What's new
By:
Advanced search…
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!

FBI Stops Mass Shooting at Wisconsin Masonic Temple

Joseph Thornton

Joseph Thornton

Registered User
Tylers are symbolic. Not every tyler is actually comfortable and capable of using firearms. Same goes for school principals. Many advocate a solution of school violence is to require the principle to train and carry. This could be used against him if he isn't really proficient and really able to retain his own weapon from violent students or other attackers.

I'm confident our Masonic Founding Fathers (US colonies) would have no issues with Masons having the ability to defend themselves in and out of the lodge.

Even if the lodge were in some way secure, there would need to be a clear effort to remove stigma and paranoia from Masonic brothers who see other members securing their sidearm when they come in, and re-arming themselves before exit.
 
AndreAshlar

AndreAshlar

Registered User
Joseph Thornton said:
Tylers are symbolic. Not every tyler is actually comfortable and capable of using firearms. Same goes for school principals. Many advocate a solution of school violence is to require the principle to train and carry. This could be used against him if he isn't really proficient and really able to retain his own weapon from violent students or other attackers.

I'm confident our Masonic Founding Fathers (US colonies) would have no issues with Masons having the ability to defend themselves in and out of the lodge.

Even if the lodge were in some way secure, there would need to be a clear effort to remove stigma and paranoia from Masonic brothers who see other members securing their sidearm when they come in, and re-arming themselves before exit.
Click to expand...
Excellent
 
Joseph Thornton

Joseph Thornton

Registered User
Oh! not to mention a principle or tyler could be very effective at his position but disqualified but he isn't the right person to carry a gun.

I know that no one here was suggesting that, it's just a line of thought that follows that course.
 
dfreybur

dfreybur

Premium Member
Travelling Man91 said:
A lot of brethren believe it goes for everyone. I'm going to be bringing this up in our next lodge meeting, and if I have to I will call Grand and see what's their input on it.
Click to expand...

Listen carefully to the explanatory lecture. It explains how the candidate is prepared without reference to the brethren. While it is easy to extend that to the members that is not what the explanatory lecture actually says. As worded it only applies to the candidate as the only specially prepared man in the room.

Rather than call GL, ask your Junior Warden to look it up in the book. In many jurisdictions he's required to study the rule book. If not the JW the Secretary is required to keep a current copy.
 
Last edited:
Companion Joe

Companion Joe

Premium Member
I know of one lodge that has a set of numbered drawers at the Tiler's station so members can leave their pistols.
I have never taken a gun into a lodge meeting (I've never felt the need to), but I'd be willing to bet cash money I've sat beside members who've had one on them.
 
Last edited:
CLewey44

CLewey44

Registered User
There may be no need for this just yet, but as patriotic Americans, I don't see a problem with it in the first place and I think that back in the 1800s men wore their pieces. 2nd Amendment...Not long guns or shotguns/AR-15 types just low-key is fine. I don't want it turning political or turning into a gun show or NRA meeting but the right to bear arms should be ok as long as enough votes were given to do so. Not trying to go back to the 1800s, but I trust every man in our lodge with a gun and I trust they have my back.
 
hanzosbm

hanzosbm

Premium Member
dfreybur said:
Listen carefully to the explanatory lecture. It explains how the candidate is prepared without reference to the brethren. While it is easy to extend that to the members that is not what the explanatory lecture actually says. As worded it only applies to the candidate as the only specially prepared man in the room.
Click to expand...

It might vary based on jurisdiction, but I'm not sure I entirely agree with this. KY for instance could be argued either way. Yes, it states why the candidate was prepared in that manner, but it goes on to say "as the principles of Masonry, forbidding one..."
Like it said, it isn't clear either way, but stating it as a principle of Masonry, at least in my mind, certainly opens the door for an argument that it extends to all brethren.

Now, would I like to be armed in Lodge (or everywhere for that matter)? Yes. But I also think that we need to be careful not to allow our own desires to sway our interpretation of Masonic teachings. Now, like I said, that is KY. CA has nothing like that whatsoever and you'd have a hard time making an argument that it extends to the brethren based on CA ritual. My point is, I don't think we can cast a blanket statement saying that is 100% only applies to the candidate.

Switching gears a bit, I think we've all seen old illustrations showing multiple brothers with swords drawn within the lodge. So I'd be curious to know how far back that particular part of the ritual goes. Looks like I've got some reading to do today.
 
dfreybur

dfreybur

Premium Member
hanzosbm said:
It might vary based on jurisdiction
Click to expand...

Absolutely. Your jurisdiction your rules - a GL can has a regulation rule or edict to be disarmed. Your lodge your rules as long as they do not violate GL rules - a lodge in a jurisdiction with no ruling on the topic can add a bylaw to be disarmed.

I also point out that since Masonry is international - Your country your laws. We function in disarmed countries.

If you disagree with the law, the edict or the bylaw, feel free to submit legislation on the matter so it goes up for vote to see if you can cause a change. In either direction. I figure it would be quite a challenge to make it not partisan. Remember that partisan politics is not in the voice of the speaker. It's in the ears of the listeners. Much harder to pull off.

but I'm not sure I entirely agree with this.
Click to expand...

I'm not big on expecting agreement. Men disagree on topics and move on to other topics.

Switching gears a bit, I think we've all seen old illustrations showing multiple brothers with swords drawn within the lodge. So I'd be curious to know how far back that particular part of the ritual goes. Looks like I've got some reading to do today.
Click to expand...

Sounds York Rite to me. Companions with swords. Or an open meeting with the great lights closed.
 
hanzosbm

hanzosbm

Premium Member
dfreybur said:
Sounds York Rite to me. Companions with swords. Or an open meeting with the great lights closed.
Click to expand...

Could be. I don't know the original source for the picture, nor am I YR, so I couldn't say for sure. Here's one of the pictures I was referring to.
3DGREPT2.JPG
 
dfreybur

dfreybur

Premium Member
I love that picture. All sorts of details. Nine candles. Armed members. Are those fellow-crafts on the side the ones who are who are weary from travel or the ones tided up for judgment.
 
hanzosbm

hanzosbm

Premium Member
From a historical context, I happened to have my copy of The Lectures of The Three Degrees in Craft Masonry with me and check it. It does contain the prohibition (for the candidate) so we know that it was part of the ritual, at least in some jurisdictions, in 1874. That illustration is from circa 1805, and, obviously, pertains to the portion you mentioned, which also throws a wrench into the works a bit as the "setting" isn't exactly standard. Fun stuff.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top