Shots Fired!

[goomba]

Do you think any man that meets the minimum qualifications shouldn't be allowed to join a lodge?

Sent from my SM-N910P using My Freemasonry Pro mobile app

What are the difference between the minimum qualifications, qualifications, and preferred qualifications?

 

[dfreybur]

It's just plain ignorant of the facts to claim that only ONE religion is not in favor of homosexual behavior.

I take it you just offered to produce citations from scriptures outside of the JCI family. I've read scriptures from Hindu, Buddhism, Confucianism, Taoism and so on down a considerable list and no such condemnation appears in any of them. I keep reading scripture and keep not finding references. The largest population non-JCI religion whose scripture I have not yet read is Shinto. I finally found one of their main books in English translation so within a year I will have added Shinto to my list.

It is clear that the vast majority of religions across history have made no reference to the topic and as such can not be said to dictate a policy for or against. Which really does mean the topic is only mentioned in the scripture of one family of religions.

 

[goomba]

I'm tired of this thread, but I'll say this: It's just plain ignorant of the facts to claim that only ONE religion is not in favor of homosexual behavior. Now, you can all go back to harping about GL's of which you are not members....

What is not ignorant is to claim that the ONE main religion of an area is the ONE main religion not causing the problem in the area.

Edit:

Or in my belief the misunderstanding of that ONE religion. As I profess a belief in the Christian religion and fully accept and support the homosexual lifestyle.

 

[MRichard]

Those whose business it is know the details, so I'll respectfully decline other than to clear up one important detail: Some, not all, seem to think in Tennessee's case, this was an edict issued by last year's GM; it was not. The issue at hand has been in the code for about 30 years. It was put there, and recently kept there, by the voting members of the state, not one person.

The real takeaway from all this is what I tell my students every day: Don't put your whole life on Facebook because no good will come of it; keep your personal business personal.
When someone asks me, "Did you see on Facebook...." "NO." "But you did't let me finish." "It doesn't matter what you were going to say, because whatever it was, I didn't see it on Facebook." I don't care who you are or what the topic is, keep your private business to yourself. If someone asks you about it, say, "I'm sorry, that's really none

Let's see. The rumors are that it was a gay couple that was married and someone put the pictures of the ceremony on Facebook. You brought it up so why do that when you are not willing to discuss what happened.

 

[MRichard]

Do you think any man that meets the minimum qualifications shouldn't be allowed to join a lodge?

Sent from my SM-N910P using My Freemasonry Pro mobile app

Your question confuses me. Do you mean should instead?

 

[Bloke]

....I dont know about TN but in OR and NM we are obligated to Keep the S of a BMM as my own. with only two exceptions. and being a homo aint one of those exceptions. and those exceptions are left up to me. Bottom line for me is that I may not agree with a man being gay, but i also dont agree with a man voting for Bernie Sanders either, or rooting for the Redskins that doesnt mean that they arent good upright men that i would be glad to call brother.

LOL, very politically incorrect language but love the message my brother i 100% agree

 

[Companion Joe]

But the Gag order was issued by last years GM correct? How is telling your Masons that they cannot discuss a topic that directly affect the members masonic? Also since its been in the code for so long how did those 2 brothers not only make it in but make it through the chairs in one of their cases? I dont know about TN but in OR and NM we are obligated to Keep the S of a BMM as my own. with only two exceptions. and being a homo aint one of those exceptions. and those exceptions are left up to me. Bottom line for me is that I may not agree with a man being gay, but i also dont agree with a man voting for Bernie Sanders either, or rooting for the Redskins that doesnt mean that they arent good upright men that i would be glad to call brother.

There is part of the problem. People take a grain of truth and turn it into a massive pile of misinformation. The "gag order" as it is described wasn't about keeping members from discussing Masonic issues. What was said was no one should make a comment publicly, specifically to the media. All it would take is for one TV reporter with a camera to stop a random old man wearing a S&C ring - never mind the fact that he hadn't sat in lodge since 1974 - to ask him the "official position" on a matter. A perfect example is one particular news story I saw interviewed a man and had him talking at length about the issue. They failed to mention/ignored the fact that he had demitted some time ago and is actually no longer a member in good standing.

A perfect illustration of this is how many people take one line from Albert Pike and proclaim it to be "official" in terms of Masonic doctrine? It's all too easy - especially in today's world of social media and gotcha journalism - to take things out of context and make them the official stance of anything.

 

[Mel Knight]

To be honest I think it's an unfortunate situation for everyone, including brothers that have absolutely nothing to do with the situation.

There's a situation that happen with 1-2 lodges if I'm not mistaken but it's taken out on a whole entire state, it's unfair for everyone.

 

[MasterBulldawg]

What are the difference between the minimum qualifications, qualifications, and preferred qualifications?

Let say you have 3 guys, all good men, no record. ..all the but for 1 thing. 1 wants to join for business contacts, 1 wants to join for self improvement and 1 wants to join to see all the fuss is about. Which one do you want ?

Or lets say you interview guy , good guy, no record etc. ..but something seems off your gut tells you that this guy is not a good fit for masonry ....what do you do?

 

[MasterBulldawg]

Your question confuses me. Do you mean should instead?

Yes sorry the speak to text miss up.

 

[MRichard]

Let say you have 3 guys, all good men, no record. ..all the but for 1 thing. 1 wants to join for business contacts, 1 wants to join for self improvement and 1 wants to join to see all the fuss is about. Which one do you want ?

Or lets say you interview guy , good guy, no record etc. ..but something seems off your gut tells you that this guy is not a good fit for masonry ....what do you do?

If they are all good men, then what's the problem? Our motto is taking good men and making them better.

 

[MasterBulldawg]

If they are all good men, then what's the problem? Our motto is taking good men and making them better.

If you don't know then you are being argumentative or you just don't get it.

 

[MRichard]

If you don't know then you are being argumentative or you just don't get it.

The same could be said of you.

 

[Ripcord22A]

There is part of the problem. People take a grain of truth and turn it into a massive pile of misinformation. The "gag order" as it is described wasn't about keeping members from discussing Masonic issues. What was said was no one should make a comment publicly, specifically to the media. All it would take is for one TV reporter with a camera to stop a random old man wearing a S&C ring - never mind the fact that he hadn't sat in lodge since 1974 - to ask him the "official position" on a matter. A perfect example is one particular news story I saw interviewed a man and had him talking at length about the issue. They failed to mention/ignored the fact that he had demitted some time ago and is actually no longer a member in good standing.

A perfect illustration of this is how many people take one line from Albert Pike and proclaim it to be "official" in terms of Masonic doctrine? It's all too easy - especially in today's world of social media and gotcha journalism - to take things out of context and make them the official stance of anything.

Ok that makes more sense. I was under the impression that you all were told there could be no discussion on the topic till GL. I stand corrected! Thanks for setting me straight!

What is your personal opinion on the matter?

Sent from my LG-H811 using My Freemasonry Pro mobile app

 

[MasterBulldawg]

The same could be said of you.

Maybe, maybe not. But if you try to tell me that every good man is a good fit for masonry then I'll throw down the BS card. Every mason has the duty to guard their lodge and freemasonry against those who they think are not a good fit for the lodge or freemasonry. You shouldn't have to vote for someone just because you can't find a reason not but they should have something about them makes you want to vote for them. Quality not quantity should be what we look for in members. You the secret to Freemasonry isn't just making good men better. It goes back to what you're parents said. You're judged by the company you keep. By having Brothers who can help you when struggle and need help, encouragement and even a kick in the butt when you need it to help make yourself better is the real secret.

Sent from my SM-N910P using My Freemasonry Pro mobile app

 

[goomba]

Let say you have 3 guys, all good men, no record. ..all the but for 1 thing. 1 wants to join for business contacts, 1 wants to join for self improvement and 1 wants to join to see all the fuss is about. Which one do you want ?

Or lets say you interview guy , good guy, no record etc. ..but something seems off your gut tells you that this guy is not a good fit for masonry ....what do you do?

Just because they do or do not have a record doesn't make them good men. There are people with clean records who are terrible people. Also one of the best men I have ever known got into trouble with he was 18. Now close to 40 he has not been in anymore trouble and is the most honorable Mason I know.

I see my vote in this way. Every man who petitions in a no vote until they are shown to be a yes vote. This is just me personally as not all men should be made a Mason. With that being said I can't vote no on a man just because I don't like him. If it's just because I as a person do not like him as a person I see that as a petty reason for me to vote no.

I will say my gut feeling is this for scenario one: business guy stays a no without additional information. The other two I'm assuming everything is great and they are both yes.

In your second scenario being that my gut tells me know it wouldn't make sense for me to say yes. However, my gut feeling would be based of observable facts and circumstances so it would be my responsibility to express this.

Now for what I see as the truth in these scenarios there is not enough information provided in brief discussion board scenarios to make a judgment of a mans life to accurately say how I would vote. Every person has a bad moment and if you look at each of us for a short enough glimpse of time each of us would look horrible. May be the business name is under the impression that Masonry is for business contacts, as is a common misconception.

Truth be told all there that is required for men to join our fraternity is minimum qualifications. The issue I see with this thread is men are adding qualifications to join and that is where problems come from. Each lodge let me say that again, each lodge should decide its membership NOT the grand lodge outside of minimum qualifications. Something the SW says when the lodge is opened in a number of areas something about harmony.

With that being said if individual lodges are violating the minimum qualifications then the grand lodge should address the issue.

Being a man, having a good reputation, believing in a supreme being, and well there is no and, this is the qualification to becoming a Mason. This standard has been around much longer than I have been alive. That is the standard, now I know there are GL's that have additional requirements in other parts of the world. But that is the exception to the rule and not the rule. When we start changing Masonry when does it become something other than Masonry?

Before someone says but the rule has been on the books for 30 years, is Masonry only 30 years old? No it is older than that.

I am a Christian, as are many others in the fraternity, I read the Holy Bible and do not see homosexuality as a sin period. I know others do. But as a Christian I know where these rules came from and being a Christian from the south (Alabama) I know why. I know the area is mostly evangelical Christian of some sort, and there is nothing wrong with that. However, what is wrong is when Masons began placing their religious again THEIR religious beliefs/requirements on an entire fraternity. Again I know other GL's in other parts of the world so lets not get into that here as that goes beyond this discussion. My Christian beliefs are mine not yours (whoever is reading this) I should not force my beliefs on my fraternity. If I cannot separate the two if my convictions are so strong that I cannot accept men of other faith systems, even men of other faith systems within my faith, then I have stepped outside of what Masonry is and I need to separate myself from Masonry.

This is all my opinion and nothing else.

 

[goomba]

MasterBulldog I want you to know none of my replies are directed at you personally. Your post were just good at moving a conversation over. I agree not all "good" men should be Masons.

To everyone else sorry about the long post and typos.

 

[The Traveling Man]

It would seem discriminatory to have a "Are you a homosexual?" or "Are you currently unmarried but living with your significant other?" on a petition, BUT it may be necessary in those Jurisdictions that have such rules. The reason being that in most Jurisdictions, if not all, members aren't given a copy of their Constitution until they receive their 3rd degree. So why Initiate, Pass and Raise a Brother just to suspend or expel him later? If he knew from the beginning that it would not be allowed then he could save the time and just not petition.

 

[Warrior1256]

A perfect illustration of this is how many people take one line from Albert Pike and proclaim it to be "official" in terms of Masonic doctrine? It's all too easy - especially in today's world of social media and gotcha journalism - to take things out of context and make them the official stance of anything.

There's a situation that happen with 1-2 lodges if I'm not mistaken but it's taken out on a whole entire state, it's unfair for everyone.

It would seem discriminatory to have a "Are you a homosexual?" or "Are you currently unmarried but living with your significant other?" on a petition, BUT it may be necessary in those Jurisdictions that have such rules. The reason being that in most Jurisdictions, if not all, members aren't given a copy of their Constitution until they receive their 3rd degree. So why Initiate, Pass and Raise a Brother just to suspend or expel him later? If he knew from the beginning that it would not be allowed then he could save the time and just not petition.

All very good points to consider!