|
My thoughts on one day classes are similar to the above. At my mother lodge in Ohio I know they are a bit controversial, to put it lightly. Essentially, it's seen there as a cash grab by the Grand Lodge. More problematic, there are claims that the investigations and so on are waived, or that members are made Masons by the Grand Lodge without adequate screening. If that's true, then perhaps it's an accurate perception, but I've seen no evidence of the same. I also see talk about it "cheapening" the degrees. This largely depends, I believe. If it is a single person being put through the degrees in one day, that's no problem. I do feel that the mass production method where they basically slide-show the men through everything but the obligation is less involved and so tangibly different and yes, perhaps "cheaper" than having the guy in the thick of things. I think that suspense, uncertainty, even fear and confusion are important parts of the initiatic experience in general and while I don't support "hazing" or shenanigans during degrees, I do feel like it should be an ordeal of sorts. I have known two brothers who went through one day classes. One of them was the Junior Deacon at my mother lodge while I was there. He had been put through in a one day class from the Grand Lodge but was terribly inactive after that. He eventually decided to come back for more and we started him through the chairs. He was at a disadvantage for a while because he didn't know what the degrees looked like properly, but he did fine in office and was a good Mason. The second brother is the Tyler of my current lodge. He was made a Mason in one day because he was deploying in the military, which is not historically uncommon. Much to his credit, when he came home he attended the catechism classes and gave back his work along with a group of new Masons going through the degrees. I think that is an awesome sign of devotion to the craft. He did so quite well, but he had to show his own initiative and ask to be able to do it that way. I would recommend to most men to do it the old fashioned way, unless there are exigent circumstances that indicate doing it in a day. Ultimately though I don't mind it, a Mason is not made on a piece of paper in a wallet. Do whatever works.
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2013 17:30
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 20:14 |
|
|
QPZIL posted:I don't have an exact answer, but my guess is "wah, wah, the Americans are ripping off our ancient order of dress-up knights Not likely. Chances are good this has to do with the Grand Encampment's actions surrounding and involving the troubles with the CBCS (Chevaliers Bienfaisants de la Cité Sainte, or Knights Beneficent of the Holy City) organization semi-within York Rite Masonry. In essence, there exists an organization in the US called the Grand Priory of America, CBCS (formally Grand Priory of the Reformed and Rectified Rite of the United States of America, CBCS) since 1934 with a charter to work from CBCS Switzerland. This organization is invitation only and has by charter no more than 81 members total even allowed. Nevertheless, Grand Encampment got in a spat with them over whether they have the right to confer Templar degrees, since they were chartered by another recognized Templar body. As a result, Grand Priory of America basically said "we don't do degrees, we're just a social club," despite having a charter from a Templar body entitling them to perform the Rectified Rite degrees. And so it stayed as a social club until 2009 when some American brothers received the degrees of the Rectified Rite that the GPA had the authority to issue (but claimed not to) in the UK, and so they called out the UK Grand Encampment for jurisdictional shenanigans. This caused the US Grand Encampment to call out the GPA for conferring degrees, and withdraw recognition of the Swiss-chartered GPA. Then the French showed up. The French Grand Prieure Ecossais Reforme et Rectifie d'Occitanie granted a charter to the Grand Encampment USA to establish under their own umbrella the "Grand Priory of the Reformed and Rectified Rite of the USA." The issue? The French Grand Priory was formed by Masons under the Grand Loge Nationale Française, which is clandestine. There's been some other drama with Grand Lodges in the US withdrawing recognition from the newly formed GPA CBCS under that French charter because of an incident where a Grand Master visiting a Grand Communication for another Grand Lodge told the Grand Master of his own jurisdiction that if he didn't bar a member who was part of the Rectified Rite from attending his own communication that they would withdraw recognition. This prompted the Commission on Recognition to start decreeing appendant bodies irregular, which doesn't even make sense. But yeah, my guess is that Grand Encampment UK is proposing to withdraw recognition from Grand Encampment USA because at least one part of Grand Encampment USA (the part conferring Rectified Rite degrees) is operating under a charter from a Grand Priory composed of clandestine Masons. Paramemetic fucked around with this message at 16:35 on Mar 19, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2013 16:05
|
|
"
|
Effingham posted:Question -- does one need to first incapacitate the follower in some way, or is it assumed that they will claw their way back off of the coffin? Of course we incapacitate the follower before the ritual. What kind of barbarians do you think we are, that we'd risk their escape? The means of incapacitation is of course a secret.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2013 22:13
|
|
|
The combination of the letter, your MM certificate, and the usual ceremonies should be fine. Dues card checking is expedient but it's not necessary. However, be advised that a good few of our tokens and signs and passwords may differ from yours. Just give yours, and explain they're different if you must. When I traveled in Ireland I just had a letter of introduction from my grand lodge and when I was tested several due guards and sign were different, but they were similar enough and the Tyler fortunately new they would be different.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2013 16:26
|
|
|
Carbolic posted:I haven't presented any argument. I'm asking questions because I'm curious whether members of a particular fraternity (the Masons) see any parallels between a fraternity and a "whites only" organization, and whether they think that posterity will view fraternities in the same light as "whites only" organizations are viewed by most of society now. I don't believe these questions been asked in this thread before. I agree with Lovable Luciferian that these can be considered loaded questions but I can't really think of a more polite way to ask. This is, after all, an "Ask us" thread. Given this, I'll go ahead and answer. I had refrained before because it seemed like the kind of "gotcha" setup one sees all too often, meant not to earnestly inquire but to push an agenda. So, firstly, I do not see any parallels between a fraternity only allowing men to join and a "whites only" organization that only allowed whites to do whatever. There are a few reasons for this. The primary one is that race and gender are not analogous, and not equivalent. Whereas one would have a hard time demonstrating that one race to another is substantially different aside from superficial traits and cultural experiences, it is trivial to demonstrate significant differences between men and women. Further, even though I reject major gender differences that matter, and I don't adhere to any ideas of "women like such and such and men like so and so" as a rule, as an observation I see differences, created by society, in how such groups operate. In either case, on principle I have no problem with women doing Masonic-like things. If someone broke their oath and taught women all about Masonry, I'd have no problem with the women, and though I'd not recognize them as my brothers, I'd not harbor ill will. As for the man who broke that oath, I'd see him as an oathbreaker. So there's that. Another issue is that I do believe in a degree of freedom of association. That is, Masonry is not a governmental institution. It's a fraternity. It is, if we want to push the case, an esoteric society which claims to be in possession of certain truths which truths hone good men into better men. I don't think I give up the game much to say that it has some vague relations to Rosicrucian thinking, and it is somewhat shallow as far as esotericism goes compared to what I think some people hype it. In any case, it is not the kind of organization that I think we need to be breaking down barriers in. Women being excluded from this club is no different from the fact that I can't join the Junior League, and I'm quite fine with that. I do not think it is a social justice issue that I might want to have this as a men's club sort of thing. Is there an earth-shattering, deeply seated misogyny in this thinking? I don't believe so. For what it's worth, I also think that whites only organizations which define themselves as such (usually for the purpose of being such) are somehow inherently bad, though again the metaphor breaks down quite a bit because usually organizations with racist rules are racist, and there is no utility it racism. I don't think having a club for men that doesn't allow women to join is sexist. That might be because I am a sexist, I don't know. I'll address this point a bit more below. quote:There have been a couple of mentions in the thread about a former "whites only" rule as well as one mention of a former "no maimed man" rule. I'd be curious to hear more about those rules, how widely adopted they were, and how they were changed -- and what made those rules different from the immutable "no women" or "must profess belief in God" rules. The OP mentions a historical schism that resulted in parallel sets of lodges between white Masons and black Masons but it is not clear whether this arose from de facto or de jure discrimination. There is not and never has been a "whites only" rule in regular Masonry. Masonry has always accepted all men as equal regardless of color, nationality, or creed. However, a fundamental practice of Masonry is that members must be approved by unanimous ballot. That has led to a sort of functional, institutional racism in states where there are likely to be a lot of racists. Further, there is a rule that only "free born" people can join. Some of those aforementioned racists have used this rule to justify their racism ("African Americans are descendant from slaves so they aren't free born" or somesuch). That does not mean that it is a rule within Masonry, it simply means that not every Mason so boldly upholds the ideals that Masonry means to impart. The existence of the Prince Hall Lodges has led to exacerbate this problem exactly because it has created a general opinion of "our Masonry" and "their Masonry" and it's an unfortunate schism. Some Lodges and Grand Lodges have done a lot of work to bridge that gap, and that is wonderful. But regardless, it is false to say there was a "whites only" rule in Masonry. There are bigoted Masons, and because those bigoted Masons have a right to veto each and every applicant to their Lodge, there exist some functionally racist Lodges, but it's not about Masonry, and it's not a rule. As for the rule about "no maimed man," the difference there is that this rule is not a Landmark. It worked its way into the general ritual, but it's not really understood to be immutable. Further, it doesn't exist everywhere. I know of only one Grand Lodge which absolutely refuses anyone with a physical deformity (West Virginia, bah gawd). Generally this rule existed because Masonry served in essence as health and life insurance for many of its members for many hundreds of years. A man would join a Lodge and it was understood and indeed practiced that should he become sick and unable to work, the Lodge would provide for him, his spouse, and his children, and should he pass on, the Lodge would continue to provide for his widow and children. For this reason, accepting a man who was deformed or maimed, which in the 1700s when speculative Masonry became a thing meant essentially that that man could not work, would be problematic, taxing on the Lodge. Egalitarian though Masonry is, it's not really communist. Even today, when I first applied to Masonry, a question I was asked was whether or not I had adequate means to provide for my wife should I pass away in an untimely fashion. This was because it is a legitimate consideration for an organization that takes care of its own. In any case, on the second part, how do I think society will see Masonry in 100 years regarding this question of women? I think it will look on Masonry the same as it looks on the Junior League, or the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts, or, hell, sports teams. I don't think that this is even a reasonable question with regards to feminism. Hell, I might even consider it a slightly spiteful application of feminism. Institutional sexism is a very real thing, and women face very real obstacles to equality in many areas. Not being able to join a fraternity is not one of those, and diminishes fights regarding wage equality, political power differences, good old boys establishments in workplaces, and cultural ideas. Choosing this particular fight to fight seems petty, and I don't understand why it would be fought in the first place. Masonry is not a University through which men can pass and women cannot. It is not a glass ceiling that must be broken to allow women to fully exist. And it's not even like it is protecting anything really - there already exist Masonic Lodges that allow women to join. They are not regular, but then, this shouldn't bother a woman anyways, because why should she need the approval of the patriarchal regular UGLE? So, that is essentially what it boils down to. Women are not able to be made Masons, but I don't care if they want to join Co-Masonic Lodges and be pretend-Masons. I don't think that women should be allowed to become Masons, but this is mainly because I don't think it's a fight worth fighting. Fortunately, it's not a thing that can even happen, so I never have to deal with confronting whether or not I would be okay with a woman in Lodge. I don't see what difference it would make, frankly, but it would be strange, and different, which is not really what I want when I go to this meeting of an organization that prides itself on hundreds of years of tradition, though I don't think tradition alone should justify sexism, but then, I don't think it's sexist, so. . . And I don't think society will frown on this because I think it is a non-issue, and if it were to become a major issue, I suppose I should rejoice as it would mean we've come a long way in 100 years.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2013 04:03
|
|
|
Lovable Luciferian posted:In regards to black men and Prince Hall lodges: that was and still is a massive clusterfuck. I've heard theories that Prince Hall lodges were rejected because at the time regular grand lodges in the United States thought their charter was bogus, which seems to be the prevailing theory today. Why they haven't been fully recognized and are still not recognized in some states seems to boil down to two main things in my view. The first of which being old racist bastards don't want to let them in. The second being a very weird issue of jurisdiction. We don't seem to like having two grand lodges in the same geographical region and the Prince Hall lodges in the united states want to keep their own grand lodges. Also many Prince Hall lodges don't want to become fully integrated with us. Just to speak to this on a Masonic level (heh), the issue with Prince Hall Lodges has always been one of charter and jurisdiction. The Prince Hall Lodges grow from, understandably, Prince Hall, a free born African American in the 1770s who sought, along with other African Americans, to join Masonry. The Boston Lodge they petitioned did not permit them join, which was a sad state of affairs but perhaps not unpredictable. In fact, the most surprising part of the story is likely that they were all conferred the Masonic degrees by members of Irish Lodge No. 441, stationed nearby, and then granted a charter by the Grand Lodge of Ireland to have a lodge, meet, perform funerals, and so on, but explicitly not to confer degrees. When the Antients and Moderns merged in England, African Lodge No. 1 was derecognized along with a lot of other American lodges. African Lodge No. 1 went to the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts, but was not permitted a charter. Being a Lodge with no Grand Lodge, but with a legal charter from Grand Lodge of Ireland, they declared themselves their own Grand Lodge, and went from there. The technical bits come in with the idea of geographic jurisdiction. Historically, Grand Lodges gain their jurisdictions from geographical landmarks, however anymore they use "common sense" political boundaries. No two Grand Lodges could have authority in the same area, because that would create two Grand Masters with equivalent authority which creates problems. So until very recently, those two lodges simply didn't recognize one another. The "regular" Grand Lodge and the Prince Hall Grand Lodge both claimed total jurisdiction, regarded their opposition as clandestine, and operated normally. For the most part this worked just fine, as African American men would be more likely to join Masonry by way of their African American friends and the same with White Americans (amusingly, when a black friend of my wife a few months ago heard that I was a Mason, he was legit shocked to find out that there are White Masons, so this is still a thing). But this issue is now largely resolved through mutual recognition agreements as well as agreements delineating who has jurisdiction over whom. The Prince Hall Lodges as a rule don't want to integrate because doing so would end a traditional line. Their story is fascinating and culturally important, and having them merge is like saying "great, good job continuing Masonic tradition for over 200 years! But now you can come join the white people lodges so forget all that." I can't blame them. "Way to be independent for 200 years, now give up your grand lodge and join us" is a pretty lovely way to do it. The few states that still don't recognize their Prince Hall Grand Lodge equivalents, by the way, are all in the South. I do believe that it is some kind of racist poo poo wrapped up in a "nah, we don't recognize your jurisdictional claim" wrapper to make it seem less racist, but I don't have any way to prove that and I don't intend to, as those aren't my Grand Lodges and so I don't have a dog in that fight. I hope they all find happiness, be that through integration, recognition, or just maintaining the status quo.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2013 04:21
|
|
|
Aureus posted:Yeah I defintely don't remember anything verifying my sex when I went through the degrees. It isn't put to you as such, but it is the original rationale for some aspects of the manner of dress.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2013 03:12
|
|
|
Carbolic posted:Race and sex may be different kind of differences, but I am curious how/why the differences created by sex are considered so fundamental to what it means to be a Mason (apart from the bare definition of a Mason as having to be a man). I've seen allusions to rituals which presumably have some sort of physical component to them, but I guess I am not understanding why, if Masonry is about making men better, it can't also be about improving women and instilling virtues in them too. If being a Mason is so great, wouldn't you want to share it? It just seems like the more Masonry is awesome, the worse the reasons are to keep it a boys' club only. It isn't being "kept from" because Masonry hardly has the monopoly on this sort of thing. There are other organizations. And again, I don't think there's any particular reason other than the reasons already discussed at length. It would tangibly change the flavor of things, it is literally impossible to make the change and remain Masons, etc. are all compelling reasons why this is not a thing I have devoted particular mental energy to. quote:Do you think that it is possible that a hundred years from now, this same logic will be used to explain why the "no women" rule wasn't really a rule, it was just something everyone did until they knew better? Sort of like how (and I wish I had a less provocative example) 150 years ago it was commonplace in mainstream Christianity in the U.S. to use the Bible to justify slavery, but now, it's accepted by everyone that the Bible (which hasn't changed) didn't really mean that. No, not likely. A hundred years from now Masonry will continue to be a men's organization which allows only men, or Masonry will simply not exist, and there is no possibility for it to go any other way. Any Mason who is present at making a woman a Mason is no longer a Mason tautologically, and so the whole point is moot. I hope, again, that 100 years from now there are more important things being made. quote:Would you acknowledge that there is a certain element of "separate but equal" in your argument? i.e. there's nothing wrong with women, I just don't want them in my club / drinking from my water fountain? (Again, I am not calling you a bigot, I am just trying to show that the logic here is familiar.) I get that you don't think gaining membership in a particular private club is an earthshattering achievement for women, but (1) would you not agree that advancing women's equality in one area of society can have collateral benefits in other areas of society? (2) does the argument that there are bigger priorities out there really justify arguing that smaller problems (if you think they are problems, and I realize you don't) shouldn't be fixed? If I could pick voting vs. using the same water fountain as someone else, I'd pick voting, but do I have to pick only one? No, I don't agree there is an element of separate but equal here. This is not a matter of "we don't want to share what we have, but they can have something of their own if they want." I am curious to hear your answer to the question asked you above about whether or not you think there is any occasion where it is reasonable or acceptable to have groups which separate in any way? I mean, avoiding any question of tradition, because I don't think an appeal to tradition is particularly compelling, and sometimes traditions are simply wrong, the point is more that I see no reason for this reform. It's not a civil rights barrier. It comes very much down to a question of right to assemble. Masonry is not a good or service that is being denied to a demographic, at least not legally (esoterically, perhaps, but that's suspect). It is an assembly, a group, a club, and if we want to get right down to brass tacks, I think that the right for human beings to assemble with people with whom they want to assemble, and to not be forced to assemble with those with whom they do not wish to assemble, in their own property, on their own time, trumps the right of the individual to be allowed to join an assembly against the will of the majority. I think there is a right of association, a right to privacy, that determines that men (and women!) should have the right to not have people foisted into their social group. Certainly this is not true with regards to governmental organizations, or non-governmental organizations which perform certain essential services, and so on. The distinction is fairly common-sense, though. Do you think that boy's schools must admit females? What about girl's schools, must they admit boys? Should men be allowed to become nuns? What about women becoming priests? And rather than make this a question of your opinion, rather I am asking do you believe that either society as a majority-consensus or via the arm of government should have the capacity to compel organizations or individuals to give up those rights of association, privacy, and so on? That's what I'm fundamentally questioning. It is not a question on womanhood, or even about Masonry in particular, but more now I'm abstracting to hear your viewpoint on this. You seem interested in the perspective 100 years from now, and I ask myself, 100 years from now, will we value our right to decide with whom we choose to meet, or egalitarianism more, and can we have one without the other? I know this is a bit extreme because you're not proposing that we should be forced to comply with this, but rather that Masonry as a whole should (impossibly, by virtue of its structure and content) unanimously decide to betray its fundamental principles and allow women (and atheists, etc.) to join. But still, I am trying to demonstrate that even the very insistence of the question belies a sort of distrust in our ability to decide with whom we freely associate, and charges our choice to spend a nice evening wearing suits and voting to pay the bills in the absence of women with accusations of misogyny and patriarchy. As Bro. Wafflehound so keenly points out, under all the pomp and circumstance, sometimes dudes just want to get away from their wives. As to the second part of this paragraph, I don't believe this is an issue of "you should fight the harder battles and ignore the lesser ones," and if you got that impression I probably failed to adequately develop the point I was trying to make, which is that because this is so trivial a thing, because it is essentially meaningless and in fact does not advance the women's movement at all, that in 100 years when Sexism Is Over, nobody will care. It is a non-issue that has become an issue out of fervency or zeal. My hope is that in 100 years, or at whatever arbitrary point the cause of liberal progress and civil rights and equal human rights are solved, people will look back at this entire question and go "who cares if women can join a particular club?" Because I don't see Masonry's traditional gender requirement as an act of patriarchal aggression, though I understand fully why it might be confused for the same if one is looking to find it. quote:Thanks for answering my questions. As you can tell, I fundamentally do not share your worldview, but it is interesting to explore it. I don't think it's necessarily accurate to say you fundamentally don't share my worldview (I don't know, you might not, but I don't know your worldview writ large enough to know), and I don't think this is a worldview issue. I am very much pro-feminist, though I would not call myself a feminist because I know I have habits and learned behaviors that are misogynistic. I support civil rights movements of all sorts, I attempt wholly to be mindful of bigotry, I strongly advocate for equal human rights and for compassion and loving-kindness towards all people. Through this lens, I don't see this "fight" as being an actual fight because the entire cause of civil rights and human rights advocacy becomes a failure the moment we start stripping rights from one group to give them to another. It is one thing to take privilege or undue influence from one group to give it to another, to level a playing field and to promote justice such that we treat each person equally with respect to their relevant differences. It is quite another when we strip the one group of rights to give perceived-rights to another group. If we, say, give women the right to vote, this does not take anything away from men except a monopoly on politics. If we give gay people the right to marry, this does not take away any of the rights of straight people. If we take taxes and redistribute that money in programs that help those who have no money to take, one could argue it strips people of property, but I would argue that it does not affect their right to property, and further, it does not actually burden them, and so this is just as we look with respect to relevant differences. However, if we take away the rights of one group to determine with whom they may socialize, and then give them to another group saying "ah, women, you have the right to join this club now. Men, you no longer have the right to choose who can be in your club" then this is in fact an injustice, this is in fact taking away rights, not benefiting anyone. So I think we need to be careful, when in our zeal to make the world better for some people, that we do not trample on the rights of others along the way. Paramemetic fucked around with this message at 07:17 on Apr 9, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2013 07:15
|
|
|
SimonChris posted:Actually, the English Emulation ritual does not contain any oath not to allow woman/atheists/etc. to be Freemasons. I'm pretty sure that's mostly an American thing. This may be true, but it doesn't change the fact of it being impossible then to make these changes in the Americas, it doesn't change that it is a Landmark, and it doesn't change the impossibility of the thing due to the web of recognition. I believe but am not certain that the woman/atheist bits are included in English Emulation, but may not be hidden the same place. WAFFLEHOUND posted:I have no idea what this is. Set of degrees practiced in some regular Lodges. I had occasion to observe an English Emulation 3rd Degree, and I think many Brethren would be perhaps startled and unnerved by how different it is from the more familiar degree. After the degree I had to make triple sure that I hadn't just attended a clandestine meeting.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2013 17:17
|
|
|
WAFFLEHOUND posted:Shrine, but that's incidental to consumption. This just shows the Shrine is even more reckless than I thought. I mean, getting people naked is one thing, but doing it because of consumption is just out of line. They need to be quarantined, not stripped. You can't decontaminate a lunger that way.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 11, 2013 05:37
|
|
|
Mr. Maltose posted:Go convince a couple thousand crotchety old men to let women into their secret club and then you can be a Mason. Until then, you can't be a Mason. Unless you want to be a French Mason. A few million crotchety old men, actually. 1.3 million in the US alone, 800,000 or so in Canada, and that's not even looking at UK/Ireland and Europe.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 14, 2013 23:05
|
|
|
Starks posted:It doesnt change your argument but there is no way that Canada number is right. That would mean about 1 in 40 canadians are freemasons. And once you consider the fact that women cant join that number seems even more ridiculous. No you're right, I accidentally added a zero there in my head. There are about 80,000 Masons in Canada.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2013 00:33
|
|
|
Rapdawg posted:Thats what I love about the world. Some people sit in their basements spending hours writing long blog posts about how masons are using Lady Gaga to brainwash people while the majority of masons are probably at home watching The Real Housewives of Atlanta or reading a book. Kyoon is one of my favorite posters, but it's not because he's close to the truth. I love conspiracy theories about Masons, hell, conspiracy theories in general, because people are just people. Even Masons, trilateral commission members, politicians, diplomats, they're all just people. I'm a Freemason and I spend most of my day lazily putting off things I need to be doing, sometimes doing things I need to be doing, and not at all running the world. Kyoon is the best.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2013 19:29
|
|
|
We don't even have enough bankers in our Lodge to put one on the finance committee.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2013 20:27
|
|
|
I've always written it as something like H:.A:. or M:.M:.. I also like .'. but it's not a dot up top properly. It's actually much, much more prevalent in old cyphers and is also used by the Golden Dawn and some other Hermetic organizations. Most importantly, it's featured in our smiley.  Edit: QPZIL posted:In other news, I've been sort of put in charge of Masonic education at my York Rite meeting last night This is what happens when you literally write the book on something.
|
|
#
¿
May 3, 2013 03:52
|
|
|
7thBatallion posted:A man died tonight. Suicide. I'll never know what went through his mind, nor how long he has planned this. Odds are I know him maybe in passing, maybe he's one of my drinking buddies. All I know is it was in my neighborhood. If I can get time off work, I plan on attending his funeral. A suicide is a sad thing, and even if I'm the only person there, even if I can't say a single thing about him, he was someone I've no doubt run across, and by that, it is my duty to pay my respects. Is the funeral going to be a masonic funeral? If not it would be, I think, inappropriate. I also agree with two of Keetron's points being that you should contact the family to see if you'd be appreciated there, or if you can't contact them, show up, pay your respects, and bounce. I do not think, however, that you should wear an apron, because that is generally reserved for lodge functions and Masonic funerals, and also because if I'm not mistaken you're an Entered Apprentice. In the US it is generally true that you cannot "appear in public" as a Mason until you've been raised to the third degree. That may be different in your jurisdiction, so refer to local protocols. This also applies to lapel pins and rings. If you want to go to a funeral to pay your respects, you should do so, and I applaud that decision. But do so as yourself. I see no way in which wearing the badge of a Mason should change that experience except to make everyone else there aware of it, perhaps uncomfortably, and to, in the worst case, create the impression that Masons are creepy dudes who crash funerals. Even in a better case, it would merely lead to people asking about your apron, or asking about Masonry, or asking about you, and that does a disservice to the deceased and his family.
|
|
#
¿
May 3, 2013 15:29
|
|
|
West Virginia still legit excludes people based on physical deformity. The traditional justification for this is quite straightforward, and it is that it was not believed to be fair that Freemasonry long predates things like welfare, social services of any type, or even health insurance or disability insurance. As such, Masonry was those things to the members in the early days. A Mason could expect to be supported by his brothers if he became unable to work. His children and wife could expect the same thing. Clauses disallowing the disabled existed so as not to put undue financial burden on their brothers, creating bad blood or so on. Naturally many Masons were philanthropists who would help this person anyhow, but consider it something of a pre-existing conditions clause. That said most states now adopt a rather liberal interpretation of sound mind and body. Many lodges are more than happy to accept the war wounded or physically disabled (though some are not). No lodge would ever kick out a brother who was injured after becoming a brother, and for this reason many lodges and even grand lodges will put a man through the work immediately, even making them a Mason on Sight or performing a one day class, if they are about to go to war. As for the free born bit, every Lodge I know of at this point would consider "free born" in a broader philosophical sense of "all men are free," but historically this was meant to exclude slaves for a variety of reasons including that a slave was not considered to have the agency to take the oaths involved, that financial obligations and so on taken by slaves could not be held to them but rather to their masters, and that a slave could not morally disobey an order from his master to reveal the secrets of freemasonry. Secrecy is the primary drive behind almost all these things, after all, and the latter point is considered the most poignant. Masonry today does not endorse things like slavery, but in the 1600-1700s, it did firmly believe in things like morals of station, concepts like noblesse oblige, the moral duty of loyalty in slaves and servants, and so on. So Masonry could not at that point in good faith put a slave in such a condition that he may be ordered by his master to reveal the secrets of Freemasonry, or in any such situation that could be so compromising. This is needless to say not the case today, and as I said, most lodges are happy to accept the idea that no man can be born in any condition other than free. As to the other points, they have been labored to death. Let us leave it at: we exist to rule the world, very slowly, and that's why Bitcoin must be stopped.
|
|
#
¿
May 15, 2013 17:58
|
|
|
You know what, I lay it super heavy on the controversy in the OP. Does anyone want to detail all the good things their Lodge does with regard to charity and so on, so I can include these kinds of things in the OP as well? Aside from the obvious like the Shrine Hospitals, iCARE from the Scottish Rite, and all the Masonic Retirement Homes, my Lodge engages in personal charity to people who are in need in the community and are brought to our attention. Maryland also participates in MASONIChip and so on. I know many of the lodges in other countries are actually part of social services - in Ireland they pay quite a bit in donations to underwrite welfare programs, and I imagine it's also such in Australia? I have always been blown away by the amount of money donated by Masons in the UK and Ireland relative to the US, where our dues mainly go towards keeping the building running.
|
|
#
¿
May 15, 2013 18:05
|
|
|
Crankit posted:Well, in that light the slavery thing makes more sense and doesn't sound so bad. On the subject of physical deformity in West Virginia that's pretty awful have any of you guys written them a letter, or gone up the chain of command to let them know that the rest of you have moved on and so should they? A recent Grand Master of West Virginia changed those things, and then the guy that replaced him reverted it all and kicked him out by edict. There is no accountability at the Grand Lodge level, the Grand Master has absolute authority in his jurisdiction. This is by design, not by accident, but sometimes it does cause issues. West Virginia is also among the very few Grand Lodges that do not formally recognize their Prince Hall counterparts. All we can do is wait, because the web of fraternal recognition is complicated and it is not our place outside WV to tell people inside WV how they are allowed to run their lodges. The chain of command is internal to each Grand Lodge, so nobody outside WV has any authority over the Grand Master of WV inside WV. Grand Masters have a considerable amount of authority. As a fun anecdote, the old GM of WV (the one who got the boot after making reforms, Frank Haas, who I believe is no longer a brother, sadly), on a trip to Scotland with a team, wanted to practice the degree before they left. He had called ahead to Newark International Airport and reserved a room, which, after he and the team got there, he declared jurisdiction over, chartered, consecrated, and opened lodge by Edict in that room. After they were done he revoked the charter, relinquished jurisdiction, and so on. He could do that because he was Grand Master, and has unequaled Masonic authority. Crankit posted:I was under the impression that sexism was discrimination against women, you're in an organisation that disallows (i.e. discrimnates against someone) because they are women (i.e. sex based discrimination). Is it discriminating if I don't let you stand in the bathroom while I'm taking a whiz? What if you're a woman? What if it's a men's restroom in a public place? What if it's not a men's restroom in public, but is actually my restroom in my apartment? I mean I know this is a provocative and somewhat dismissive answer, but you're making the argument that it is sexual discrimination to disallow people from participating in a private function comprised of private membership on private property for private reasons, because the person being disallowed is a woman. You know nothing of the reasons for the decision to not allow women (they have been battered to death in this thread so far), but in your self-righteousness you see fit to insist that it definitely is wrong that such is the case anyhow. It creates the implication that you value a woman's right to . . . be a member of a social club? Over our right to privacy and our right to association. It is amusingly paradoxical that in a crusade to create equal rights for women, you would deny other people the right to privacy or to association. The courts have widely upheld that truly private clubs, that is, clubs that have genuine membership criteria which are not open to the public, which not just anybody can join, have the absolute right to disallow people based on things like gender because of a constitutionally guaranteed right to freedom of association. Without getting into the "should" of this situation, because it is immutable regardless(as is discussed prior in the thread), the fact is it is certainly legal, and not really as barbaric as you would make it out to be. Women should certainly not be discriminated against, but alas, a woman's right to join a club should not impinge on the rights of men to not be forced by coercion to allow those women in a club. Just as I can't join the Junior League or the League of Woman Voters or the National Organization for Women or the Pythian Sisters or whatever else, and nor should I want to, women are not allowed to join Regular Freemasonry for reasons that are entirely procedural and historical and not at all based on some kind of "psh, women aren't worthy" thinking that you would imply is the only possibly reason for disallowing women from membership. And besides, it's not as if there aren't irregular lodges that women can join. If a woman really wants the Masonic experience or whatever, she's welcome to join a Co-Masonic Lodge or a Continental Lodge. She just won't be regarded as a Mason by myself or any other regular Masons. Edit: Or just pretend that we're holding meetings of GROSS. It's whatever, we literally cannot change this ancient landmark of our order which has been law for 400 years and became procedurally indelible in the early 1700s, so if you have to think less of us for that I mean that's your thing. 
Paramemetic fucked around with this message at 19:56 on May 15, 2013 |
|
#
¿
May 15, 2013 19:38
|
|
|
Carbolic posted:That all sounds like a great reason why someone couldn't be a slave when they joined, but doesn't explain why they couldn't have been born a slave. 18th and 19th century racial attitudes being what they were, I'd be shocked if keeping out black people wasn't the true motive when the rule was first created. Except those particular rules are pretty old. In fact, the oldest existing Masonic document, the Regius Poem, written in 1390, states The Oldest Masonic Document, written circa 1390 posted:The fourth article this must be, So I mean, while the particular "freeborn" language may be somewhat new, it is essentially founded in principles dating to even the 14th century. And I think we can be in agreement that 18th and 19th century racial attitudes being what they were is moot when the "freeborn" stuff comes from the 14th century, especially when the 14th century document pretty well describes the reasoning (a slave or bondsman summoned by his master would have do go despite being apprenticed to a master mason). quote:A brief Web search suggests that the rule is interpreted by some, even today, to include all descendants of slaves as well. Thankfully that seems to be a fringe attitude. Pretty abhorrent stuff, but alas, while I would vouch for any brother as my own, I cannot say that every brother Mason is a saint to a man. I can say that I wish they were, and consider them to be, but I cannot avow it's true.
|
|
#
¿
May 18, 2013 04:47
|
|
|
Carbolic posted:If someone went to jail would you suspend them from the lodge and/or revoke their status? What if they were on probation or out on bail? Yes, most lodges in the US will automatically expel a person who is convicted of a felony, some a misdemeanor of vice. quote:The poem is an interesting document. The rules seem to have been radically changed and reduced, from 15 down to 4. The rules from the Regius Poem are not merely to join Masonry, but also include rules for Master Masons to follow. In fact there are fewer of them than there are in speculative Masonry. So there are more than 4 because those 4 in the OP are general requirements to get your foot in the door, which do not include the obligations or rules of conduct provided after you're initiated. quote:The only correlation at all between the two sets is that iii seems to match up with 1 and 15. And possibly iv relates to 2, although it seems likely "congregation" meant a gathering of master masons and not a religious congregation. And, as discussed above, ii is like 4 and 11, except that the new rule looks at your status when you were born, rather than when you become a Mason. New rule i has no correlation at all, and in fact Article 10 expressly contemplates treating fellow masons like "sisters". The "sisters" bit I would assume to be related to 14th century rules where a woman was considered the same as her husband but I profess no knowledge here. I don't believe women could be masons (or any other kind of professional) in the 1390s, but I could very well be mistaken. The thing about the Regius Document is it very much applies to operative Masons, and predates the formation of so called "speculative Masonry" which is what happened when Freemasons stopped needing to be literal stoneworkers. So many of its rules remain the same because speculative Masonry developed out of operative Masonry, but many change to suit (for example: we don't need to take an apprentice). Before this becomes a "so why can't you change rules now?," it would boil down again to the method and words of obligations and such and is simply not doable, whereas nobody was taking an oath to never change the Regius Poem. Also, as to the "assuming it's legit," it is legit, but it may be as late as 1425. It's the oldest piece of Masonic writing known right now. There are however minutes back to the 1400s in some lodges, and grand lodge assemblies back to the 1600s. Much of this blurs between operative and speculative, lending some credibility to the understanding that it sort of happened in tandem.
|
|
#
¿
May 18, 2013 17:07
|
|
|
Colton posted:I thought i would be "screened" or something more than just shooting the breeze with two old veterans. It was like talking to my great uncles. You were. Not every screening needs to be a questionnaire. Just talking to a dude is the best way to get to know anyone, in my opinion. That plus anyone who works in the brood chambers gets fitted with a telepathic receiver.
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2013 04:27
|
|
|
ashgromnies posted:Paramemetic, would you mind describing your religious beliefs a bit? I suppose not, I wonder why you're asking me specifically though? I'm a Buddhist, and specifically I practice Vajrayana. So essentially I believe that we exist in a state of suffering brought about by our attachments, aversions, and ignorance, and that by cessation of those attachments, aversions, and ignorance we can end our state of suffering. The way to end this suffering is practicing Buddhadharma, and specifically the noble eightfold path. With regards to Masonry, I should first qualify that my beliefs were at the time I was made a Mason a bit more vague, sort of Rosicrucian-y and without terms for things. However, I am still able to reconcile what I practice now with these beliefs (they evolved, rather than becoming contradictory). For example, I believe in a Supreme Being, which in Buddhism is called Dharmakaya. There is some controversy with me over the "resurrection of the body" bit because in Ohio, where I was made a Mason, there is no such requirement. Had that been required of me before, I may never have been made a Mason, as I cannot reconcile that with obvious impermanence of all composite forms.
|
|
#
¿
May 25, 2013 12:17
|
|
|
ashgromnies posted:I was asking because I was familiar with your posting in the Buddhist thread and was surprised to see you saying that as a Mason you believed in a supreme being. Thanks for answering. I am slightly confused by your interpretation of dharmakaya from my understanding of it but I know very little about vajrayana. That's certainly fair and why I had figured you'd asked. For my interpretation of Dharmakaya, I will first caveat that it is not quite the same as a Supreme Being in the conventional sense, but I do believe it works closely enough, seeing as rough concepts such as a philosopher's God can pass muster. From Wikipedia, a concise definition of Dharmakaya as I'm using it here is "[T]he ultimate nature or essence of the enlightened mind [byang-chub sems], which is uncreated (skye-med), free from the limits of conceptual elaboration (spros-pa'i mtha'-bral), empty of inherent existence (rang-bzhin-gyis stong-pa), naturally radiant, beyond duality and spacious like the sky. The intermediate state of the time of death ('chi-kha'i bar-do) is considered to be an optimum time for the realisation of the Buddha-body of Reality." That's close enough to the use of Supreme Being for me to consider viable. There is also sometimes Masonically an emphasis on a "Great Architect of the Universe" which I can regard as the Emptiness from which all physical phenomena arise. Thanks for the question, though. Do you have PMs, that we can continue this further there if you'd like?
|
|
#
¿
May 26, 2013 13:24
|
|
|
In terms of general gently caress Floridary, I will point out that the Grand Master's edict regarding religions and such that was the point of contention before was overturned.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 22, 2013 23:13
|
|
|
I work at a juvenile residential treatment center. The other day, I was having a heart to heart over some treatment goal stuff with a 14 year old male resident, who saw my masonic ring. He asked me what the ring was, I told him my basic throwaway answer for when it's not a topic that should be explored at the time, "it's for my fraternity." He responded "let me guess, you're a bunch of math nerds?" Cracked me right up.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 23, 2013 04:06
|
|
|
Amyclas posted:Not sure if this has been asked before, but: Well you see, through our strategic sleeper agents in big banking and in the government, as well as our unilateral control over the NSA, we've been slowly subverting the blockchain, using the Reptilian-designed quantum computers to break SHA-256 in order to allow us to both control all Bitcoin accounts but also access any encrypted communication worldwide. All computers actually have a fancy chip on them that lets us use them for our distributed supercomputing necessary to keep the Yerk pools running. That's part of why Avalon Miners were able to ship so rapidly, they complied with this directive, whereas BFL has had significant . . . issues as a result of their disobedience. As for why, well, why not? You don't become a super powerful secret society by not controlling the currency! It's a combination reference to a song on an episode of the Simpsons that parodies Freemasonry, and the fact that around 2011 when Bitcoin was just starting to hit peak comedy, a lot of them legitimately believed that anyone who spoke ill of Bitcoins on or around their little Bitcoin forums was a Freemason/CIA/Illuminati sleeper agent. This was accompanied with all the normal conspiracy theory stuff about how Masons control the banks and all the world governments and we know Bitcoin is a disruptive technology that could end all of our plans or something. The icing on top was that Bro. Wafflehound ran at the time the only legitimate Bitcoin business, where he would sell gemstones for bitcoins. He eventually got out of it because it was getting all too ridiculous and tedious, but not before he outed himself as a Mason to the terror of all. So we don't really do anything about Bitcoin, but crazy people on the Internet think we do, so I figured I'd embrace that. Fun Fact: At one point, Bitcoiners found this very thread's predecessor and used it as evidence that all the Bitcoin naysayers here on SA are taking their orders from Freemasons, posting screencaps and so on.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2013 18:56
|
|
|
Amyclas posted:Putting it from another angle, do the Freemasons have anything to do with the banking conspiracies? You know, "give me the power to issue a nation's money and I care not who makes the laws" and all that. I mean there are Masons who work in banks, but if that's your standard then I guess I'm part of Masons involved in mental health and emergency medicine conspiracies, Wafflehound is involved in geology conspiracies, and so on. Talking about "the Masons," an global organization of loosely affiliate grand lodges which act and operate independently but have mutual recognition, as having anything to do with any particular event as a whole, is a bit silly. I have no idea what the Central Banking Act of 1907 is for example. It's pretty likely there was at least one Brother involved in the drafting of it, but that's mainly because at one point in American history something like 1 in 5 men were Masons. "The Masons" as a whole probably have no view on the current state of global finance. There are likely as many disparate views of global finance as there are Masons, and there are millions of Masons. The conspiracy theory staple of us operating in lockstep to rule the world is truly pretty absurd.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2013 04:46
|
|
|
While the virtues themselves are not secret, I would not put them in that particular context for the reasons that in some jurisdictions, they may be considered ritual rather than monitorial, and because that information given in the lecture would be spoiled if the person knew them in advance, which would be distracting as it would let the mind of a newly initiated brother jump around and not be fully present in the moment.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 2, 2013 05:38
|
|
|
I joined cold. I had friends who are Masons but didn't know they were Masons until I mentioned wanting to join. None of my family are Masons. I wanted to join when I was younger for the esoterica, then I forgot as I moved through life. Ultimately I remembered my interest. There is probably an old old incarnation of this thread from 9 years ago where I inquired about it, actually.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 13, 2013 04:00
|
|
|
In my opinion, policies, by-laws and such on law-breaking are there to allow an expedient means of removing a brother who is convicted of a great wrongdoing conveniently without having to hold a trial twice so to speak. For example, a brother who is convicted of a felony in Ohio will be automatically expelled from Grand Lodge of Ohio upon their conviction. Until they are convicted, they are a brother Mason in good standing. Being accused of a crime is not sufficient, and being convicted only if it's a felony, and only so as to prevent having to go through a whole song and dance about whether or not a crime is moral an so on. For me, in my Lodge, I would not even propose a Mason convicted of a crime of civil unrest be investigated, let alone tried. The option is removed, though, for felonies, I think to prevent ill-will from forming based on such discussions. I do suspect someone brought up on Masonic charges for being charged with a civil unrest could happen in the US due to our lodges' tendencies toward patriotism, however I think one could easily make the argument that if one's actions were moral, based on sound moral principles and justifiable (such as, for example, if one were arrested for IDK protesting the establishment of a surveillance state or the unjust killing of citizens or something) they could make the argument that despite breaking a law, they were acting morally. Such a person may not be expelled, unless bylaws make it impossible to avoid it (such as with a felony conviction).
|
|
#
¿
Aug 6, 2013 19:04
|
|
|
Colonial Air Force posted:Treason against The Crown was certainly felonious in 1776. Yeah but that was before Grand Lodge of Ohio so, I don't know their rules. 
|
|
#
¿
Aug 6, 2013 19:12
|
|
|
I was taught by a brother who signed my petition after I was referred to him by a colleague. He taught me all three degrees in his auto shop, which he owned. He had a PhD in cellular microbiology and cellular anatomy or somesuch, had taught at a university for years, and quit when he decided he didn't care for the politics of education, so he opened this shop. He was also a big fan of Scotch whisky, as was I, so I went by after his business day was over a few times a week after work and we'd go over the work and occasionally have a taste. A few months after I was raised, he asked me to accompany him to the UK for a 3 week vacation. His regular travel companion, a brother, was caring for his sick wife, but my friend was afraid it would be his last trip round the bend. I grudgingly traveled with him, visiting several Lodges where he'd been well known, and enjoying a taste of the countryside in England, Wales, and Scotland. These constitute the only fond memories I have of the time I spent living in that part of the country, and sorely tempt me to make the 7 hour drive to visit sometime. I still hold membership at my old mother lodge, and call back from time to time despite living in a better state with better economy and better opportunities. I hope sorely to see my old brother and mentor again, and hope I can make another trip with him sometime. Edit: Only problem is I don't drink anymore, but I may make an exception for that man just because I wouldn't want to cause him the suffering.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 28, 2013 16:58
|
|
|
For some people "invited" can mean different things. Like if a good man that I'd vouch for asks if I'm a mason or asks about my ring or something I might be like "I'm a Freemason, it's pretty cool, you should check it out if you're into it." I don't consider that inviting someone, which would to me be like "hey I'm a mason you should join us please apply." To me the former is just giving someone the encouragement to look into us and see if they're into alternative lifestyles like goats and such. The latter option though is not a thing I'd do as I'd feel that creates the impression I want them to join, which is not their own free will.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 9, 2013 15:17
|
|
|
DirtyTalk posted:Don't take this the wrong way, but I'm curious about Free Masonry and any secret societies in general in regards to joining for networking purposes. Freemasonry isn't what you're looking for if you're looking for networking. Networking happens, I won't lie. I prefer to do business with brothers when I can, both to kick them some business and also so I know I'll be taken care of, but it's not a good reason to join at all. It's not the focus of the organization, and you'd only be as effective as with any other club. I mean, hell, dudes who play poker together network. If you want to be a better man, to learn moral lessons, and to develop yourself as a whole human being rather than in specific aspects so as to improve yourself in your ability to serve your fellow man, Masonry is a good idea. For purely making connections and networking, Rotary is probably what you want to do, since it was founded almost entirely with that purpose in mind. Edit: When I say "I know I'll be taken care of" by the way I don't mean I expect special treatment. I mean that I know that a Mason will be honest and forthright with me because he's a Mason, not because I'm a Mason. I know he'll be honest and forthright with anyone. But it's like the difference between a handshake between strangers and a handshake between old friends. Both outwardly represent the same thing, but the one between brothers is more meaningful. My old mechanic where I used to live signed my petition. When I needed auto work done, I knew he'd do it. I also knew he was more expensive than other mechanics in the area, but I preferred to give him business because I knew our relationship would be upstanding. Paramemetic fucked around with this message at 20:09 on Sep 12, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Sep 12, 2013 20:01
|
|
|
Keetron posted:Yeah, locked my knees. Is that bad? I was told it was bad, but how the hell does this cause me to fall over in such a way? Blood pools in the legs causing low pressure upstairs? It's not the locking the knees alone that does it. Locking one's knees is a sure indicator that you're not going to be moving them, however, and that's the real killer. As you stand for long periods of time, blood has a harder time returning up. There's a variety of reasons for this, the main one of course is gravity. There's more work to get blood to return via veins than there is to pump it out, and eventually more blood hangs out down below and not as much gets up to the brain, where it's needed. Locking the knees may or may not pinch on a vein and make it even more difficult, but if your knees are locked you're less likely to shift your weight or move your legs, which is usually sufficient to get the blood flowing fine again. Soldiers standing at rest shift their weight from side to side periodically to make sure they keep that blood flowing. The other factors that definitely contribute to the low blood pressure / syncopal reflex are nerves and low hydration. Low blood pressure (what caused the hot flush) leads to syncope, and it's a lot easier to bottom out your blood pressure if you're dehydrated. Moral of the story is (a) move around a bit, don't lock your knees; (b) drink enough water beforehand. If you're actively feeling thirst, you're already behind the 8 ball and short about a liter of water; and (c) relax!
|
|
#
¿
Sep 25, 2013 15:53
|
|
|
Innerguard posted:I have no problem answering basic questions, keeping in mind the O.B. Also, I'm a scottish mason so there may be slight regional variations. Quite a few variations actually. I had the pleasure of seeing the EA at Lodge St. James Newton-Upon-Ayr No. 125 last year, and there's a significant bit more to yours than ours in the States. I must confess I much prefer the Scottish variation, as the material it contains is all excellent and quite meaningful for a new Mason.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2013 18:03
|
|
|
Mr. Maltose posted:Don't go to the Shrine circus, I'm pretty sure the Shriner clowns don't show up to regular meetings in paint. Get to know the man behind the . . . nose, as it were.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 4, 2013 18:04
|
|
|
QPZIL posted:You got to sit in on a meeting as an Entered Apprentice? I have always supported EAs being able to sit in meetings. When I was going through the degrees, it was a bummer and made me feel less welcome when I would come to a meeting, sit down in the social hall alone for 20 minutes, get called in, give back my work, get voted to promote, and then get banished to the social hall again for another hour or two. That kinda sucked. I certainly think some things need to be done in MM (voting new members, some other kinds of business) but for the rote and general thing, there's no reason not to do it as an EA. The solution to the "share all the privileges of an MM" is to simply not allow that. An EA represents as an EA, the lodge can be opened in EA, and then whenever a vote is cast, call for the votes of MMs, just like when a visiting MM is sitting in lodge during a vote. They simply don't vote. In MD, I believe the Lodge has to be opened in the third, and progress accordingly, but I don't know for certain. I know there's been a lot of votes on the issue lately.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2013 01:14
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 20:14 |
|
|
For what it's worth, I think unvouched traveling papers are not a good idea. Traveling with another master from your mother lodge, however, is an awesome experience for a newly entered apprentice which I highly recommend. I think a challenge test or Tyler's test is an important part of visiting a lodge, but a lot of the American lodges from what I can tell are getting away from it as a result of the "one day classes", which is a shame. Ah, well. Incidentally I'm happy to talk about all things Masonic via PM or AIM. Hit me up if you'd like.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 6, 2013 06:31
|
|