GM of Georgia Issues Edict Banning Widows Sons Motorcycle Riders

[My Freemasonry]

by Christopher Hodapp The Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of Georgia F&AM, Donald C. Combs, has just issued an edict in his state (No. 2022-2) forbidding the Freemasons in his jurisdiction from...

For the latest news and information from around the Masonic world, be sure to check the www.freemasonsfordummies.com website.

Continue reading...

 

[coachn]

<sigh>

 

[Winter]

Some of these appendent bodies and clubs forget that they are subservient to the Grand Lodge and their laws.

Sent from my SM-N986U using Tapatalk

 

[Bloke]

Some of these appendent bodies and clubs forget that they are subservient to the Grand Lodge and their laws.

Is that really correct ? Are they subservient ? If a social club exists, could not the Grand Lodge be seen as a third party ? Where does the line sit ? I guess when comprised of masons whose activities might been seen (by some, either masons or the public) as bringing Freemasonry into dispute.. but where does a Grand Lodge start to over-reach ?

The question comes because I am a member of a group of Masons, with duties under law, and those duties under law can conflict with the Constitution under which my lodge meets, and the group is comprised of Lodge members - but not for the purposes of Freemasonry..

Personally, I am not a fan of the Widows Son's patch.... and I think a GL can regulate how and when members wear masonic symbols, but how far does that regulation extend ? (Acknowleding if proved Masonic Charges have been laid against members, does that make all members of the same ilk?)

 

[kwhtraveler41]

Depending on how you look at it, in the compact, we do not see the NGL as a ruling dictator as much as we consider them a uniting force. There can be no cohesion
where confusion exists. Bros are very proud to say I'm with a sovereign GL. What does that even mean in terms of the overall big picture of the craft?

 

[Dontrell Stroman]

Depending on how you look at it, in the compact, we do not see the NGL as a ruling dictator as much as we consider them a uniting force. There can be no cohesion
where confusion exists. Bros are very proud to say I'm with a sovereign GL. What does that even mean in terms of the overall big picture of the craft?

There is no need for a NGL (PHO National compact) the Conference of Grand Masters of North America and the Conference of Grand Masters (PHA) is the uniting force for all American GLS. Again, there is no need for a NGL here in America. By the way….. the NGL you refer to is a unrecognized body by all regular GLS.

 

[Winter]

Is that really correct ? Are they subservient ? If a social club exists, could not the Grand Lodge be seen as a third party ? Where does the line sit ? I guess when comprised of masons whose activities might been seen (by some, either masons or the public) as bringing Freemasonry into dispute.. but where does a Grand Lodge start to over-reach ?

The question comes because I am a member of a group of Masons, with duties under law, and those duties under law can conflict with the Constitution under which my lodge meets, and the group is comprised of Lodge members - but not for the purposes of Freemasonry..

Personally, I am not a fan of the Widows Son's patch.... and I think a GL can regulate how and when members wear masonic symbols, but how far does that regulation extend ? (Acknowleding if proved Masonic Charges have been laid against members, does that make all members of the same ilk?)

In the US Grand Lodges I am familiar if a group is formed and it is required for the membership to be Masons then the GL has jurisdiction over that group.

Belonging to a group of Masons that have legal duties that conflict with the GL would never fly here. Though that does imply some type of illegality going on? Maybe I'm not understanding the statement.

And the WS have two back patches. The northern clubs have a winged all seeing eye with working tools. The southern one is the spandex clad woman. I've always thought that one was not best for representing the Craft to the public.

Sent from my SM-N986U using Tapatalk

 

[MarkR]

In the US Grand Lodges I am familiar if a group is formed and it is required for the membership to be Masons then the GL has jurisdiction over that group.

Belonging to a group of Masons that have legal duties that conflict with the GL would never fly here. Though that does imply some type of illegality going on? Maybe I'm not understanding the statement.

And the WS have two back patches. The northern clubs have a winged all seeing eye with working tools. The southern one is the spandex clad woman. I've always thought that one was not best for representing the Craft to the public.

Sent from my SM-N986U using Tapatalk

The general public doesn't understand the significance of two rocker patches vs. three. They don't understand a "riding association" vs. a "motorcycle club." They see guys on motorcycles, wearing vests with rocker patches and think "motorcycle gang." Associating the square and compass with that can certainly be problematic.

A brother from my Scottish Rite Valley told me this story: He was with a group of Masons from his lodge who were looking into forming a Widow's Sons chapter. They met with guys from the state office in a local restaurant. The officers from state arrived in their dirty jeans, motorcycle boots, t-shirts under the vests with rockers. A family came in. While mom and dad stopped to chat with some friends out front, the kids came into the room where the meeting was taking place and sat at a table, apparently used to sitting in this spot. A few minutes later, mom and dad came in, looked wide-eyed at the assemble group, and hustled the kids out of the room to another part of the restaurant.

And yes, generally, Grand Lodges reserve the right to approve or disapprove any organization operating in their jurisdiction that requires Masonic status for membership.

 

[Bloke]

Belonging to a group of Masons that have legal duties that conflict with the GL would never fly here. Though that does imply some type of illegality going on? Maybe I'm not understanding the statement.

Sent from my SM-N986U using Tapatalk

No illegality. And it might fly. It might be present. I will tell you the specific example I was thinking of. When a Masonic Building is owned by a Company or Association (or even Trust) here, then the Directors, Committee Members and Trustees (as the case may be) all have legal duties in those positions. In our Constitution, it says Freemasons cannot encumber a Masonic Property without written permission of GL. I am aware of a group (this is a bit like saying "I have this friend" lol) who wanted to borrow money from a bank to meet their legal obligations and sustain their building. GL said you cannot. The group said we need to take that action to meet their duties under law and they regarded the Constiuttion as a Third Party Document to the legal entitty which held their building. It was resolved when GL agreed to lend them the money... but if they had not, it might have got messey..

 

[Bloke]

And yes, generally, Grand Lodges reserve the right to approve or disapprove any organization operating in their jurisdiction that requires Masonic status for membership.

That's probably nutshell summary of the situation.

 

[Winter]

No illegality. And it might fly. It might be present. I will tell you the specific example I was thinking of. When a Masonic Building is owned by a Company or Association (or even Trust) here, then the Directors, Committee Members and Trustees (as the case may be) all have legal duties in those positions. In our Constitution, it says Freemasons cannot encumber a Masonic Property without written permission of GL. I am aware of a group (this is a bit like saying "I have this friend" lol) who wanted to borrow money from a bank to meet their legal obligations and sustain their building. GL said you cannot. The group said we need to take that action to meet their duties under law and they regarded the Constiuttion as a Third Party Document to the legal entitty which held their building. It was resolved when GL agreed to lend them the money... but if they had not, it might have got messey..

I see what you mean now. We have the same situation in my GL with the Wisconsin Masonic Center in Madison Wisconsin managed by a foundation now. But when they needed money to shore it up they just added a tax on everyone's dues for a few years. I'm still annoyed that vote passed. lol