|
FreshFeesh posted:Particularly here's the original missive which we read in Lodge this month here in California: 
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 07:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 15:09 |
|
|
Cimber posted:http://freemasonsfordummies.blogspot.com/2016/03/gl-of-california-breaks-with-georgia.html It is nicely summarized here: quote:"The concept of prohibiting membership, or expelling brothers, on the basis of sexual orientation or for possessing certain immutable traits unrelated to the independent moral character of an individual is incompatible with our precepts.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 11:21
|
|
|
Keetron posted:It is nicely summarized here: I truly hope this is not the start of a 'conservative' vs 'liberal' fight among various grand lodges. I can easily see places like Alabama, Mississippi and other grand lodges banding together.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 14:27
|
|
|
Cimber posted:I truly hope this is not the start of a 'conservative' vs 'liberal' fight among various grand lodges. I can easily see places like Alabama, Mississippi and other grand lodges banding together. Aren't many of those the same lodges that don't (or at least didn't for a very long time) recognize Prince Hall? I'd rather we not have a schism, of course, but candidly speaking, if they want to break off and be bigoted, good riddance. The Fraternity is better moving away from this nonsense, and while it's preferable that Brethren in those areas with less common decency should stand up and fight their own Grand Lodges, in the end Freemasonry as a whole has to excise this cancer somehow.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 14:44
|
|
|
If the end result is the southern GLs getting their act together then I'm all for it. I don't think the masons in the south will allow their GLs to alienate them from the rest of Freemasonry, at least I really hope not.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 15:00
|
|
|
Lovable Luciferian posted:If the end result is the southern GLs getting their act together then I'm all for it. I don't think the masons in the south will allow their GLs to alienate them from the rest of Freemasonry, at least I really hope not. I don't think they will, either, but they may decide they're being persecuted. I've never been to a southern Lodge, so I can't say for sure, but that's certainly how it works politically.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 15:13
|
|
|
Colonial Air Force posted:Aren't many of those the same lodges that don't (or at least didn't for a very long time) recognize Prince Hall? I am just concerned that other states, like Utah, Texas, Indiana would also break away. Fragmentation not along regional but political lines.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 16:02
|
|
|
If that happens, new GLs chartered and warranted by neighbouring GLs or the UGLE will pop up in the schismatic States and take in anyone who wants to jump ship is my bet.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 16:31
|
|
|
Loomer posted:If that happens, new GLs chartered and warranted by neighbouring GLs or the UGLE will pop up in the schismatic States and take in anyone who wants to jump ship is my bet. It is what happened in France twice (thrice?) and works pretty well. The Dutch GL harbored a few lodges until a new GL of France was formed that was acknowledged by the UGLE.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 18:44
|
|
|
Keetron posted:It is what happened in France twice (thrice?) and works pretty well. The Dutch GL harbored a few lodges until a new GL of France was formed that was acknowledged by the UGLE. GLNF was restored after they got rid of that lunatic Stefani.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 19:44
|
|
|
Colonial Air Force posted:Aren't many of those the same lodges that don't (or at least didn't for a very long time) recognize Prince Hall? I'm saddened that people are choosing to take sides instead of trying to promote harmony. I too think that GA and TN are in the wrong regarding sexual orientation, but I think it is more wrong to loudly and publicly reprimand our brethren. I think it is outright un-masonic to disassociate from brothers with whom we previously harmonized - even if it were a strained harmony. For these reasons, I can't support GL-CA's actions although I am sympathetic to their reasoning. We should trust that our brothers in GA and TN are doing their best to become better men and that their efforts will eventually bring them around to a more inclusive perspective. We can't help them if we follow GL-CA's example. patentmagus fucked around with this message at 00:01 on Mar 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2016 23:59
|
|
|
patentmagus posted:I'm saddened that people are choosing to take sides instead of trying to promote harmony. I too think that GA and TN are in the wrong regarding sexual orientation, but I think it is more wrong to loudly and publicly reprimand our brethren. I think it is outright un-masonic to disassociate from brothers with whom we previously harmonized - even if it were a strained harmony. For these reasons, I can't support GL-CA's actions although I am sympathetic to their reasoning. I can't speak for the others but it's not the individual masons I have an issue with, it's the administrative organ they are attached to.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 00:09
|
|
|
Lovable Luciferian posted:I can't speak for the others but it's not the individual masons I have an issue with, it's the administrative organ they are attached to. Exactly. So, how do we help the individual masons? I don't think that standing on a moral high ground with crossed arms is a winning maneuver.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 01:00
|
|
|
patentmagus posted:Exactly. So, how do we help the individual masons? I don't think that standing on a moral high ground with crossed arms is a winning maneuver. What's your alternative?
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 01:04
|
|
|
GL of CA isn't, they're standing on a moral high ground with -open- arms.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 01:04
|
|
|
Lovable Luciferian posted:What's your alternative? None - and maybe doing nothing is the right approach for those of us who aren't in TN or GA. Masonry moves slowly. Trust it to move in the right direction. Colonial Air Force posted:GL of CA isn't, they're standing on a moral high ground with -open- arms. The arms appear crossed when GL-CA quits recognizing other lodges. GA and TN aren't the ones who decided not to recognize CA. As for morality, there's no end of trouble when factions ossify into their own flavors of morality. We need to meet on the level - no high ground, no moral indignation, just masons.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 01:25
|
|
|
Even when those other grand lodges operate counter to the tenets of our fraternity?
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 01:52
|
|
|
patentmagus posted:None - and maybe doing nothing is the right approach for those of us who aren't in TN or GA. Masonry moves slowly. Trust it to move in the right direction. Well I'll tell you something and you can verify this by looking at my older posts in the thread. I seriously considered demitting because I don't want to directly and willingly associate with homophobes. So this put a personal moral dilemma to rest for me. Edit: Spelling
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 02:11
|
|
|
Lovable Luciferian posted:Well I'll tell you something and you can verify this by looking at my older posts in the thread. I seriously considered demitting because I don't want to directly and willingly associate with homophobes. So this put a personal moral dilemma to rest for me. That's essentially the view I take on the subject. I may be a fairly new brother, but I absolutely wouldn't have petitioned in the first place, if I had the impression I would be associated with homophobia via membership. I'm fortunate in that my state was an early adopter of marriage equality, so I don't think our GL would ever do something like TN or GA. Masonry was presented to me as an organization that sought to make good men better, and I would have found that contradictory, if good men were excluded for reasons such as sexual orientation.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 02:18
|
|
|
Lovable Luciferian posted:Well I'll tell you something and you can verify this by looking at my older posts in the thread. I seriously considered demitting because I don't want to directly and willingly associate with homophobes. So this put a personal moral dilemma to rest for me. I have no problem associating with homophobes. So what if we don't agree. There are plenty of things to agree on -and- I think I become a better person by welcoming people who are different from me. Colonial Air Force posted:Even when those other grand lodges operate counter to the tenets of our fraternity? Yeah - even then. Let the other guys be the ones to blow everything up. To paraphrase: Don't be the rear end in a top hat. If the other guys is an rear end in a top hat, don't be a bigger rear end in a top hat.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 02:42
|
|
|
I mean, GA directly kicked out brethren for getting married. Why is CA the state behaving shamefully in this scenario? gently caress that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 03:09
|
|
|
Old Dirty Cumburgs posted:That's essentially the view I take on the subject. I may be a fairly new brother, but I absolutely wouldn't have petitioned in the first place, if I had the impression I would be associated with homophobia via membership. I'm fortunate in that my state was an early adopter of marriage equality, so I don't think our GL would ever do something like TN or GA. Masonry was presented to me as an organization that sought to make good men better, and I would have found that contradictory, if good men were excluded for reasons such as sexual orientation. There was racial segregation when and where I was raised. It bothered me a lot. Now I sit in lodge with a black man and call him brother. I wouldn't have this privilege if I'd stormed off at the thought of being associated with racism via membership.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 03:09
|
|
|
patentmagus posted:There was racial segregation when and where I was raised. It bothered me a lot. Now I sit in lodge with a black man and call him brother. I wouldn't have this privilege if I'd stormed off at the thought of being associated with racism via membership. I am glad to hear the situation was changed for the better, brother. What influenced your decision to be made a Mason, despite your misgivings on that subject?
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 03:13
|
|
|
Emron posted:I mean, GA directly kicked out brethren for getting married. Why is CA the state behaving shamefully in this scenario? gently caress that. Two wrongs don't make a right. I don't like what either GA or CA did.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 03:17
|
|
|
patentmagus posted:None - and maybe doing nothing is the right approach for those of us who aren't in TN or GA. Masonry moves slowly. Trust it to move in the right direction.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 03:43
|
|
|
Old Dirty Cumburgs posted:I am glad to hear the situation was changed for the better, brother. What influenced your decision to be made a Mason, despite your misgivings on that subject? The candidate was prepared. I knew I wasn't joining an organization of racists, just one that included some racists. Mr. Maltose posted:The Grand Lodges in question are acting in direct opposition to the fundamental tenets of our fraternity, and the idea that we and Masonry at large should sit in silence and expect them to rectify this situation without censure or opposition is mind boggling. We should always strive for harmony, but harmony in the face of injustice is unmasonic in my view. Yes, we should oppose the actions taken in GA, TN, and CA - but censure is too strong. Those are our brothers. We don't need to sit in silence, but we don't need to form a lynch mob either. Maybe we need to give ourselves time to deal with our own discordant passions.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 04:12
|
|
|
Why should we oppose the actions of the Grand Lodge of California (And the District of Columbia, who has also suspended recognition of Georgia and Tennessee) for following proper practice in ceasing recognition of bodies acting in ways fundamentally unmasonic? Calling it a lynch mob is exceptionally out of step with the reality of the situation. If my brother abused a position of power in any way close to what has happened in Tennessee or Georgia my response would be just as stern.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 04:30
|
|
|
Mr. Maltose posted:Why should we oppose the actions of the Grand Lodge of California (And the District of Columbia, who has also suspended recognition of Georgia and Tennessee) for following proper practice in ceasing recognition of bodies acting in ways fundamentally unmasonic? Calling it a lynch mob is exceptionally out of step with the reality of the situation. If my brother abused a position of power in any way close to what has happened in Tennessee or Georgia my response would be just as stern. You would refuse to recognize him as your brother? You would make him unwelcome in your home? patentmagus fucked around with this message at 05:18 on Mar 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 05:12
|
|
|
patentmagus posted:You would refuse to recognize him as your brother? You would make him unwelcome in your home? Technically, if we get down to it, if he's a member of CA or DC GLs, yes, he should not be fraternizing with clandestine masons etc. etc. I was raised in Ohio at the time when Ohio was in the middle of a recognition crisis with WV, my home state. Since I moved to MD, I was a member subordinate to two separate lodge bodies, one of which regarded GL WV as clandestine, the other of which did not. I am very happy that Ohio and WV have decided to get along, but I would not be surprised if WV kicks off on the GA and TN side of this thing, and puts me back in a crisis of being unable to visit lodges in my home state. Recognition crises suck on ice, but the fact of the matter is that it is the responsibility of Grand Masters to make policy rulings based on the ancient landmarks, and there are no ancient landmarks prohibiting homosexuality. The minute the Masonic establishment begins to dictate issues of morality onto its members, it has fundamentally failed as an organ. The very conduct of making Masonic decrees dictating what is and is not moral behavior, rather than leaving that question to be settled by one's own spiritual moral compass, is unmasonic and violates our oaths. It transforms the lodge from a society of free men practicing their religion according to their conscience to a religious society that engages in sectarianism, and this is a violation of Masonic law. GL CA's decision to withdraw recognition of GA and TN is a bitter pill that will undoubtedly lead to division, but it is well founded in Masonic law. I can only hope someday we'll come back around to readdress recognition of Prince Hall Lodges, but that is of course a bit more complicated as most of the withholding Grand Lodges now veil their motivations in Masonically legal language of jurisdiction and sovereignty.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 06:28
|
|
|
patentmagus posted:I think it is outright un-masonic to disassociate from brothers with whom we previously harmonized
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 08:15
|
|
|
Paramemetic posted:Recognition crises suck on ice, but the fact of the matter is that it is the responsibility of Grand Masters to make policy rulings based on the ancient landmarks, and there are no ancient landmarks prohibiting homosexuality. The minute the Masonic establishment begins to dictate issues of morality onto its members, it has fundamentally failed as an organ. The very conduct of making Masonic decrees dictating what is and is not moral behavior, rather than leaving that question to be settled by one's own spiritual moral compass, is unmasonic and violates our oaths. It transforms the lodge from a society of free men practicing their religion according to their conscience to a religious society that engages in sectarianism, and this is a violation of Masonic law. Thank you for this insight, it is a very good description of the key reason that made me join our fraternity.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 09:51
|
|
|
Paramemetic posted:I was raised in Ohio at the time when Ohio was in the middle of a recognition crisis with WV, my home state. Since I moved to MD, I was a member subordinate to two separate lodge bodies, one of which regarded GL WV as clandestine, the other of which did not. OK - you've been through this. How did the crisis form and stop? Was it ego driven by a GL clique or did it have wide support? Did the individual lodges have much say in causing or ending it? Sub Rosa posted:Which is just what GA and TN are doing in kicking out gay brethren. You can't blame CA for rightfully perceiving, acknowledging, and acting upon that knowledge of such severely unmasonic behavior. Which takes as back to the question if two wrongs make a right. There must be better actions to take. I -could- blame CA, but am trying not to because I don't know what other options they considered (if any) or their logic (if any). Paramemetic posted:... and there we have the crux of the problem. To me, it looks like GL-CA is dictating morality just as much as GA and TN are. CA, GA, and TN are all trying to put a masonic veneer on actions that I see as unmasonic. We can argue as much as we please about which is more, or less, masonic - but that won't get us anywhere. To me, the masonic response is to appeal to the good in our brothers. CA is reacting in defense of our gay brothers. I understand that reaction because it was my first reaction too. This protective reaction is a good thing because in our hearts we are being inclusive and protective of good men. Sadly, the reaction is also being misdirected to excluding other good men. So, my appeal here is that we seek to bring our brothers in TN and GA closer, not push them away. I honestly don't know how to appeal to our GA and TN brothers. All I do know is that they are good men. I am positive that they are not of one mind on this issue. They are all, as we are, trying to do what they think is right. We also know how to change things at the grand lodge level (hint: motions and voting). I don't think the solution is to support a schism and then pat our own backs in righteous congratulations. It feels counterproductive.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 15:06
|
|
|
I was initiated and passed in WV, and raised in OH right after the two were on speaking terms again. If you know anything about that situation, you'd know that raising a motion to GLWV would have done nothing except get your rear end thrown out for unmasonic conduct.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 15:19
|
|
|
patentmagus posted:and there we have the crux of the problem. To me, it looks like GL-CA is dictating morality just as much as GA and TN are. CA, GA, and TN are all trying to put a masonic veneer on actions that I see as unmasonic. Only insomuch as it relates to the rules we've been following for 300 years. CA and DC are saying "You can't deny people just because they're homosexuals," which is correct, because the only requirements to be a Mason are: 1. Be Male 2. Be of age 3. Believe in a supreme being 4. Have been born free Nothing in there has anything to do with sexuality whatsoever. There's certainly nothing to stop a gay man from being black-cubed without a single word said about it, but a Grand Lodge cannot just add extra requirements. That's why the GLs of TN and GA are in err, are acting clandestinely, and therefore ought to not be recognized as regular. You might say "And have good moral character!" but that has only ever related to being vouched for and not being an actual criminal. "Moral" in this sense is the 18th century usage, not the religious version.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 15:31
|
|
|
patentmagus posted:OK - you've been through this. How did the crisis form and stop? Was it ego driven by a GL clique or did it have wide support? Did the individual lodges have much say in causing or ending it? The very short version is, a few years back, under an old GM of WV, edicts were made and discussion was had about recognition status for Prince Hall, veterans with war injuries being allowed to join, and so on. The GM in question was unpopular with the GM Elect, who, upon assuming the chair, reversed all of his decisions and summarily excommunicated him without trial. He then revoked the PGM's mother lodge's charter when they demanded he have a trial as is his Masonic right, and gave those lodge officers the boot as well. Ohio raised the PGM to the degree of MM with a special dispensation from the GM of Ohio, and WV declared that they were not respecting WV's jurisdiction. Thus began a feud that lasted for several years and resolved when Ohio excommunicated the PGM again just to appease WV. quote:Which takes as back to the question if two wrongs make a right. There must be better actions to take. I -could- blame CA, but am trying not to because I don't know what other options they considered (if any) or their logic (if any). Revoking recognition is not a "wrong" in this case, according to many here. The "wrong" of GA and TN violating their masonic charters is remedied by no longer recognizing those same charters. That is the correct remedy. One of the fundamental tenants of Masonry is the inviolability of the ballot box. It is certainly the right of any Master Mason to vote his conscience, to cast a black cube for a gay petitioner, and nothing can ever be said about it. This could happen in California, Georgia, or the Texas Moon Lodge. The problem is that GA and TN have voted to make religious edicts and proclamations that say that the consciences of the brothers in a lodge are an insufficient test for the worthiness of an applicant. Their rules are essentially saying, "to be a man, freeborn, of age, and having belief in God, plus whatever the GM thinks." This violates the fundamental nature of the organization, being a brotherhood and not a tin pot club. Granted, I believe one of the big issues with CA's motion is that it does not clearly state what the issue is. Even I cannot off the top of my head remember which of the GL's in question punished a Mason for simply being gay, and which it was that chose to punish them for posting wedding pictures. Technically, the latter didn't violate the ballot box by making rules about who can and cannot join - rather, they've simply made the distasteful decision to define "behavior unbecoming a Mason" as "being gay." Regardless, it is certainly the right of CA to do as it has done and revoke recognition. Whether it is right will depend on each brother's interpretation of the crisis. But historically the question of talking and sorting this out as brothers doesn't go well, and sometimes a grand gesture like revoking recognition is the best way to send a message. Sometimes, it's best to send a message from your own chair, rather than travel to another jurisdiction and attempt to discuss something that the GL of GA and GL of TN don't want to discuss. Paramemetic fucked around with this message at 16:03 on Mar 10, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 15:52
|
|
|
Fun fact about the circumstances of how WV revoked that PGM's membership: they attended his lodge for his FATHER'S FIFTY YEAR PINNING, and when offered the gavel as courtesy, the GM accepted it, seated his grand line, and held a Masonic trial right then and there. Edit at least that's what WV guys told me. Now it sounds like he wasn't even given a trial? That's even worse!
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 16:10
|
|
|
Emron posted:more Thank you both. What an embarrassing episode. Believe it or not, the WV GM might have felt bound by his oath - but that's a mouth to ear discussion. Regardless, it's a nice insight into how grand lodges can be. Colonial Air Force posted:yet more You raise excellent points and communicate them well to me. However, I'm not going to debate who is more right or more wrong because I would be joining into divisiveness by arguing that point. My entire stance is against being divisive. I won't be drawn into it. Instead, I ask you how you would communicate those points to our brothers in GA and TN? By communicate, I mean actually communicate. We don't want to just yell from a soapbox like a campus evangelist. Based on Paramemetic's words, maybe ceasing recognition is warranted as part of a larger strategy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2016 16:38
|
|
|
I take the stance myself that any brother in the GLs being severed from should be expressly advised that if he wishes to remain in amity on a personal level, he may join one of the neighbouring GLs at whatever masonic degree he previously held in his former jurisdiction. The problem is not the individual masons but with the GL's disgraceful conduct, and it is necessary but not desirable to sever the individual to sever the collective, so we should make certain to leave options for the individuals to sidestep the issue while not undermining the moral imperative we wish to make clear to the homophobic GLs.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2016 04:12
|
|
|
Loomer posted:I take the stance myself that any brother in the GLs being severed from should be expressly advised that if he wishes to remain in amity on a personal level, he may join one of the neighbouring GLs at whatever masonic degree he previously held in his former jurisdiction. The problem is not the individual masons but with the GL's disgraceful conduct, and it is necessary but not desirable to sever the individual to sever the collective, so we should make certain to leave options for the individuals to sidestep the issue while not undermining the moral imperative we wish to make clear to the homophobic GLs. Yeah - something to send those GL's a message while floating a raft to the individuals. I've had conversations with other people and, surprisingly, I'm on board with ceasing recognition now. An issue I hadn't considered is the message being sent to the public at large, not just amongst ourselves. I think it would hurt our fraternity to viewed from the outside as a bunch of homophobes. So, we can't be silent, especially if this BS gets any media traction. If some journalist writes about what happened in GA, then hopefully there will be e few paragraphs in there saying that many many other GLs have, with heavy hearts, taken action against the lodges that are kicking out gay brothers. To me, it is important that we do have heavy hearts in this. It is a sad circumstance we face.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2016 21:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 15:09 |
|
|
Yeah, unfortunately we have to keep in mind that CA and DC didn't act in a vacuum - their grand lodges were heavily, heavily protested. As usual, Dan Hodapp of Freemasonry for Dummies has a good report on the issue: http://freemasonsfordummies.blogspot.com/2016/03/a-reflection-on-what-is-now-tearing-us.html
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2016 21:50
|
|