Could a Lodge member remain unsatisfied even if a visitor provided proper ID and dues card?
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!
Refusing...
- Thread starter Blake Bowden
- Start date
absolutely. they can show their unsatisfaction by leaving lodge. it would piss people off, but it's full within their rights.
and if you really wanna piss off the senior warden... after he's satisfied and when the craft is asked if they are satisfied, call over the JD and send him on a message to the WM about the brother in question when purging the lodge.
you're full within your rights to do all the above.
and if you really wanna piss off the senior warden... after he's satisfied and when the craft is asked if they are satisfied, call over the JD and send him on a message to the WM about the brother in question when purging the lodge.
you're full within your rights to do all the above.
J
JEbeling
Guest
JTM.. has some issues.. ! lodge is no place for this pettyness.. ! when he ask if he is satisfied.. ! he is not asking if you have a bad attitude.. ! he is asking if there is some reason the lodge should not procede.. !
oh, i've never done it, nor am i necessarily suggesting it. all you need in texas is a dues card and ID to get in. that doesn't mean that a member has to sit in lodge with him.
if you walk into a lodge and you aren't satisfied that you're surrounded by regular masons, then you have every right to leave.
when i was a brand new master mason, i went around to several lodges in the area to meet some of the folks. at one, they didn't ask for a dues card or ID, nor did they ask me any questions at all. they saw me clothed as such and started opening lodge. nobody ever said a word or anything besides being friendly and talking small talk to me before i went in.
great, friendly guys, but if that happened again now, i'd very much ask the JD to convey a private message to the WM asking him to purge a lodge. i'd probably not rock the boat and up and leave, but i would feel very uncomfortable... i sure wouldn't participate in a degree or the meeting at all other than as an observer.
next time i'll make sure that i start asking them questions about the work if they don't ask for any information from me.
if you walk into a lodge and you aren't satisfied that you're surrounded by regular masons, then you have every right to leave.
when i was a brand new master mason, i went around to several lodges in the area to meet some of the folks. at one, they didn't ask for a dues card or ID, nor did they ask me any questions at all. they saw me clothed as such and started opening lodge. nobody ever said a word or anything besides being friendly and talking small talk to me before i went in.
great, friendly guys, but if that happened again now, i'd very much ask the JD to convey a private message to the WM asking him to purge a lodge. i'd probably not rock the boat and up and leave, but i would feel very uncomfortable... i sure wouldn't participate in a degree or the meeting at all other than as an observer.
next time i'll make sure that i start asking them questions about the work if they don't ask for any information from me.
JBD
Premium Member
In My OPINION!!!
NOT DOUBLE CHECKED IN THE LAW - BUT MY O-P-I-N-I-O-N
The SD (among others)should do his job before the Lodge is opened.
The SW can be satisifed when the SD vouches for everyone that is there.
When I was SD, I made a point to be the next to last one in. The process was orchestrated. I and the T were outside, the WM knew when I came in I was "good to go", when I walked past the SW on the Way in I would let him know he was satisfied.
AGAIN - THIS IS JUST THE WAY I DID IT - HAVEN"T CHECKED IT IN THE LAW
NOT DOUBLE CHECKED IN THE LAW - BUT MY O-P-I-N-I-O-N
The SD (among others)should do his job before the Lodge is opened.
The SW can be satisifed when the SD vouches for everyone that is there.
When I was SD, I made a point to be the next to last one in. The process was orchestrated. I and the T were outside, the WM knew when I came in I was "good to go", when I walked past the SW on the Way in I would let him know he was satisfied.
AGAIN - THIS IS JUST THE WAY I DID IT - HAVEN"T CHECKED IT IN THE LAW
haha good stuff. I firgured I'd throw that bone out there..
The correct answer is "Yes". Let's say a Brother comes in just before the WM begins to open Lodge. He recognizes another Brother in attendance whom he (and only he in the Lodge) knows to be laboring under charges. He should then stand when asked if the Brethren are satisfied with each other. The WM should then either call the Brother up to the East to explain or have the SD take the Brother outside to find out what the problem is- then the SD can go explain things to the WM.
If you doubt the veracity of this, ask R:.W:. Griffin.
If you doubt the veracity of this, ask R:.W:. Griffin.
It looks to me that you were being sarcastic in your reply while Bill was simply providing context and Grand Lodge law. Just because you disagree with his posts doesn't mean he or anyone else is abusing you. If Bill or anyone else wants to quote GL law all day, more power to them! I always learn something from it.
While some of my own actions and decsions have been rightfully questioned, I've never received a single complaint about any of the Moderators here. I've already closed one topic because of this back and forth pee contest and will no longer tolerate it. Consider this a final warning.
While some of my own actions and decsions have been rightfully questioned
, I've never received a single complaint about any of the Moderators here. I've already closed one topic because of this back and forth pee contest and will no longer tolerate it. Consider this a final warning.
Last edited:
JBD
Premium Member
Bill the scenario I described is not addressed in 381 what I said was...
As SD I would do my job and satisfy myself before I entered the Lodgeroom.
Meaning I would examine visiting brethren - I would review the documents of visiting Texas Masons in accordance with Art 380.
For visiting brethern from other GL's those brothers would be examined to the satisfaction of the SD and others with a committee appointed by the WM.
What I then described was I would walk by and tell the SW that I was satisfied, the actual words I used in the original post was "You are satisfied in the West" I was attempting a moment of lightheartedness.
The SW, according to my reading and that of 3 other PMs, does not have to satisfy 381 when in the west. If it were applicable to him being satisfied there would be no need in having a SD or any other brother and every lodge meeting would begin with him saying he is not satisfied and comsuming Lodge meeting time dragging it out.
Please refer to the last line of 381.
To answer the original question directly, I agree that a brother may take the actions as described by Bill. He may be the only one with knowledge of the brother's inabililty to sit in Lodge.
I'm sorry, but you & your PM's are incorrect. The reason for the SD making sure he can vouch for the visitors is so that he can do so when ordered to by the SW. Unless the SW can state that he has sat in Lodge with all Brethren present or was a member of the examining committee, he CANNOT be satisfied. As I stated earlier, if you disagree, I suggest you contact PGM Griffin. He went over this exact scenario in a Forum last year in Edna, Texas.
I recently visited a Masonic Lodge in New Mexico, and they had the Deacons get the word from everyone in the room before opening. Different.
I've been told they do the same thing in Virginia.
JBD... if the SW has enough confidence in what you say, then what will happen as i described will occur. the GLoTx rules here in Tx, so I'll go with them.
If the SW doesn't know that every brother in the room is a mason through personal experience, he has to say that he isn't satisfied when prompted by the WM to purge the lodge.
It's the SW'd duty FIRST (he's asked FIRST) to ensure that we are satisfied... i wouldn't entrust that duty to anyone else unless i could legally pass that duty on to someone else... it's a pretty mighty trust (third degree?)
passing that trust to the deacons would actually be respectful towards them, in my opinion, so it's actually a good thing!
If the SW doesn't know that every brother in the room is a mason through personal experience, he has to say that he isn't satisfied when prompted by the WM to purge the lodge.
It's the SW'd duty FIRST (he's asked FIRST) to ensure that we are satisfied... i wouldn't entrust that duty to anyone else unless i could legally pass that duty on to someone else... it's a pretty mighty trust (third degree?)
passing that trust to the deacons would actually be respectful towards them, in my opinion, so it's actually a good thing!
JBD
Premium Member
I understand the GL rules here, I go with them as well.
I am describing what transpires under a specific set of circumstances.
I reviewing my postings, my postings took this discussion in a direction I think was not asked nor envisioned by the original poster.
I am not going to address anything further in this thread except to say this on your comment about "its a pretty mighty trust"; if my brother cannot trust my word then he or I must have an issue with our obligation. I would NEVER knowingly leave a brother or a officer brother hanging.
I still do not agree that the SW has to have personally set in the Lodge with everyone in there in order not to say "I am not satisfied". That conclusion is illogical with the acceptance of the proper documentation presented from a TX Master Mason. It is illogical if the duty of the SD is to examine candidates pursuant to a directive by the WM to examine using a committee. The only manner in which I could see this is where he says he is not, has the entire lodge standing just to confirm what the SD already told him - but then again I think that is illogical.
I will study these more.
I am describing what transpires under a specific set of circumstances.
I reviewing my postings, my postings took this discussion in a direction I think was not asked nor envisioned by the original poster.
I am not going to address anything further in this thread except to say this on your comment about "its a pretty mighty trust"; if my brother cannot trust my word then he or I must have an issue with our obligation. I would NEVER knowingly leave a brother or a officer brother hanging.
I still do not agree that the SW has to have personally set in the Lodge with everyone in there in order not to say "I am not satisfied". That conclusion is illogical with the acceptance of the proper documentation presented from a TX Master Mason. It is illogical if the duty of the SD is to examine candidates pursuant to a directive by the WM to examine using a committee. The only manner in which I could see this is where he says he is not, has the entire lodge standing just to confirm what the SD already told him - but then again I think that is illogical.
I will study these more.