 in dues + 22.50 in GL for a total of $72.50 annually. My personal proposal was to do it incrementally and automatically in relation to CPI or maybe inflation, with the provision that they cannot change more than 10% up or down in a year, as well as a hard cap at the top to appease brethren who might otherwise accuse us of the potential for out of control dues. Our unique circumstance is that we fully own our lodge building, with the aid of a holding corporation, but we are quickly burning through our war chest and not bringing enough money in to maintain its continued upkeep further than another 4 years or so. We want to keep the building rather than selling it to the GL, as right now we can use it how we please.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2013 23:27
|
|
|
If I understand correctly, then, elements of Masonic tradition can be changed in a lodge by vote, except for the Ancient Landmarks. And, if a lodge did change their Ancient Landmarks, other lodges would terminate any association with them. And, if a lodge did not terminate association with them, they would suffer the same consequences among other lodges. Of course, if a majority of lodges change an Ancient Landmark in concert, then they define what is 'regular'. The Mason traditions were developed by men and if men decide to change them, that's that. Religions change dramatically, and those folks have the fear of eternal damnation keeping them to their traditions! Now, if new members are attracted to lodges based on their adherence to the original traditions, the splinter groups might never get enough momentum to redefine 'Mason'. Totally serious critically important question: when did Masons build a worldwide conspiracy to control the world's home canning industry? Next thing you know I'll have to store my sauces in Jew Banker jars.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2013 04:39
|
|
|
Very Nice Eraser posted:If I understand correctly, then, elements of Masonic tradition can be changed in a lodge by vote, except for the Ancient Landmarks. And, if a lodge did change their Ancient Landmarks, other lodges would terminate any association with them. And, if a lodge did not terminate association with them, they would suffer the same consequences among other lodges. This is essentially correct, yes, with the additional point that the men who so voted also no longer are Masons, and this is not a point of procedural law or a technicality, but a sort of point of fact thing. A similar thing I guess would be if you are a citizen of one country, and you go to another country and take citizenship there. You might still physically have your original passport, and hell, your own country might not even realize what you've done, but by virtue of the action, the thing has happened. In Catholic canon law, the term is latae sententiae and refers to excommunication without the need for any action or even for anyone to endorse it or make it official. It just happens. quote:Of course, if a majority of lodges change an Ancient Landmark in concert, then they define what is 'regular'. No, the definition of "regular" in Masonry is not about what the majority of lodges want. "Regularity" means possessing a "legal constitution," meaning one that is endorsed by one of the three original Grand Lodges (England, Scotland, or Ireland), and being in conformity with the Ancient Landmarks. France, for example, has had several Grand Lodges, all of which had originally been legally constituted, and none of which are regular because they do not adhere to the Ancient Landmarks. quote:The Mason traditions were developed by men and if men decide to change them, that's that. Not really. Masonic traditions were developed by men, that is true. But they cannot be changed, because the act of changing them makes them something else. Essentially, men have gone "these are the rules that make Masonry Masonry, and if anyone tries to change them, they are no longer Masons and so have no ground to do so legally, and, if they change, it is no longer Masonry because Masonry is literally these things." Men can decide to change them, but Masons cannot. And if a man who is a Mason decides to change them, he ceases to be a Mason at that point, and therefore cannot change Masonry, because he cannot justly vote in a Masonic meeting, because he is not a Mason. quote:Religions change dramatically, and those folks have the fear of eternal damnation keeping them to their traditions! Now, if new members are attracted to lodges based on their adherence to the original traditions, the splinter groups might never get enough momentum to redefine 'Mason'. Splinter groups would know better than to try to redefine Masonry. There are a few splinter groups, which always make a point to call themselves something else ("Continental Masons" for example, as opposed to "Free and Accepted" or "Ancient Free and Accepted" Masons). The other groups claiming to be Masonic but which are not tend to prey on people who don't do their research, and so while they claim to be regular, they are not. These groups are usually intentionally duplicitous, and have no claim to the term initially. quote:Totally serious critically important question: when did Masons build a worldwide conspiracy to control the world's home canning industry? Next thing you know I'll have to store my sauces in Jew Banker jars. We took over the pickling industry at the behest of our Reptilian Illuminati Lizard Alien overlords, in order to develop an adequate supply of vacuum sealable jars. The evidence for this can be found in the [REDACTED] degree. The fact of the matter remains, regarding the landmarks, that we can't change them. It's also unfortunately because there are reasons that you have to read between the lines on regarding portions of the ritual which we can't discuss with you, so the plainest, simplest reason why it can't be done is on the tip of the tongue for every brother in here, but we can't make it any plainer than we have.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2013 07:48
|
|
|
Walked back into my office this afternoon, my phone said "1 MISSED CALL", from "GRAND LODGEOFTX". Ruh-roh. Pull up my email, listen to the voicemail, return the phone call. It turns out that a recently-raised Brother in Sulphur Springs, TX had seen my altar picture (the one you've all seen already) in the latest issue of the Texas Mason magazine that featured the photo contest results. He (not having a computer or Internet) wrote a letter to his District Deputy about getting in touch with the photographer; his DD then passed the message on to the Grand Librarian, whose assistant then gave me a call. I got in touch with the Brother. He was so impressed with the photo that he wanted to purchase a print to hang in his office (he's a doctor) and a few more to give to other brothers at their raisings in the near future. To make a long story short, I had Walgreens print up a few 8x10s from my digital original and send them to him directly, and he's going to send me a check.  Not a huge amount; enough to cover the costs of the prints and pay for dinner for my girlfriend and I. Just a neat connection, and I'm still very happy that people like the picture.If he'd offered me a large amount, I would have donated half of it to my Lodge. I normally let Masonic organizations use the picture at no charge (as long as I'm given proper credit), and wouldn't really feel right profiting off my involvement with the organization that has done so much for me in the past few years, and is one of the reasons I'm still on this planet. While I was on the phone with the Assistant Grand Librarian, I asked if he could take a picture of the display so I could see what it looked like. Mine is farthest on the right. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2013 08:55
|
|
|
Paramemetic posted:Not really. Masonic traditions were developed by men, that is true. But they cannot be changed, because the act of changing them makes them something else. Essentially, men have gone "these are the rules that make Masonry Masonry, and if anyone tries to change them, they are no longer Masons and so have no ground to do so legally, and, if they change, it is no longer Masonry because Masonry is literally these things." So Masonry cannot change because if it did, it wouldn't meet the definition of Masonry, and therefore would not be Masonry. That's an appeal to the authority of a definition. Obviously a modified Masonry wouldn't be Masonry by today's definition, but that's the nature of change. Citizenship is a bad example because it's extremely complex and subject to the interpretation of individual jurisdictions. Here's a better example. I have a cat who is half Maine Coon and half domestic short-hair. Like "regularity" among Masons, breed standards are not a universal truth but rather a definition that exists only by the mutual agreement of those in the community. If I were to claim my cat is a purebred Maine Coon, the breeders and cat shows would simply ignore me. My cat doesn't meet today's definition of Maine Coon, it's true. But if the definition were revised (which does happen) and the community chose to accept a definition that included my cat, he would in fact be a Maine Coon. Not by today's definition, sure, but what does that matter tomorrow? Let's contrast that to your example of Catholicism. Devout Catholics believe that Catholicism is a universal truth. That makes latae sententiae excommunication understandable; it's not the definition of man that excommunicates you, but the laws of God. As a non-believer, it doesn't hold much weight to me, but at least the logic is sound within the constructs of the argument. Masons, not claiming to be defined by supernatural decree, can't play that card. My original question asked if you (collectively) felt that Masonry might ever change to reflect changing society. Answers like "no, because men will always want some time out with the boys" and "no, because our rituals require male genitalia" are valid. But your response is "no, because change would require agreeing to a changed definition." Well, yeah, change requires change. And organizations do change, even when they say they never will. Because those of you that say it will never change won't define the Masons forever. Finally, here's a short essay by a self-declared regular female Mason. I found it online in a recap on arguments for/against women in Masonry; unfortunately I can't find the original source. Karen Kidd posted:I am Regular. I know this to be true, though I’ve heard otherwise. That because various Masonic jurisdictions (such as the United Grand Lodge of England, the US Malecraft Grand Lodges and etc.) are not in amity with my jurisdiction, and because I’m a woman, I can’t possibly be Regular. I’ve also been counseled that, slander though this be, I should take it in good part and be grateful my Malecraft brethren speak to me at all. And yet I know myself to be Regular because the Ritual and Masonic jurisprudence say that I am. So I am. By way of explanation, and within the context of this paper, I am about to use a word many find most unpalatable. I mean it in its legal sense. I am no one’s bastard brother. I was conceived in the same place as are all the Brethren. Our progenitor is the same. I was properly prepared. I was received upon the same point. I was made in the b*dy of a L*dge J*st, P*rfect and R*gular. I meet the criteria Bro. Albert Mackey, and others, set down long ago: - I am acknowledged as a Free and Accepted Mason - I was initiated into our mysteries in that “certain manner” - I was made with the assistance of, and under the superintendence of, seven (and more) Master Masons - I share in common, with all Brothers, “the ready use of those signs and words which are used by the other brethren.” This all occurred within my jurisdiction which, like all Masonic jurisdictions, claims no binding authority over the Freemasons in any other jurisdiction. Indeed, I have poured over the books and I can find no instance in which *any* Freemasonic grand lodge, supreme council or other supreme body ever claimed authority over any other such body. It is commonly accepted that no such body can make any pronouncement that is at all binding on any other such body. Logically, this includes any pronouncements about regularity. Any Masonic supreme body may enter into amity agreements with other such bodies. And they also may declare that they consider, within their own jurisdiction, those bodies not in amity with them to be “clandestine” and even “irregular”. This is their right. However, their pronouncements about regularity outside their jurisdictions do not mean that those other Freemasons in other jurisdictions are, in fact, irregular. Indeed, the only Brothers any of these supreme bodies may accurately declare irregular are those in lodges within their own sphere of authority. This means a Brother is Regular by virtue of being so recognized within his/her own jurisdiction. No Brother upon the Earth requires recognition by any other jurisdiction to be Regular. Each Brother is as Regular within their own jurisdiction as any other Brother is Regular within their own jurisdiction. So I speak a truth – and for some, a mystery – when I say, “I am regular”. Thoughts?
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2013 02:36
|
|
|
Very Nice Eraser posted:But if the definition were revised (which does happen) and the community chose to accept a definition that included my cat, he would in fact be a Maine Coon. Not by today's definition, sure, but what does that matter tomorrow?
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2013 03:38
|
|
|
Very Nice Eraser posted:
I actually agree with her essay. Not all Masons are as unwilling as others to fraternize with those that are not deemed "regular". Yet part of our obligation, our word if you will, is given that we will follow the rules and regulations set out by our Grand Lodge, we will show loyalty and support. And as many in this thread have explained better than me, we cannot change some things. One thing that I will say though, is that some of us are Masons by title and certificate, we have all the degrees and trappings of the order. Yet not all of us are Masons by actions. There are those that are unable to achieve the Masonic trappings that I speak of, the tittles, the offices, yet by their actions they are better Masons than I will ever be. Here in the state of NSW in Australia, to be passed to become a Fellowcraft Freemason, you're given a set of questions. One the answers puts everything in context for me, I don't know whether it will mean anything to you, but here it is anyway. Q: Where were you first made a Mason? A: In my heart.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2013 04:49
|
|
Sub Rosa posted:We can all agree to call bullshit roses, but it still stinks. I agree with Sub Bullshit, just because you feel you can change the definition doesn't make it so. Again, we're talking about changing the entire planet because some people want it when most Masons don't and there's a catch 22 that makes them not Masons if they try.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2013 04:54
|
|
|
I think what people are getting at is that Masonry could be destroyed by men just as it was created by men, freemasonry can be perverted by men, but is actually a philosophical institution whose definition has authority, and cannot really be, altered by men.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2013 06:40
|
|
|
Very Nice Eraser posted:So Masonry cannot change because if it did, it wouldn't meet the definition of Masonry, and therefore would not be Masonry. That's an appeal to the authority of a definition. Obviously a modified Masonry wouldn't be Masonry by today's definition, but that's the nature of change. Appeals to definition are not appeals to authority. Utilizing definitions cannot itself be considered an argument. To say "one who does not practice Masonry is not a Mason" is in essence tautological. It needs not make any appeal at all. If we start saying "well, they wouldn't be a Mason, but they could be something else and we could call it a Mason still" doesn't demonstrate that Masonry has changed, it merely demonstrates that language is flexible. quote:I have a cat who is half Maine Coon and half domestic short-hair. Like "regularity" among Masons, breed standards are not a universal truth but rather a definition that exists only by the mutual agreement of those in the community. Regularity among Masons is not a mutual consent thing. Mutual consent is necessary, but not sufficient, for regularity. As I said before, to be considered regular, a Lodge must be chartered via a legal constitution with a successive lineage traceable to one of the original Grand Lodges of England, Ireland, or Scotland. If this does not exist, the Lodge is not and can never be regular. Further, the Lodge must be in conformity with the Ancient Landmarks. Again, if this is not satisfied, that Lodge cannot and can never be Regular. The final test, of whether or not the Lodge has recognition from other Lodges, does not even apply until those first two cases are satisfied. In the case of a Lodge that is permitting women, atheists, whatever to join, that Lodge is no longer in conformity with the Ancient Landmarks, and therefore its charter is de facto revoked, and therefore even if every other Lodge on the planet recognized it, it would not be "Regular." quote:If I were to claim my cat is a purebred Maine Coon, the breeders and cat shows would simply ignore me. My cat doesn't meet today's definition of Maine Coon, it's true. If your argument is that "if we change what Masonry means and what standards apply to determine whether or not a person is a Mason then people who aren't Masons could be Masons" then yes, that's true. What I'm saying is that it is not possible, within the framework provided, and under the rules established, to affect that change. It's certainly possible that 200 years from now what people look at as Masonry may look fundamentally different. If those Masons from 200 years in the future came to my Lodge tomorrow, however, they would not be allowed to sit in Lodge because they would not be Regular. quote:Let's contrast that to your example of Catholicism. Devout Catholics believe that Catholicism is a universal truth. That makes latae sententiae excommunication understandable; it's not the definition of man that excommunicates you, but the laws of God. As a non-believer, it doesn't hold much weight to me, but at least the logic is sound within the constructs of the argument. Masons, not claiming to be defined by supernatural decree, can't play that card. There is no supernatural decree, but there are oaths that are considered inviolable and which are considered to have been established "since time immemorial" which cannot be changed by any man or institution. So while they do not exist by divine fiat, they are definitive to the thing. I'm a vertebrate. If we change the definition of "invertebrate" to mean "having vertebra up in there" then I would be called an invertebrate, but nothing would have changed about me to give me an exoskeleton. quote:My original question asked if you (collectively) felt that Masonry might ever change to reflect changing society. Answers like "no, because men will always want some time out with the boys" and "no, because our rituals require male genitalia" are valid. My argument is not that it would require agreeing to a changed definition. My argument is that any and all Masons who made such a change would be in a state of having violated their oaths, and therefore would not be Masons, and therefore would have no right or authority to claim to be Masons. A Mason who violates his Masonic obligations is no more a Mason than you are, at the moment he does so. quote:Finally, here's a short essay by a self-declared regular female Mason. I found it online in a recap on arguments for/against women in Masonry; unfortunately I can't find the original source. I would not sit in lodge with her, because to do so would make me the most reprehensible sort of liar. I'm sure she's a perfectly good woman, and a good clandestine Mason, but she has not been and cannot be made a Mason in a legally constituted Lodge of Masons, therefore it would be a violation of my oath to sit in Lodge with her. I could claim to be a physician or a lawyer as much as I'd like. And I could argue that physician or lawyer are just words, and that I work in healthcare and follow laws, and that I really really think I deserve to be called a physician, but alas, I cannot practice medicine! Likewise, she can claim to be a regular Mason, but it does not make her so. The Lodge she was made a Mason in was not in conformity with the ancient landmarks. Therefore her assertion that "I was made in the b*dy of a L*dge J*st, P*rfect and R*gular" is simply patently false, as are other claims that she was done in the same way others have been. Her argument's premises are simply wrong. Again, I harbor no ill will against her. I would receive her happily as my guest in my home, I would fly to her rescue if I could. But I would not communicate Masonically with her, and I could not sit in Lodge with her, because to do so would be to be in contempt of my own honest word. Paramemetic fucked around with this message at 07:03 on Jan 25, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2013 06:59
|
|
|
Paramemetic posted:A Mason who violates his Masonic obligations is no more a Mason than you are, at the moment he does so. I challenge any Mason in this thread to say that he has never once broken his obligations or violated the charges given to him.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2013 07:14
|
|
|
Ari posted:I challenge any Mason in this thread to say that he has never once broken his obligations or violated the charges given to him. Breaking the obligations and violating the charges are two wildly different animals.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2013 14:22
|
|
|
Ari posted:I challenge any Mason in this thread to say that he has never once broken his obligations or violated the charges given to him. Ok. I've never once broken my obligations or violated the charges given to me.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2013 14:30
|
|
|
I just received this e-mail from our lodge secretary (last names abbreviated for privacy):quote:SUBJECT: Thinking out of the box for the lodge I know that every jurisdiction and lodge and city are different, but I'm curious what interesting things all your lodges are involved with? Maybe something will spark an idea in my brain that I can pass on to our brother secretary.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2013 17:00
|
|
|
I can't say, to my knowledge, thatI have ever broken my obligation, seems likely though, it's like saying you never sin.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2013 17:57
|
|
|
Seems BMW is anti-masonic(or at least thinks we're similar to a satanic cult). http://themasonicblog.blogspot.com/2013/02/mercedes-benz-super-bowl-commercial.html
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2013 15:03
|
|
|
lord1234 posted:Seems BMW is anti-masonic(or at least thinks we're similar to a satanic cult). According to a link later down the way on that page, the commercial has already been edited.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2013 15:56
|
|
|
lord1234 posted:Seems BMW is anti-masonic(or at least thinks we're similar to a satanic cult). I thought it was rather funny to be honest.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2013 16:53
|
|
|
Does this mean me and Satan are bros now
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2013 17:00
|
|
|
QPZIL posted:Does this mean me and Satan are bros now If you own a black SLK hardtop with red leather seats, then yes.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2013 17:15
|
|
|
Upon reflection, the only grounds I can see for Satan not being eligible for Freemasonry are that he can't really demonstrate that he is a man of good report. I'd have to wait for the investigating committee report. He was freeborn, he's certainly of lawful age, he undoubtedly believes in God, and he appears quite plainly to be male in this commercial, sooooo. . . 
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2013 17:23
|
|
|
Paramemetic posted:Upon reflection, the only grounds I can see for Satan not being eligible for Freemasonry are that he can't really demonstrate that he is a man of good report. I'd have to wait for the investigating committee report. He was freeborn, he's certainly of lawful age, he undoubtedly believes in God, and he appears quite plainly to be male in this commercial, sooooo. . . He was not free born. That was the whole point. He's also not a man.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2013 17:27
|
|
|
Colonial Air Force posted:He was not free born. That was the whole point. Hmmm, actually that first point is super solid. Dude must be clandestine.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2013 17:29
|
|
|
Commissar and I spent half an hour arguing the "Could Satan be a Mason" point and yeah he wasn't even born so nope. e. Satan could likely be a French mason.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2013 18:14
|
|
|
Colonial Air Force posted:According to a link later down the way on that page, the commercial has already been edited. I can't find the link that says any such thing. Where is it?
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2013 18:24
|
|
|
Guess it wasn't really a link:quote:Mike PooleFebruary 4, 2013 at 11:25 AM
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2013 18:29
|
|
|
Well, I went through my 3rd degree last night, and hoooly cow, I was NOT expecting, well, you know the part. Definitely more interesting than I expected, and tonight I'm going over my ritual book to look at it all again. Anyways, I'm a Master Mason now, and I have you guys to thank for it. My family grew last night by about 1,000,000+ brothers, and it all started with a forum thread just saying how cool it was to be a Mason. Now if you'll excuse me, it's time to shop for a tux.
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2013 20:46
|
|
|
I think the number's about 6 million, isn't? Also, Congratulations!
|
|
#
?
Feb 6, 2013 21:04
|
|
|
Well, new job and I'm working during every meeting. It'll be months til I can start requesting specific days off regularly. What do I do in the meantime? I've been away from lodge and my brothers for... 3 months now.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2013 11:34
|
|
|
sacrip posted:Now if you'll excuse me, it's time to shop for a tux. Congratulations Brother.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2013 11:34
|
|
|
sacrip posted:Anyways, I'm a Master Mason now, and I have you guys to thank for it. My family grew last night by about 1,000,000+ brothers, and it all started with a forum thread just saying how cool it was to be a Mason. Welcome, brother! You'll get a whole new appreciation for the degree when you see it being performed, too. There is usually a great deal of effort that goes into making it an awesome experience for all involved (I get to go gavel-to-gavel in the East again for a raising later this month).
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2013 12:03
|
|
|
7thBatallion posted:Well, new job and I'm working during every meeting. It'll be months til I can start requesting specific days off regularly. What do I do in the meantime? I've been away from lodge and my brothers for... 3 months now. Work on your degree work and come back to lodge when you're able. Family and job should always take precedence over lodge.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2013 17:45
|
|
|
7thBatallion posted:Well, new job and I'm working during every meeting. It'll be months til I can start requesting specific days off regularly. What do I do in the meantime? I've been away from lodge and my brothers for... 3 months now. Can you visit another lodge that meets on a better night?
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2013 02:39
|
|
|
Congratulations upon being newly raised, brother!
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2013 04:54
|
|
|
Flying Fortress posted:Can you visit another lodge that meets on a better night? Do other jurisdictions allow EAs to visit other lodges?
|
|
#
?
Feb 8, 2013 23:47
|
|
|
imac1984 posted:Do other jurisdictions allow EAs to visit other lodges? Ours only allows it if the other lodge is opening up an EA lodge. So basically, only if the lodge is conferring the first degree.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2013 00:59
|
|
|
Same in Ohio, except that the visiting EA also has to have an MM to vouch for them, because an EA lacks the necessary information to travel and prove himself. So EAs can visit other lodges that are open in the first degree only if they have someone to vouch for them.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2013 01:23
|
|
|
Same in Washington, someone has to come with to vouch for you. Generally we'll open on whatever degree will allow everyone in, but I think visitation before being raised is uncommon outside of degrees.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2013 03:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 21:23 |
|
|
In California we have to open on the first degree for the stated meeting, but for an EA to visit they must be vouched for by a Master Mason. After that they can come back any time though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 9, 2013 03:59
|
|