It will never end, as long as people of your ilk continue to try to tell us how we should live our lives,
Where have I done that?
You telling us Masonic doctrine, and us telling you, "it is not Masonic doctrine".
According to an old copy of the GLoT Constitution,
Section 2d. The Grand Lodge has exclusive jurisdiction over all regular Lodges and Ancient Free and Accepted Masons within the limits of Texas; and power to constitute new Lodges; to revoke charters granted; to maintain uniformity in the mode of working; and generally to control Masonic affairs. (Taylor's Monitor, 1898, pg. 177)
Mirroring this is this from the installation ceremony of a Lodge WM, from the same source, pg. 113:
V. You agree to hold in veneration the original rulers and patrons of the Order of Masonry, and their regular successors, supreme and subordinate, according to their stations; and to submit to the awards and resolution of your Brethren, when convened, in every case consistent with the Constitutions of the Order.
X. You promise to pay homage to the Grand Master for the time being, and to his officers when duly installed; and strictly to conform to every edict of the Grand Lodge, or General Assembly of Masons, that is not subversive of the principles and groundwork of Masonry.
These may have been altered over time, but I'd be surprised that they'd give up the power therein. Thus, the GLoT sees itself as in control of all regular Texas Blue Lodge Masonry and expects the WM to agree to that. Given all of this, I'd say the GLoT has every right to promulgate doctrine as part of its duties.
Closer to the discussion is the training documentation put out by the TX GL Committee on Masonic Education and Service, whose duties, according to the GLoT website, include:
to formulate and promulgate a system of instruction in the fundamental principles, symbolism, teachings and practical application of Masonry; ...
Thus, any training documentation put out by this committee is indeed Masonic 'doctrine,' is binding upon the regular TX Mason and can be used to determine how Texas Masonry sees itself and trains its members to see Freemasonry within that jurisdiction. I'd be willing to bet that the current GLoT Constitution goes further into the Masonic Education area and may well dictate it's use by subordinate Lodges. I'll have to check into that.
You still haven't learned that from your “Pike†escapades?
I haven't had any Pike 'escapades' that I know of.
You fail to understand; it is we that constitute the "Grand Lodge"; we are the voting members of our Grand Lodges. Now in different jurisdictions what constitutes the voting membership may be defined differently.
Indeed, but not just any TX Mason can show up to vote. The old Constitution limited it to a certain number of representatives from each Lodge, not the entire Lodge membership.
What we have in our libraries does not constitute Masonic doctrine, period. Your Masonic sources mean little, as they do not constitute Freemasonry as a whole, they are as such, each individuals with perceptions and opinions.
As noted above, if they are issued by the GLoT, they sure are. Those not so-originated are indeed commentary, which can be useful or a waste of time based on the author's qualities.
You ungraciously brought up about how blacks were excluded,
Nothing ungracious about it. I just noted that SC Masons happily participated in an organization that specifically excluded non-whites. Given the main themes of Freemasonry, it seems the highest form of hypocrisy to me, and to many Masons as well. Bear in mind, it's one thing to challenge the legitimacy of Prince Hall Masonry, at least up until the UGLE recognized it. But it's another to specifically exclude a man solely on the account of his race.
I attend a mixed race church.
What about that convoluted, deliberate miss-quote about the curse of Ham used to justify the slavery of blacks by Christians?
Interesting how it falls to a non-Mason to address that charge. What is very clear from history is that Christians, from the time of Jesus' crucifixion, opposed slavery. In the recent few centuries, it was Christians who began the world wide efforts to eradicate the practice. My personal view is that anyone justifying slavery from the Bible is not a Christian.
if you really think that you can “convert usâ€
I doubt if that's possible.
How’s your old Buddy Dr. Larry Holly getting along?
Don't know. I never knew the man. Cordially, Skip.