My Freemasonry | Freemason Information and Discussion Forum
Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Resolution proposals for next GL session
- Thread starter Mac
- Start date
I wonder if we should reconsider how we recognize organizations that predicate membership upon being a Master Mason.
Is Philalethes permanently banned, or can that topic be revisited?
The Masonic Society is a research society with a great quarterly publication (The Journal of TMS). Can we add that to the list of recognized groups?
Is Philalethes permanently banned, or can that topic be revisited?
The Masonic Society is a research society with a great quarterly publication (The Journal of TMS). Can we add that to the list of recognized groups?
JJones
Moderator
I see what you brothers are saying about my 2nd suggestion. It's nothing something I'm as sold on as my first suggestion but it also seems to me that this sort of encourages a rushed progressive line. I also feel that, if there is no greater degree than that of Master Mason, we shouldn't exclude the right to vote in Grand Lodge from them.
Voting in GL wouldn't have to change much, I think. Instead of lodge representatives voting yes or no they could instead turn in the numbers from when their lodge voted on it. (I.E. 10 For, 5 against)
Anyhow, I'm loving this discussion.
Voting in GL wouldn't have to change much, I think. Instead of lodge representatives voting yes or no they could instead turn in the numbers from when their lodge voted on it. (I.E. 10 For, 5 against)
Anyhow, I'm loving this discussion.
Michaelstedman81
Premium Member
Is the issue about all MMs getting a vote referring to just those that are present during GL proceedings, or are we talking about extending the right to vote to ALL MMs in the GLoT jurisdiction? If it is the latter that is what is being discussed, how would everyone get to vote and how would they count all the votes? One worry that I have is on really hot topics that the whole thing of "voter fraud" or misplacing ballots could arise. Or at least the accusations of that kind of stuff. Just the logistics and getting the timing done right seems like a huge headache.
I don't think that I support the idea of all MMs getting a vote. However, that is just right now and my mind remains open and not in concrete on that decision. By no means am I a "Masonic lawyer", nor do I pretend to know all the ins and outs of the Fraternity, but I have also been under the understanding that Masonry has pretty much been set up in the representative form (sort of). I also do like the fact that PMs and others get to cast their own vote as well, but I think that opening the ballots up to ALL MMs can open the door for some unforseen troubles.
Just my two cents, Brothers. I also really hope that my view as it stands at this time doesn't offend any Brothers. Like I said, it is just my humble opinion as of right now, and is subject to change if more information is provided.
Last edited:
JJones
Moderator
It's 'either or' Bro. Stedman.
As mentioned by another brother, if we just extend the right to Master Masons present at Grand Lodge then it creates a sort of unfair advantage for lodges in close proximity.
If it was state wide however, then the lodges could just vote on the resolutions during their stated meeting before Grand Lodge meets and a representative could attend GL with the numbers. You've got a possibility of fraud, of course, but don't lodges send representatives to vote on their behalf anyhow? It wouldn't be much different aside from the fact our representatives are turning in numbers instead of simple yes/no answers.
I'm not sure it'd make much difference in the long run, but who knows.
And no offense taken, I enjoy a good discussion.
As mentioned by another brother, if we just extend the right to Master Masons present at Grand Lodge then it creates a sort of unfair advantage for lodges in close proximity.
If it was state wide however, then the lodges could just vote on the resolutions during their stated meeting before Grand Lodge meets and a representative could attend GL with the numbers. You've got a possibility of fraud, of course, but don't lodges send representatives to vote on their behalf anyhow? It wouldn't be much different aside from the fact our representatives are turning in numbers instead of simple yes/no answers.
I'm not sure it'd make much difference in the long run, but who knows.
And no offense taken, I enjoy a good discussion.
The problem with this idea is that resolutions can be, and often are, amended before they are voted on. Sometimes, once amended, they barely resemble what was originally proposed. I have, more than once, changed how I was going to vote on an issue due to amendments made to a resolution.
Beathard
Premium Member
I actually like the new officer requirements. Yes, an officer needs something beyond ritual, but the requirement is based on C certificate material. Officers should be able to open and close. They should also be able to assist new members with questions. I think this the the bar that they should strive for. B certificates require one to be a really dedicated ritualist. Ritualists do not necessarily make the best officers.
Benton
Premium Member
I'd be all for custom aprons designs period, personally. If someone wants to express the symbols they hold most dear through a custom apron, why not let them? We can still give a pure white apron to new MM's and all the appropriate symbolism is intact. If they wish to purchase their own customized apron, then more power to them.
Brother Mark
Registered User
I wish we could have stricker rules on the investagtion of people wanting to become masons. I have known of brothers doing the investagtion at the lodge instead of going to the candidates house. Also having only 1 person ask the questions and the others just going thru the motions.
Brother Mark
Registered User
As long as certain members are alive and active in the GLoTX, Philalethes is banned in Texas, and that most likely won't change.
Why are the Philalethes banned?
Why are the Philalethes banned?
JJones
Moderator
Brother, this could be handled on a lodge level if your lodge is willing to commit to improve the quality of investigations. For example, our lodge has adopted a few policies for our investigating committees to follow.
Official reason was that the group "recognized" a co-masonic organization in France it was put to a vote at Grand Lodge and passed to ban the society from Texas, even though Philalethes is still recognized by the rest of North America.
Of course there is more to the story, but it is not appropriate to discuss in an open forum.
S&F,
-Bro Vick