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!
I have heard it asserted several times that, in Texas, when "pro temming" an office, one wears the appropriate jewel, but not the apron of that office. I can't find that in the Laws of the Grand Lodge of Texas. Can somebody point out where it is?
I have heard it asserted several times that, in Texas, when "pro temming" an office, one wears the appropriate jewel, but not the apron of that office. I can't find that in the Laws of the Grand Lodge of Texas. Can somebody point out where it is?
AFAIK, they are not available electronically.They are available in print or CD from the Grand Secretary's office- ask for the Grand Lodge Law Addendum.
I have heard it asserted several times that, in Texas, when "pro temming" an office, one wears the appropriate jewel, but not the apron of that office. I can't find that in the Laws of the Grand Lodge of Texas. Can somebody point out where it is?
Interesting that it's official in Texas. In my other jurisdictions it's tradition not a written rule - Be installed in a chair, put on the apron of that chair for the year. Be assigned pro tem to a chair for a meeting, put on the jewel for that chair for the meeting. Of my jurisdictions only in Texas this taken to the extreme of the brother delivering a lecture is in the east so he gets the jewel of the east during the lecture - I rather like that.
I have heard it asserted several times that, in Texas, when "pro temming" an office, one wears the appropriate jewel, but not the apron of that office. I can't find that in the Laws of the Grand Lodge of Texas. Can somebody point out where it is?
Of my jurisdictions only in Texas this taken to the extreme of the brother delivering a lecture is in the east so he gets the jewel of the east during the lecture
One of the meanings of extreme is on the edge. In the numbers 0-2 the extremes are 0 and 2 with the number 1 not an extreme. If almost all jurisdictions treat a situation by tradition with only one jurisdiction bothering to write it as a rule, having a rule is the extreme. There is no need for extrema in this meaning to be extremist in the other meaning.
Is the lecturer not presiding over the Lodge while he is delivering the lecture?
He is in Texas and no where else I've ever heard of. Why should this be the case in Texas when other jurisdictions don't do this? Everywhere else the Master appoints a brother to join him in the East to deliver the lecture.
I get that "our jurisdiction; our rules" applies and that gratuitous differences are introduced just for the fun of it so there doesn't actually need to be any other justification. But often there's an explanation for how some activity works and why it's in place. Given that the jewel and hat don't change hands in other jurisdictions I know I figure the local history on the matter should be fascinating. Even if it's - Big speech, big hat.
Does the lecturer put on the WM jewel and hat in any jurisdiction other than Texas?