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!

Results- 2013 Texas Grand Annual Communication

tomasball

Premium Member
"No ritual other than that promulgated by this Grand Lodge shall be taught or used in this jurisdiction, nor shall paraphernalia except as listed in Article 223 of the Laws of this Grand Lodge be used, nor shall preparation of the candidates for the three degrees conferred in this Grand Lodge include other than that provided in the Monitor of the Lodge or otherwise required by any provisions of the laws of this Grand Lodge..."

No room for interpretation. It's plain English, and unambiguous. I realize it wasn't the GM's intention to do more than stop people from using chambers of reflection, but that just means he should have been more careful in crafting his recommendation, because now it's the law. If it's not listed in Art. 223, it can't be in your lodge.
 

tomasball

Premium Member
I trust we can look forward to the CoW enforcing this rule just as strictly as they did against the brethren of Brahan lodge, who they threatened with losing their charter because the Master left the East during his MM lecture.
 

crono782

Premium Member
Shucks. I was hoping that the wording had been amended. Yeah pretty much right. I'd still argue that robes would be more conferring officer dress and less paraphernalia. I doubt anyone would call 18th century colonial period costume paraphernalia. But like you said, it really depends on the CoW opinion at the time. :(
 

JJones

Moderator
I dont feel that robes would be considered paraphernalia technically speaking. Idont think therr are any GL laws regarding acceptable clothing.

On a side note, I really feel they are trying hard to strip Freemasonry down lately, especially after seeing the results here. If I wanted the Lions Club then thats who I would have joined. :(



Sent from my SM-T210R using My Freemasonry mobile app
 

tomasball

Premium Member
Art 223 lists the candidate's sandal and the officer's jewels and collars, as well as armbands for funerals. If an ermine-lined robe and crown are just clothing, a skull is just a paperweight, candles are jsut light fixtures and the rooster drawn on the wall is just art.

Further, any lodge out there with rough and perfect ashlars need to get rid of them. Those aren't on the list either. And ditch those song-sheets.
 

crono782

Premium Member
Yah I caught the Ashlar ban. Sad really. Glass half empty or half full...

Guess you could keep the Ashlars if it was normal lodge decoration, just don't point to them in a degree. Lol
 

Bill Lins

Moderating Staff
Staff Member
Bro. Bill if you have the report could post the death to raised report for the most current year? I believe it is in the Grand Sec. report they hand out???

Yup- and I left it up at the Lodge after our stated meeting tonight. :sad:

I don't recall the exact numbers but deaths, demits, & suspensions/expulsions still outpace raisings. :sad:
 

Bill Lins

Moderating Staff
Staff Member
Grand Master's recommendation No. 2 has the unavoidable effect of banning robes in degrees.

I suspect that degree teams that regularly conduct "robed" degrees would be able to get a GM's dispensation to continue doing so.
 

Bill Lins

Moderating Staff
Staff Member
So was that stated in Grand Lodge, and if not, why?

All that Bro. Normand said was that the report had been filed with the Grand Secretary's office and that it contained information regarding the MWPHAGLoTX. Bro. Pete might be willing to provide a copy of said report if asked nicely. :wink:
 

Bill Lins

Moderating Staff
Staff Member
I get that part. It was more of a comment about not wasting everyone's time. That's 2.5 hours (or whatever it was) multiplied by everyone that was there.

In fairness, all that occurred during the balloting for GJW, Grand Treasurer, and the Committee on Work. Each ballot takes quite a bit of time to collect & tabulate and there were three ballots just on GJW. But yes, committee reports could ​have been given while we were waiting for the ballot results.
 

HKTidwell

Premium Member
So if Chamber of Reflections were the target of the ban, does that mean that all the stuff the lodge has piled into the ante room are therefor banned? Thus meaning most lodges in the State of Texas are now not in compliance?

:p
 

tomasball

Premium Member
Well, I would suggest that the lodges that really are the targets here ought to raise holy ned about the selective enforcement of laws.
 

Brent Heilman

Premium Member
I know it has been a LONG time since I have been on here (work issues) so I may have missed something in the past, but why the ban on a CoR?
 

JFS61

Premium Member
Oh, I just noticed. Grand Master's recommendation No. 2 has the unavoidable effect of banning robes in degrees. Makes me feel better.


Awhile back a rumor went around that the COW frowned on the use of robes, as it supposedly created a disparity between those lodges that had them and those that didn't, and thus created a breach in the uniformity of ritual.
 
Last edited:

dfreybur

Premium Member
Just about everything I wanted to pass failed, and failed, passed. Oh well.

In my other two jurisdictions where I'm a permanent member of grand lodge I often found myself on the minority side on votes. Part of subduing our passions is living with and abding by the decisions of the representatives in their votes.

I have never heard of any issues with the GLofTX until recently. Is this kind of thing a common occurrence in TX? I have never been to a GL anywhere (though I am hoping to go to next years communication).

Glossing over discussion of decisions they don't want to touch appears to be common. I have seen it happen in both of my other jurisdictions. With legislation it pushes the item to the next year but it can't by pushed beyond that. With committee reports that have recommendations that need to be voted on it does result in that item never coming up for a vote.

Abbreviating the Fraternal Relations report seemed very strange. I privately inquired of a friend on that committee, and he says they haven't heard anything from the MWPHGLOT since they cancelled that previous meeting.

We have recognition. Anyone from other jurisdictions that have recognition will assume there was cross attendence at each others' sessions and thus events at either become known to both. You'll notice the condunrum in this - Recognition without visitation breaks this expectation. This is yet another reason why visitation needs to be pushed forward on the grassroots level not depending on our leadership to move it forward.

I would comment, not as an excuse, but as a pertinent fact, that a lot of that joking and tapdancing was to kill time while they waited for the count on the ballot for GJW to come in. According to our law, there's a limit to what you can do while the election is still undecided. That said, I think they could have called for some more reports. It is very obvious that we need to find some way to automate our ballot counting. They have machines that can count dollar bills, they ought to have something that could count our ballots. What do they do in other jurisdictions?

The other jurisdictions I know push forward as best they can then back track when results are available.

Illinois moves forward with other agenda items while a paper ballot is being counted the times that has happened when I was in attendence. I have seen it happen on multiple occasions. It is possible when multiple candidates are nominated for Senior Grand Deacon for their to be runoff elections reducing the number of candidates at each attempt. I have only seen one contested Sr Gr D election and in that case the published brother won a majority the first round. But he won a narrow majority so it was clear he needed to change the grand line's direction. During counts I've seen awards, Mason of the year speech, committee reports, reinstatement votes.

California typically votes by punch card not by hand vote for all items. If there are only two choices it never goes to a runoff so there is no delay. The votes are all counted together and announced the next day with exact numbers for, against and invalid. During the three years I attended I did not witness a runoff situation but our paperwork packet did include extra punch cards just in case.

On a side note, I really feel they are trying hard to strip Freemasonry down lately, especially after seeing the results here. If I wanted the Lions Club then thats who I would have joined. :(

Banning Table Lodge? Agreed. Any attempt to make meaning move apparent has been met with resistance or a ban. It's shameful.

Art 223 lists the candidate's sandal and the officer's jewels and collars, as well as armbands for funerals. If an ermine-lined robe and crown are just clothing, a skull is just a paperweight, candles are jsut light fixtures and the rooster drawn on the wall is just art.

Further, any lodge out there with rough and perfect ashlars need to get rid of them. Those aren't on the list either. And ditch those song-sheets.

I pointed out the ashlars early in the discussion. Out with them! They have just been banned by vote of our own representatives.

Banning CofR without mentioning CofR, that was underhanded enough that I urged a vote against for that reason independent of the surface jusification. It is a tactic that is supposed to be beneath the dignity of a MW GM.

I know it has been a LONG time since I have been on here (work issues) so I may have missed something in the past, but why the ban on a CoR?

CofW adds meaning. The knife and fork folks resist meaning. Argh.
 

Brother JC

Moderating Staff
Staff Member
In my other two jurisdictions where I'm a permanent member of grand lodge I often found myself on the minority side on votes. Part of subduing our passions is living with and abding by the decisions of the representatives in their votes.
California allows PMs to vote at GL? *flips through Code* So they do... yet another difference for me to adjust to. NM has no "permanent members" of Grand Lodge.

And I can't imagine Lodge without ashlars. We might as well throw all the jewels out.
 

dfreybur

Premium Member
Thanks, I had been away from here so long I thought maybe something might have happened somewhere.

What actually happened - A lodge started doing Chamber of Reflection but they ignored the way the ritual works so they screwed it up. If you don't bother understanding ritual, folks, please don't go around changing it. They opened lodge, put the candidate in CofR, admitted the candidate into tiled lodge without it being in ancient form, sent the candidate back to CofR then moved the candidate to the preparation room. I think they actually turned on the lights and the Chamber became the preparation room.

I suspect if they had bothered to understand the ritual and to do it in such a way that it did not conflict none of this would happen. I have seen local tradition talks given after the closing with no conflict, so I figure they should have performed the CofR to completion before the opening began. But no they screwed it up.

Now what folks are going to remember is "Chamber bad" not "understanding the ritual good". It's a sad state triggered by a screw up that should have been noticed by literally every brother participating. They are a TO lodge where the meaning of the ritual is taught so why didn't they know the difference?
 

dfreybur

Premium Member
California allows PMs to vote at GL? *flips through Code* So they do... yet another difference for me to adjust to. NM has no "permanent members" of Grand Lodge.

In California each lodge has 4 votes. WM, SW, JW (or proxy for any of those) plus all of the PMs in attendance. Plus there are votes for the current grand officers, past elected grand officers and a partridge in a pear tree. I don't recall the exact list of extras.

There are no rules for what happens if there are multiple PMs of the same lodge in attendance and they don't agree. Some lodges give the ballot to the first PM to show up. Some assign a specific PM. Some have their PMs hand the ballot around each punching his own vote - If they all agree on yes or no that vote is valid. If they don't agree both yes and no get punched and it's an invalid vote. Some hope the PMs get together and agree.

Because I have a shared vote for my lodge if I ever attend GL in California I am a "permanent member of grand lodge".

In Illinois each lodge has 3 votes. PMs can author and sign legislation and can speak on the floor but do not have a vote unless they get assigned a proxy (I have held a proxy more than half of the times I attended in Illinois). In Illinois I am a "member of grand lodge". Different jurisdiction, different rules, different term for PMs.
 

Brent Heilman

Premium Member
Thanks, for clearing that up. It surprises me how some Lodges decide to do something and yet don't exercise enough judgement to properly practice or prepare for what they want to do.
 
Top