I discuss Masonry with him until I find a road block, like he's an Atheist or whatever, then i explain why that road block prevents him from becoming a Mason, if I don't find a road block, then I cannot in clear conscience deny his attempt to join.Ever had an acquaintance express interest in the craft/ask for a petition but you didn't feel they were worthy? How did you handle it?
I totally agreeI would consider their refusal to follow our rules a MAJOR roadblock.
So, what if you know he is just a very difficult individual who would sow dissension in the lodge?I discuss Masonry with him until I find a road block, like he's an Atheist or whatever, then i explain why that road block prevents him from becoming a Mason, if I don't find a road block, then I cannot in clear conscience deny his attempt to join.
To whom are you referring?While you are certainly entirled to your opinion brother, I would remind you that your position is not in keeping with Masonic purpose
So, what if you know he is just a very difficult individual who would sow dissension in the lodge?
I was replying to a post made by JJones which seems to have been removedTo whom are you referring?
I think it is difficult to know exactly that anyone would sow dissension and still not be able to find a solid point with which to dismiss his candidacy.So, what if you know he is just a very difficult individual who would sow dissension in the lodge?
I was replying to a post made by JJones which seems to have been removed
I think it is difficult to know exactly that anyone would sow dissension and still not be able to find a solid point with which to dismiss his candidacy.
as the guardians of our order, we have a serious responsibility to filter out those individuals whom are unworthy, on this point we both agree. however I for one do not want to be the person who prevented another from obtaining the light they seek just because we two did not have agreeable personalities
I support your right to have the lodge that you desireI deleted it immediately after as I didn't feel I worded it in the best way. Bill_Lins said almost the same thing much more elegantly than I.
It may not be an issue in larger lodges but I'm from a more rural area so my experiences are limited with smaller lodges. It only takes one bad apple to spoil the whole bunch and some personalities are just toxic, regardless of how much light they seek. Other personalities aren't so bad but if they might conflict with already existing members of the lodge then my opinion is they should find light elsewhere.
The issue wasn't whether our two personalities disagreed. I would not cast a negative vote on that basis.I think it is difficult to know exactly that anyone would sow dissension and still not be able to find a solid point with which to dismiss his candidacy.
as the guardians of our order, we have a serious responsibility to filter out those individuals whom are unworthy, on this point we both agree. however I for one do not want to be the person who prevented another from obtaining the light they seek just because we two did not have agreeable personalities
I agree. Two non compatible personalities wouldn't be a reason to deny (in my opinion) but if their personality was such that it caused problems throughout, that's a different story.The issue wasn't whether our two personalities disagreed. I would not cast a negative vote on that basis.
Please clarify, is your statement parallel to condemning ten innocent men rather than risk setting one guilty man free?I agree. Two non compatible personalities wouldn't be a reason to deny (in my opinion) but if their personality was such that it caused problems throughout, that's a different story.
We admit worthy men, not all men. I forget who said it, but I recall something about it being better to deny 10 good men than admit 1 bad one.
No, it's not.Please clarify, is your statement parallel to condemning ten innocent men rather than risk setting one guilty man free?