What exactly have you seen homosexuals doing in lodge? In the lodges I've been in, I've never noticed anything but maybe I'm missing the cues. I'm kind of afraid to attend lodge now.
I find ironic that most religious leaders who condemn homosexuality also condemn Freemasonry.
I didn't think it was out of line, is their a rule or something you have to follow when asking questions?Me personally I wouldn't ask that question but I have no problem answering it.
Freemason Connect Mobile
If you are wanting to vote black you have to notify the WM ahead of the ballot and have a VERY good and valid reason.
if you have a candidate with a petition that has signatures of fellow brothers vouching for him and the investigative committee is for him then you are obligated to vote white. You have to base your vote on the findings of the IC and whether the candidate meets the requirements to become a mason. You are not allowed at least where I'm from to base your vote on your personal feelings. If you are wanting to vote black you have to notify the WM ahead of the ballot and have a VERY good and valid reason.
This is also EXTREMELY untrue in Minnesota. Here it is considered unmasonic conduct to discuss your vote at all, including with the WM. The ballot is personal and private. The report of the investigating committee is advisory, not binding. If there's a black ball in the box, NO ONE may ask by whom or why the ballot was cast....if you have a candidate with a petition that has signatures of fellow brothers vouching for him and the investigative committee is for him then you are obligated to vote white. You have to base your vote on the findings of the IC and whether the candidate meets the requirements to become a mason. You are not allowed at least where I'm from to base your vote on your personal feelings. If you are wanting to vote black you have to notify the WM ahead of the ballot and have a VERY good and valid reason.
If this was the case then why vote at all.I am personally against it as I believe it would contradict every bible that could possibly sit on that altar. But if you have a candidate with a petition that has signatures of fellow brothers vouching for him and the investigative committee is for him then you are obligated to vote white. You have to base your vote on the findings of the IC and whether the candidate meets the requirements to become a mason. You are not allowed at least where I'm from to base your vote on your personal feelings. If you are wanting to vote black you have to notify the WM ahead of the ballot and have a VERY good and valid reason. So if it was even known that the candidate was a homosexual, which it most likely wouldn't be, and he met the requirements I would most definitely vote white.
May I suggest that you reconsider your terminology and then see if you still see things that way. The Volume of Sacred Law is not a "bible". While in most lodges that you or I are familiar with, it is a copy of the KJV Bible that rests upon the altar, it is a mistake to understand that particular book as binding every Mason in that room, just as it is a mistake to think that any particular book serving as that piece of "essential furniture" might universally bind them.I am personally against it as I believe it would contradict every bible that could possibly sit on that altar.
But if you have a candidate with a petition that has signatures of fellow brothers vouching for him and the investigative committee is for him then you are obligated to vote white. You have to base your vote on the findings of the IC and whether the candidate meets the requirements to become a mason. You are not allowed at least where I'm from to base your vote on your personal feelings. If you are wanting to vote black you have to notify the WM ahead of the ballot and have a VERY good and valid reason.
I'm told that the IC's report is to be taken as a strong suggestion, but not a de facto vote.
If you're asking if a petition has been rejected because all or a majority of the investigators reported unfavorably, then yes, it's not uncommon. I have also seen where a recommender contacted the petitioner & advised him to withdraw his petition. The recommender had apparently smelled the coffee & didn't want to see the petition rejected. In that particular case, the petitioner resubmitted his petition a few months later and it was rejected at that time.Has anyone seen a petition returned because the committee gave a negative report?