Would you support a National Grand Lodge?

[Winter]

Winter, I understand your reasoning and appreciate your courteous and well thought out reply. However, the situation in Arkansas is unique. We are a small state, population wise. The power mongers in Masonry, as I understand it, all live in or near Little Rock and see each other in person frequently. From my home, near the Missouri border, it is a 3 1/2 hour drive to GL. Not likely, I, and many others near state lines, are going to meet for coffee on a daily basis with the close-minded central bunch. A U.S. GL would have a more geographically diverse bunch and such influences as we have in Arkansas would be highly unlikely. BTW, tonight my Lodge in Missouri (Robert Burns 496) will be hosting the Missouri WGM, the Arkansas WGM and the WGM of Missouri Prince Hall. It will be an historic gathering, especially notable since our Lodge is small and rural. It is my understanding the current Arkansas WGM is attempting to heal the hurts caused in recent years over the rift with Shrine. I look forward to meeting him and hope he speaks to this issue.

I don't think your situation is all that unique actually. The Brothers that inevitably gravitate to the positions of power are usually from the larger urban lodges instead of the small rural ones. The four lodges that formed the first grand lodge were in London, not Nob End in South Lancashire. Urban centers are always the ones that end up imposing their will on the rural ones.

I am glad to hear the new MWGM there is trying to make things better. Though as far as I am concerned, I will be happier when the Shrine is a separate organization and no longer part of Freemasonry.

 

[Warrior1256]

Though as far as I am concerned, I will be happier when the Shrine is a separate organization and no longer part of Freemasonry.

Brother Winter, I'm not a member of the Shrine but this comment caught my interest. Could you elaborate?

 

[Winter]

Brother Winter, I'm not a member of the Shrine but this comment caught my interest. Could you elaborate?

The Shrine is an excellent organization that does amazing work helping thousands of children. But I don't believe that Freemasonry actually benefits from that association. A few of my reasons for a severing ties are:

• The Shrine has zero connection to emblematic Freemasonry and does not build on a Master Mason's education like the York and Scottish Rites do. In fact, when membership numbers were flagging, the Shrine removed the requirement to join either York or Scottish Rites, proving it was only interested in bolstering its own numbers and not supporting Freemasonry.
• It treats the Blue Lodges as its recruiting ground, putting petitions into new Brother's hands almost before the degree is finished. New Brothers are encouraged to get through the degrees as soon as they can so they can get to the fun of the Shrine.
• As the most public branch of Freemasonry it does absolutely nothing to promote Freemasonry. Shrine promotional material is everywhere. Have you ever seen a square and compass on any of it?
• The Shrine itself voted a few years ago to sever ties, and even though the vote failed, it wasn't by much.

Basically, the Shrine has nothing to do with Freemasonry except that its membership is composed of Freemasons. It steals the time, energy, and dollars that would be better spent in the Craft lodges.

 

[Warrior1256]

The Shrine is an excellent organization that does amazing work helping thousands of children. But I don't believe that Freemasonry actually benefits from that association. A few of my reasons for a severing ties are:

• The Shrine has zero connection to emblematic Freemasonry and does not build on a Master Mason's education like the York and Scottish Rites do. In fact, when membership numbers were flagging, the Shrine removed the requirement to join either York or Scottish Rites, proving it was only interested in bolstering its own numbers and not supporting Freemasonry.
• It treats the Blue Lodges as its recruiting ground, putting petitions into new Brother's hands almost before the degree is finished. New Brothers are encouraged to get through the degrees as soon as they can so they can get to the fun of the Shrine.
• As the most public branch of Freemasonry it does absolutely nothing to promote Freemasonry. Shrine promotional material is everywhere. Have you ever seen a square and compass on any of it?
• The Shrine itself voted a few years ago to sever ties, and even though the vote failed, it wasn't by much.

Basically, the Shrine has nothing to do with Freemasonry except that its membership is composed of Freemasons. It steals the time, energy, and dollars that would be better spent in the Craft lodges.

You certainly make some good points here. IMHO points that deserve pondering, in fact.

 

[Glen Cook]

The Shrine is an excellent organization that does amazing work helping thousands of children. But I don't believe that Freemasonry actually benefits from that association. A few of my reasons for a severing ties are:

• The Shrine has zero connection to emblematic Freemasonry and does not build on a Master Mason's education like the York and Scottish Rites do. In fact, when membership numbers were flagging, the Shrine removed the requirement to join either York or Scottish Rites, proving it was only interested in bolstering its own numbers and not supporting Freemasonry.
• It treats the Blue Lodges as its recruiting ground, putting petitions into new Brother's hands almost before the degree is finished. New Brothers are encouraged to get through the degrees as soon as they can so they can get to the fun of the Shrine.
• As the most public branch of Freemasonry it does absolutely nothing to promote Freemasonry. Shrine promotional material is everywhere. Have you ever seen a square and compass on any of it?
• The Shrine itself voted a few years ago to sever ties, and even though the vote failed, it wasn't by much.

Basically, the Shrine has nothing to do with Freemasonry except that its membership is composed of Freemasons. It steals the time, energy, and dollars that would be better spent in the Craft lodges.

Well, I’ve never understood how KT fits with Masonry either, or National Sojourners or Heroes of ‘76.

Yes, I have seen S&C on Shrine promotional material.

I for one have no issue in bringing people in who wish to be Shriners.

I’ve been at Imperial since 1998. I do not recollect a close vote on removing the prerequisite. To which year are you referring?

 

[Winter]

Well, I’ve never understood how KT fits with Masonry either, or National Sojourners or Heroes of ‘76.

I am a proponent for all Appendant Bodies being pushed to stand on their own as separate organizations. Craft Masonry should be the Craft Lodges.

Yes, I have seen S&C on Shrine promotional material.

Really? Because I look whenever I see a Shrine bumper sticker or commercial or such and I don't see them. Even on the Shrine International site they proclaim that they are not a part of Freemasonry:

Shriners International is a spin-off from Freemasonry,

When Shriners International was first founded in 1872, the organization built on the principles that guided Freemasonry, while adding an element of fun and ultimately, philanthropy, that set Shriners International apart.

The two organizations are also structured similarly:

Not a single statement that they are part of the Masonic family.

I for one have no issue in bringing people in who wish to be Shriners.

Neither do I, but the issue I have is when the Shrine recruits members and make sure they know they only have to pay lip service to Freemasonry to become a Shriner and that the degrees are just a formality to get through so they can get their fez.

I’ve been at Imperial since 1998. I do not recollect a close vote on removing the prerequisite. To which year are you referring?

It had to be maybe a decade ago? I remember there was a big hullabaloo over it. Maybe it is a local vote I am remembering or even a failed proposal that didn't make it to a vote.

 

[Glen Cook]

I am a proponent for all Appendant Bodies being pushed to stand on their own as separate organizations. Craft Masonry should be the Craft Lodges.



Really? Because I look whenever I see a Shrine bumper sticker or commercial or such and I don't see them. Even on the Shrine International site they proclaim that they are not a part of Freemasonry:







Not a single statement that they are part of the Masonic family.



Neither do I, but the issue I have is when the Shrine recruits members and make sure they know they only have to pay lip service to Freemasonry to become a Shriner and that the degrees are just a formality to get through so they can get their fez.



It had to be maybe a decade ago? I remember there was a big hullabaloo over it. Maybe it is a local vote I am remembering or even a failed proposal that didn't make it to a vote.

https://www.shrinersinternational.org/Shriners/MasonShriners/Masons

Even if they never return to the blue lodge, they are associating with men of faith who are willing to take obligations to one another. That’s a good thing, I think.

 

[Rifleman1776]

I don't think your situation is all that unique actually. The Brothers that inevitably gravitate to the positions of power are usually from the larger urban lodges instead of the small rural ones. The four lodges that formed the first grand lodge were in London, not Nob End in South Lancashire. Urban centers are always the ones that end up imposing their will on the rural ones.

I am glad to hear the new MWGM there is trying to make things better. Though as far as I am concerned, I will be happier when the Shrine is a separate organization and no longer part of Freemasonry.

This thread may be going slightly astray of the original question but we seem to have drifted there already. I speak as an individual, not a representative of any particular lodge or group of Masons or Shriners.
Last night, at my small rural lodge in Missouri, was a historic gathering. At least four states were represented with Grand officers and/or past Grand officers. The WGMs of Arkansas and Missouri were present and spoke. The majority of the event was lead from the east by a past WGM of Kentucky. Since the work of several states was used this sometimes caused a few laughs. No problem, the good Masons took it all in stride and we came together as Masons should. The very large group may have been a record for this Lodge. Extra chairs had to be put out and the food before hand was excellent and plentiful. Highlights of the evening were when the WGMs of Arkansas and Missouri spoke and brought us up to date on several issue of interest to us all. First, the Arkansas WGM said he has introduced a resolution that would reinstate the Shrine in Arkansas to it's previous arrangement before "the mess" began. He stated, much as I commented on yesterday, that the problem was heavily influenced by a small group of men who meet almost daily at the offices of the GL in Little Rock and that they "live in their own small bubble" without awareness of what his happening throughout the the state. This resolution will be voted on Feb. 7 next year. Hope it passes. The Missouri WGM apologized that the WGM of Missouri Prince Hall was not able to be present. He said, although Missouri has one of the best relationships with PH Masonry in the country the issue, unfortunately, remains somewhat complicated. It seems not all PH Lodges recognize each other as being regular, or genuine, Masonic lodges. There is only one that is recognized by Missouri AF&AM. Efforts are being made at the moment to unscramble this confusion and make us all one in Masonry. It was an historic evening and I, personally, appreciate and recognize the great work put into organizing this event by our current Lodge WM. He epitomizes the Masonic goal of "making good men better". I am proud to know him as a Masonic Brother and friend.

 

[Winter]

https://www.shrinersinternational.org/Shriners/MasonShriners/Masons

Even if they never return to the blue lodge, they are associating with men of faith who are willing to take obligations to one another. That’s a good thing, I think.

Except that it is not a good thing. If a person wants to be a Shriner, then let them be a Shriner. But encouraging Brothers to only pay their dues for no other reason than to maintain their Shrine membership is more harmful than good. If they have nothing to do with their Craft Lodge other than to pay their annual dues then what are they actually contributing? Again, nothing against the Shrine itself, only it's requirement that members be a Mason.

 

[Glen Cook]

Except that it is not a good thing. If a person wants to be a Shriner, then let them be a Shriner. But encouraging Brothers to only pay their dues for no other reason than to maintain their Shrine membership is more harmful than good. If they have nothing to do with their Craft Lodge other than to pay their annual dues then what are they actually contributing? Again, nothing against the Shrine itself, only it's requirement that members be a Mason.

Ah, well, we must disagree on this issue. I’ll look forward to an area of agreement on another discussion!

 

[Warrior1256]

Except that it is not a good thing. If a person wants to be a Shriner, then let them be a Shriner. But encouraging Brothers to only pay their dues for no other reason than to maintain their Shrine membership is more harmful than good. If they have nothing to do with their Craft Lodge other than to pay their annual dues then what are they actually contributing? Again, nothing against the Shrine itself, only it's requirement that members be a Mason.

Ah, well, we must disagree on this issue. I’ll look forward to an area of agreement on another discussion!

Two good Brothers....disagreeing without being disagreeable. Well done gentlemen!

 

[Warrior1256]

The majority of the event was lead from the east by a past WGM of Kentucky.

One of my guys, wish I could have been there.

This resolution will be voted on Feb. 7 next year. Hope it passes

Hope that things get straightened out for you good Brothers in Arkansas.

He said, although Missouri has one of the best relationships with PH Masonry in the country the issue, unfortunately, remains somewhat complicated. It seems not all PH Lodges recognize each other as being regular, or genuine, Masonic lodges.

Recently here in Kentucky PHGL and Kentucky GL recognized each other and then the following year visitation between the two was allowed. However, at this point the Kentucky GL only recognizes the PHA Lodge in Kentucky. However, it's a start.

 

[Winter]

Ah, well, we must disagree on this issue. I’ll look forward to an area of agreement on another discussion!

Yes, I know my position is controversial. And I am sure we will agree on more than we disagree, Brother.

Two good Brothers....disagreeing without being disagreeable. Well done gentlemen!

Yeah, it seems that more and more people have forgotten how to politely disagree with one another without making everything so personal. Everyone is withdrawing into their camps and spitting vitriol instead of looking for any commonality.

 

[Rifleman1776]

Winter, while it is possible some join Masonry just to be eligible for Shrine membership, I believe that is not a big factor at all. I was partially attracted to Shrine because it espoused, and still does, maintaining Masonic principals. The two organizations (previously in Arkansas) served "in amity". But, there is no official connection between the two. And, that is how it should remain in my opinion. Years before the big split I was attending my old Lodge less and less. It was simply boring and the only highlights were arguments. For quite a few years we didn't even have food or desert. We didn't eat, meet, burp and go home. We just met and went home. Not even a burp. There is enough angst in life, I didn't need the pointless arguing either. Shrine has remained solid in adhering to masonic principals and fellowship while doing great work supporting the hospitals.

 

[Winter]

Winter, while it is possible some join Masonry just to be eligible for Shrine membership, I believe that is not a big factor at all. I was partially attracted to Shrine because it espoused, and still does, maintaining Masonic principals. The two organizations (previously in Arkansas) served "in amity". But, there is no official connection between the two. And, that is how it should remain in my opinion. Years before the big split I was attending my old Lodge less and less. It was simply boring and the only highlights were arguments. For quite a few years we didn't even have food or desert. We didn't eat, meet, burp and go home. We just met and went home. Not even a burp. There is enough angst in life, I didn't need the pointless arguing either. Shrine has remained solid in adhering to masonic principals and fellowship while doing great work supporting the hospitals.

If the Lodge is not keeping members because of poor programming, the answer is to fix the Lodge and create the proper experience. Not go to another organization that does provide that fulfillment. That is the prime example of why I believe we should disassociate. Members find it easier to just go off to the Shrine than work to repair the Blue Lodge experience. Just cut out the middle man and let those members be Shriners.

 

[Bloke]

Hey look! A newcomer, let’s alienate them.
A fun little stereotypical microcosm of masonry itself really.

I think we have to listen to comments like this.

As to a National GL (of <insert large country>) I am not a fan. Many GLs avoid the risk of a Single Point of Failure - just as many lodges do in the one jurisdiction. I am also a fan of bottom up rather than top down management in Freemasonry. There is a limit to what most vibrant and intelligent volunteers want to be instructed on, esp when the suggestions and instructions "from the top" can sometimes be down right stupid and completely out of touch with local needs and wants.

While most people where are not pro a National GL (and we know it has been tried before) - the question is why would we want one ? Marketing - that can be done by co-ordinating GL's efforts (good luck with that LOL). Tracking membership - already done via MSANA. A uniform ritual ? Who will give theirs up and why do we really need one ? Inter-visiting- can already be generally achieved. A single Corporate Entity to co-ordinate assets ? GL's often have a very bad track record in this (including my own) and again, we have a single point of failure - and we are much better spreading best practice rather than creating a national controlling entity.. Media Profile is the only real good reason I could see for a National GL - and it's not a good enough reason;

 

[dfreybur]

Recently here in Kentucky PHGL and Kentucky GL recognized each other and then the following year visitation between the two was allowed. However, at this point the Kentucky GL only recognizes the PHA Lodge in Kentucky. However, it's a start.

A few GLs have passed what is called "blanket recognition". Any time there is local recognition in a state, the jurisdiction automatically recognizes PHA. Among my jurisdictions Illinois does this. Illinois doesn't even wait for a return agreement they just sent an announcement of recognition and let the newly recognized PHA jurisdiction act on its own.

If your jurisdiction tracks one by one it ends up a mess. California does that. There's a list in the annual Proceedings. When I went through it a couple of states were missing. I tried to get guys to sign legislation but my lodge's reaction was "We already recognize Prince Hall. They are meeting right now in the Green Room down the hall." If any California Brother wants to try in person, please ping me. Plus the list has PHA jurisdictions that have responded and those that have not.

 

[Matt Ross]

The only thing I could see it helping is weeding out Clandestine "Masons". Correct me if I'm wrong of course.

 

[Glen Cook]

The only thing I could see it helping is weeding out Clandestine "Masons". Correct me if I'm wrong of course.

There are national GLs in France and Italy and more irregular GLs than you can shake a stick at.

 

[jermy Bell]

NO. Can you imagine what the dues would jump to ?