The leather is to protect you from the road. When I was run over 8/31/13 my vest saved my back and right hand side. It wore through my blue jeans and under ware but not the vest. I also asure you wareing what ever you are wareing doesn't make you a mason.@pointwithinacircle2
I'm just comparing a biker wearing the S&C to my dirty truck...
So, are you saying that wearing a leather vest makes you feel like something you are not? hmmm... the clothes don't make the man. Yes, obviously when you're wearing your leathers you feel like you wanna ride... but that is who you are.
The Widows Son are already Mason's of good standing but just a group that ride.Before people started freaking out about numbers and membership decline, flinging the doors wide open to anyone who was willing to join, this would never have been a topic of conversation. Those who believe the second photo is an appropriate representation of Masonry would have never gotten a petition or at least never made it past the investigation committee.
Some of us are also called Rolex bikers by the other Bike clubs. The vests are part of the protective gear the patches are to show who we assoeate with. Right now I have what is called a single family patch. I would like to ware something more as a group.If you fear these men or have preconceived notions about their character based on their appearance, that says more about you than it does them.
Meet on the Level: To a Freemason, means just that — all Freemasons are Brothers who meet on the same level, regardless of their social or economic status outside the lodge. Princes, presidents, and captains of business are no better or more important than bus drivers, plumbers, and paper boys when they sit in the lodge together. Masonry does not detract from a man’s accomplishments, nor does it exalt him above his Brothers because of his position outside the lodge.
This is one of our most basic tenants, Freemason 101 stuff.
Again, the same could be argued the other way. Commandry is an excellent example because of its over-the-top regalia. I find it rather silly that men dressed as peacocks are representative of Freemasonry. The Shriners have weird hats and drive tiny cars in parades. How about those Knights Templar who dress up in full medieval garb? Or the Scottish Rite actors who go all out in full gear? This is a fraternity. It's a bunch of grown men who are playing dress up and role playing. Obviously it's much more than that, but the point remains.
No the GLoT just said you can not exist and you can not meet with those from other states that are WS. That is why I say the problem is the way the edict was written. If they would have approved one single patch or said there is one patch that is not apropate it would have worked. the 2007 GLoT was written in such a way that we could not even meet to talk about presenting a deferent image with out being kicked out of masonary.Thank you for understanding my point, even if we disagree on it's applicability.
So the Grand Lodge says "If you want to be a recognized Masonic Group you can't do X, Y, and Z. And the Widows Sons say "We don't care what you say, we are gonna do X,Y, and Z anyway". This doesn't sound like a clothing is the problem to me.
So, you are a member of the Grand Lodge of Texas but belong to the Tennessee Grand Chapter of Widows's Sons?Some of us are also called Rolex bikers by the other Bike clubs. The vests are part of the protective gear the patches are to show who we assoeate with. Right now I have what is called a single family patch. I would like to ware something more as a group. View attachment 4611 View attachment 4612
Because sometimes, the organization represents values not consonant with Freemasonry.If Masons, raised on good faith, join a club. And then partake in behavior unbecoming a Mason. Why would the GL ban the club, instead of the individual Mason? I can say that some Shiners drink to much. Some Templars are intolerant of all religions. It's an individual problem of a stunted growth Mason. The Widows Sons are not at fault in general. They only hold some individuals that need help finding direction, as do many Lodges and other associated bodies. It is our job to help a brother when in need. If helping them means having them expelled…..so be it. But to ban an entire club for acts of a few, is wrong. I joined the WS. So far everyone is top notch. If, in the future, my impression changes. Then I'm out…..but I would never ban them for it. I would express my concerns, and if not addressed properly by the club membership……. See ya later.
Brother Scott, In the forum thread linked above is a statement from the GL of MI to the Widows Sons group in Michigan. It outlines the issues that need to be addressed before the situation can be resolved. It contains absolutely no reference to the behavior of any individual or of the group as a whole! The issues under dispute appear to be procedural and effect the sovereignty of the Grand Lodge. I realize that many Masons will still complain about following the edict of their Grand Lodge, but I believe there was a ceremony where they agreed to do so. In short, some men may have to decide if they want to be Masons who are true to their obligation or if they wish to pledge their allegiance elsewhere.Grand Lodge of Michigan declares Widows Sons clandestine:
As noted previously,What specific values do the Widow's Sons represent that are not consonant with Freemasonry?
OK, I'm just going to say it. Disrespect.What specific values do the Widow's Sons represent that are not consonant with Freemasonry?
Those are not values.As noted previously,
They were not allowed to organize in Utah in 2008, as they had (and still have) a logo with a woman (a widow) posed in what was deemed a lascivious manner, they had a forum section named MILF....
This is better...at least you're paying attention and have a valid reason, unlike most of the posters in this thread.OK, I'm just going to say it. Disrespect.
It has been my observation he Widows Sons are free to organize anywhere that they are willing to respect the authority of the presiding Grand Lodge.
Autonomy: the quality or state of being self governing. From: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/autonomyI would argue that it's more about autonomy than respect.