Brother Pete Normand,JR on the Traditional Lodge Model

[Michael Hatley]

Oh, I understand the idea around formal attire, I reckon. And again, personally speaking I own a tux and have for years - and enjoy the excuse to wear it. But I'm looking at this from an implementation standpoint. I actually intend to move on some of this stuff, in the present tense. I'm not speaking in the abstract

I just think robes would be a more practical way to get at the meat of what I at least see as important. I see that as ritual first, table manners second.

A bunch of robes could be purchased by the lodge rather than the individual. Have a fundraiser for it or the like.

Plus they could be used for practice nights easily even when the brethren are meeting in casual attire.

Tasteful robes, gloves, and jewels, coupled with the music, ritual, lighting and so forth of TO I think would be more - not less impactful than tuxedos.

When I think on our ancient brethren it is difficult to see them in tuxedos. Easy to see them in robes.

It seems to me that the word "Traditional" may be being used here in a somewhat arbitrary way that is becoming a "brand". A brand with a small group of folks who give the nod on which lodges are anointed officially "Traditional Observance" and which are not, with some of those folks selling books, traveling to lodges, creating Facebook pages and reinforcing the brand.

Maybe that is not a bad thing. And as I said, I am impressed with Brother Normand, and keen to learn more. I'm just putting out what is on my mind as honestly as I can, in the pursuit of making this experience better and finding the real crux of what the newer generations moving forward to will be attracted to while preserving the very best of our traditions. Some of the casual aspects of Texas Masonry are worthwhile, in my opinion. Some aren't, but where they converge is the ritual. Again, to me robes seem like a decent compromise and why I am stuck on the idea. For now anyway. I'm open to being convinced.

--edit

Also - do lodges that are officially "Traditional Observance" branded by their Grand Lodge receive different latitude with regard to the ritual? Chambers of reflection, that sort of thing. Why is that, if so? Does it amount to getting a pass for latitude with the CoW, but in exchange becoming at least tangentially subordinate to the Masonic Restoration Foundation? These are the sorts of questions I have, and am keeping an open mind about.

 

[jwhoff]

Tuxedos!

Let me take another look at Mel Brooks' History of The World, Part I.

If I see any, I'll get back with you.

Tuxedos ... hummm.


Might also look in Hanna-Barbara files over in the corner.

 

[Bro. Stewart P.M.]

Also - do lodges that are officially "Traditional Observance" branded by their Grand Lodge receive different latitude with regard to the ritual? Chambers of reflection, that sort of thing. Why is that, if so? Does it amount to getting a pass for latitude with the CoW, but in exchange becoming at least tangentially subordinate to the Masonic Restoration Foundation? These are the sorts of questions I have, and am keeping an open mind about.

There are a couple of other threads on this site that offer explanation of the Traditional Observance format...

http://www.masonsoftexas.com/showthread.php?13417-The-Traditonal-Observance-Lodge-Explained&highlight=traditional+observance

 

[crono782]

TSS is a great site as well, I'm actually the Co-Admin there

Does it take a while for the moderator approval on that site? Registered a while back and got nuthin'. ;/

 

[Benjamin Baxter]

Does it take a while for the moderator approval on that site? Registered a while back and got nuthin'. ;/

Me too.

 

[Bro_Vick]

The glaring issue and incapability of European Concept Lodges in America is that they are suppose to be regulated to 50 or less members (some as small as 30). In Europe it is typical if a lodge grows too big that lodge can grant dispensation to start another lodge to allow more potential candidates of the community to join. The process is somewhat established and well known

In America dispensations are given to brothers that have deep masonic connections and are for the most part rare. This causes European Concept Lodges to become full of Past Masters and breed cronyism, rather than more light. These lodges also have closed events, invitational only meetings, and other aspects that make it so a brother off the street has to have an in somehow before they are allowed to attend. This isn't new concept by any means in Freemasonry, but I don't believe that a blue lodge should be structured as such.

The beauty of these lodges and the prestige they bring back to the Craft is absolutely undeniable. Sitting in these lodges and when they are performed properly show an aspect of Freemasonry that was washed away in the 1940s and 1950s to mass numbers, blank reciting of the Work, and loss of Masonic individualism. Still, if this movement is to be successful in America, we as Masons need to give it equal opportunity to all Masons, not just Grand Officers, and politically connected brothers. In Texas in particular there has been PGMs that were ardently against T.O. to the point of threatening to close one down here in San Antonio, deeming their practices as unmasonic.

My harsh criticisms of European Concept Lodges in the past have been due to its lack of availability to every Freemason. The stringent rules established now and deep pockets required to establish a new charter makes it difficult. Some brothers have taken over dying lodges, but this usually is wrought with drama, and again requires heavy connections within Grand Lodge.

As leaders of Freemasons it is our job and duty to recognize these challenges and work to overcome them. I believe that we need to allow a lodge to be as individual as possible to meet the needs of their members and keep brothers active. We can't force European Concept Lodges on people, and we can't expect that fish fry's, and BBQ cook offs are going to meet the intellectual needs of others.

BLUF: We need to allow more freedom in the individual lodges, we need to allow fair access to European Concept Lodges, but recognize that some men don't want to have anything to do with them. Respect for this, and understanding proper implementation of this concept, I believe will cause the lodges to become widely popular in America and not enjoyed by a sparse few of our brothers.

S&F,

-Bro Vick

 

[chrmc]

I agree a lot with Brother Vick above. One of the problem as I see it, is that the size of lodges we have also means that we will have members in them with many different interest. It's hard to accommodate everyone if half the lodge wants fish frys and the other half wants intellectual discussions about Voltaire.
I think that smaller lodges that cater to their members exact needs would be beneficial. Especially if we could get past the need for every single lodge to have their own building. There is a lot of money to be saved and headaches to be shared by sharing lodge buildings.

 

[JJones]

I agree with the points made above but a huge hurdle to creating newer and smaller lodges is the large amount of brethren needed to charter one. I think it's something like 50 members? Don't quote me on that, I can't find it in my law book for some reason even though I'm sure I've seen it before.

If you created a new lodge with 50 charter members then you already have more members than you probably should according to either concept (I'm sure there's room for flexibility though) and you don't have much room to grow either. Reviving a lodge might be a possibility, I think they require less members initially but I've heard that the GL has had a pretty hard stance against doing so in the past...and there's a pretty finite number of demised lodges out there.

A group of brothers could take over a dying lodge as pointed out but that's almost certain to create a ton of drama. Another problem is that a lot of these near-death lodges are pretty rural...there's a lot of them however, I could name two or three in or near my district alone.

 

[Ecossais]

Brother CHRMC: You asked: "If a lodge changes nothing else, but everyone wearing tuxedos and eating prime rib at every meeting, did they truly change anything?"

Of course, I would have to say, "Yes, they changed their dress and the quality of their meals. But that is all."

I was told that when St. Alban's Lodge at College Station was in the planning stage over 20 years ago, that one of its founding members said, "If all we are doing is trading up from blue jeans to tuxedos, and from spaghetti to prime rib, then count me out. It has to be about more than that. And every one of the founding members agreed."

They agreed that the most important principle had to be "Masonic Light" at each and every meeting of the lodge. They agreed that if all they did was streamline the business meetings, shorten them, and then go eat steaks at the country club in tuxedos, that they were wasting their time.

That discussion was had and finished well over 20 years ago, and EVERYONE agreed. Are you just now coming to the same conclusion???

Well, okay, better late than never, I guess.

 

[Ecossais]

Brother Vick:

You wrote: "The glaring issue and incapability of European Concept Lodges in America is that they are suppose to be regulated to 50 or less members (some as small as 30)."

Who said they were to be "regulated" to 50 or less? Who is to do this "regulating?" Smaller lodges are better, I agree. But I don't know how "glaring" this issue is. And anyway, if a lodge is doing its dead level best to improve its meetings, dinners and educational program, then are we to throw our hands up and quit because we go over 50 members?

You also wrote: "In America dispensations are given to brothers that have deep masonic connections and are for the most part rare."

Hmm. That isn't my experience. And I've been a part of several lodges that received dispensations. They just filled in the paperwork, did what was required, and submitted it.

You wrote: "This causes European Concept Lodges to become full of Past Masters and breed cronyism, rather than more light. These lodges also have closed events, invitational only meetings, and other aspects that make it so a brother off the street has to have an in somehow before they are allowed to attend. This isn't new concept by any means in Freemasonry, but I don't believe that a blue lodge should be structured as such."

You sound angry about something. Older Past Masters, who are retired, are generally the ones who have the time and money to join multiple lodges, including new lodges that are formed in their District. Every lodge has the right to have its own private, invitational event. Why don't you befriend some of their members? You'll be surprised how quick you get an invitation. But, you won't get one if you maintain a sour, defeatist attitude. That is WHY they have invitation only events. It's to keep out the sour-pusses. Its not a new concept in Freemasonry because it works!

You wrote: "Still, if this movement is to be successful in America, we as Masons need to give it equal opportunity to all Masons, not just Grand Officers, and politically connected brothers. In Texas in particular there has been PGMs that were ardently against T.O. to the point of threatening to close one down here in San Antonio, deeming their practices as unmasonic."

First you state that these lodges need to be opened up to others, "not just Grand Officers." Then, in the next sentence, you state there have been PGMs who are ardently against T.O. lodges. Which is it? In my experience around Texas, lodges that tend toward the Traditional Observance model, are not embraced by Grand Lodge officers in Texas. There are only three lodges in Texas that come anywhere close to being "T.O." lodges, and none of them claim that title. Those three have few, if any, GL officers, but are made up of rank and file Masons.

By the way, there are no "T.O." lodges in San Antonio, and never have been. Merit Lodge is not a T.O. lodge. The only PGM in the San Antonio area that might be anti-T.O. is M.W. Gene Carnes. He has a peculiar outlook on Freemasonry as it was the vehicle by which he was reconciled to his father many years ago. Its a beautiful story. But, because of that M.W. Carnes would prefer that all lodges in Texas be just like his father's lodge, and he doesn't like variation from that. Most others who feel this way have simply not traveled extensively outside the boundaries of Texas and visited other lodges in other countries. If they would do that, they would see how provincial their attitudes about Freemasonry are.

You then wrote: "My harsh criticisms of European Concept Lodges in the past have been due to its lack of availability to every Freemason."

Ah, so now we have it.

You then wrote: "The stringent rules established now and deep pockets required to establish a new charter makes it difficult. Some brothers have taken over dying lodges, but this usually is wrought with drama, and again requires heavy connections within Grand Lodge."

My Brother, now you are just whining. "Its too expensive. There are too many rules. Its too difficult. You have to be 'connected' or part of the 'in crowd'." Stop whining, get up off your duff and do what has to be done to have the lodge you want, or quit crying about it.

Then you wrote: "As leaders of Freemasons ...." Whoa. Wait a minute. You've been whining about not being with the "cronies" and connected with the Grand Lodge. And now you are saying that you are a "leader of Freemasons?" Leaders of Freemasons don't sit around whining about not being connected to Grand Lodge.

You continue: "...it is our job and duty to recognize these challenges and work to overcome them. I believe that we need to allow a lodge to be as individual as possible to meet the needs of their members and keep brothers active."

Amen. So .... what are YOU waiting for?

You wrote: "We can't force European Concept Lodges on people, and we can't expect that fish fry's, and BBQ cook offs are going to meet the intellectual needs of others."

Okay. So we agree on all of that. What's the problem?

You then said, "We need to allow more freedom in the individual lodges, we need to allow fair access to European Concept Lodges, but recognize that some men don't want to have anything to do with them. Respect for this, and understanding proper implementation of this concept, I believe will cause the lodges to become widely popular in America and not enjoyed by a sparse few of our brothers."

Okay. So, we agree on all of that. It looks to me like YOU need to get to work. But, please, stop the whining.

 

[jwhoff]

I was told that when St. Alban's Lodge at College Station was in the planning stage over 20 years ago, that one of its founding members said, "If all we are doing is trading up from blue jeans to tuxedos, and from spaghetti to prime rib, then count me out. It has to be about more than that. And every one of the founding members agreed."

They agreed that the most important principle had to be "Masonic Light" at each and every meeting of the lodge. They agreed that if all they did was streamline the business meetings, shorten them, and then go eat steaks at the country club in tuxedos, that they were wasting their time.
Ecossais


Agree with brother Ecossais.

Many of us can only discuss this masonry in groups of two or three. How many masons are we losing because of this.

 

[jwhoff]

I agree a lot with Brother Vick above. One of the problem as I see it, is that the size of lodges we have also means that we will have members in them with many different interest. It's hard to accommodate everyone if half the lodge wants fish frys and the other half wants intellectual discussions about Voltaire.
I think that smaller lodges that cater to their members exact needs would be beneficial. Especially if we could get past the need for every single lodge to have their own building. There is a lot of money to be saved and headaches to be shared by sharing lodge buildings.

I somewhat agree with you brother. Lodges that appeal to the different tastes of various masons and are operated by the tenants of the craft with respect to their grand lodge jurisdiction would probably do better in the long run.

Still, I'm somewhat surprised that I may be the only one in Texas who is able to lick crab-boil from his fingers while discussing the virtues of Voltaire as articulated in Candide, Zadig, or Fate, the Philosopical Letters or even Dialogues and Philosophic Criticisms.

You must remember sir, that I hail from the swamp bottoms of South Louisiana!

:sneaky2:

 

[chrmc]

I was told that when St. Alban's Lodge at College Station was in the planning stage over 20 years ago, that one of its founding members said, "If all we are doing is trading up from blue jeans to tuxedos, and from spaghetti to prime rib, then count me out. It has to be about more than that. And every one of the founding members agreed."

They agreed that the most important principle had to be "Masonic Light" at each and every meeting of the lodge. They agreed that if all they did was streamline the business meetings, shorten them, and then go eat steaks at the country club in tuxedos, that they were wasting their time.

That discussion was had and finished well over 20 years ago, and EVERYONE agreed. Are you just now coming to the same conclusion???

Well, okay, better late than never, I guess.

Brother Ecossais. Let me start out with saying that I do not understand the need for the condescending tone in your two above posts. We're having a good debate, and you sound like a learned man that has much to offer, but if this comes with being scolded, I doubt many with listen.

But let me clarify my earlier statement. First of all my comments were not directed at St. Alban's lodge, as I simply do not know it well enough to comment on any of it's operations. I've visited it a couple of times, and it seems like a fine place to me doing good work.

The point that I was trying to make, is that I feel that the talk about "better masonry" in general and TO in particular far to often ends on the notions of better clothing and better food. Though everyone "agreed 20 years ago" that there should be more to it, I still feel we don't often enough hear about how to slow down the progression of the candidates, how to incorporate real masonic learning in the memory work, how to groom and select officers to build a brighter future and all the other points that was brought up in Laudable Pursuit and similar texts.

Those discussions are the ones I'd rather see us focus on and try and tackle, as that is where I believe the real meat on the bone is when it comes to better masonry.

 

[Bro_Vick]

Brother Vick:

This is one of the few places you are actually civil towards me, and having unfortunate conversations with other members on this board in this tone before I promised myself I wouldn't engage again.

So here is the deal, if you can stop being condescending, rude and brow beating I would be happy to engage you again on this subject.

I appreciate and applaud your contributions to our fraternity, but I am not going to get into a fisking contest with you, in the future I ask that you meet me on the level and not try to put me in my place.

You can call me directly if you wish to discuss further.

S&F,
-Bro Vick

 

[dfreybur]

The glaring issue and incapability of European Concept Lodges in America is that they are suppose to be regulated to 50 or less members (some as small as 30). In Europe it is typical if a lodge grows too big that lodge can grant dispensation to start another lodge to allow more potential candidates of the community to join. The process is somewhat established and well known

Just to check - The brothers are aware that this principle of large lodges hiving into small lodges was standard across America until roughly WWI, right? The trend towards large lodges and few new charters is new on the scale that Masonry works. Only a century. I'm sure there were good reasons for the switch but I'm not sure those reasons remain valid today. "We've done it that way for a century" is why Stated meetings were held in the third degree but that didn't make the American divergence from the worldwide standard a good idea going forward.

In America dispensations are given to brothers that have deep masonic connections and are for the most part rare.

Does anyone know of any instance when a group of brothers was turned down after they submitted the paperwork for a new lodge? I don't. I'd vote against any elected grand officer who opposed a new lodge. Does anyone know of any instance when a group of brothers submitted the paperwork at all? I know one such group and they are now the youngest lodge in their state and sure enough they follow a model very much like TO. They also have a calendar filled with degrees, social and service events like any other successful lodge.

I suggest the notion that it takes "deep masonic connections" is false. What it takes is deep Masonic *commitment*. Which is what the TO movement is about. Which is something the TO movement absolutely does not hold a monopoly on.

This causes European Concept Lodges to become full of Past Masters and breed cronyism, rather than more light.

I've seen that in run of the mill American lodges as well so I'm missing something you're trying to communicate. Sorry about that.

These lodges also have closed events, invitational only meetings, and other aspects that make it so a brother off the street has to have an in somehow before they are allowed to attend. This isn't new concept by any means in Freemasonry, but I don't believe that a blue lodge should be structured as such.

It's okay to agree and disagree but agreement isn't required. At church I tend to say that I'm not there to agree with people I'm there to serve. Some consider me a stirrer. I'm okay with following that same principle at lodge. I'm okay with closed events and such as long as the calendar includes open events.

The beauty of these lodges and the prestige they bring back to the Craft is absolutely undeniable. Sitting in these lodges and when they are performed properly show an aspect of Freemasonry that was washed away in the 1940s and 1950s to mass numbers, blank reciting of the Work, and loss of Masonic individualism.

The one I visited was an impressive experience to be sure. Enough to make it worth the drive from San Antonio to somewhere to do so again.

Still, if this movement is to be successful in America, we as Masons need to give it equal opportunity to all Masons, not just Grand Officers, and politically connected brothers.

I don't get why you think it takes connections. Please note that many lodges are successful right now without joining the TO movement. There is strength in unity. There is strength in diversity. Both truth. It's one of the mysteries of the universe how that works. Sort of like Masonry excluding atheists while at the same time being the leading force worldwide in support of freedom of religion.

In Texas in particular there has been PGMs that were ardently against T.O. to the point of threatening to close one down here in San Antonio, deeming their practices as unmasonic.

We all try to resist uttering rude words when we encounter such situations, right? The temptation to use "Navy technical terms" can be very hard at times. Like if I ever heard a statement like that expressed. Traditional Masonic practice being called unMasonic. As appeared so often in the Nixon tapes "expletive deleted" is my reaction.

Some brothers have taken over dying lodges, but this usually is wrought with drama, and again requires heavy connections within Grand Lodge.

I've seen small groups of brothers affiliate, fill the activity calendar and save a failing lodge. No drama ensued. Is this a case of my experience being different from yours or is this a case where I have failed to understand what you're trying to communicate?

We can't force European Concept Lodges on people, and we can't expect that fish fry's, and BBQ cook offs are going to meet the intellectual needs of others.

So many in the new generation are coming in thirsty for something. Discipline, philosophy, mysticism, you name it. Masonry has all of these and more should you look for them. Masonry has a completely different set of features if those aren't ones that interest you. I was taught "you get out of Masonry what you put into it". Every year I learn new ways that lesson is true.