After reading Bro Porter's book, he asserts that the progressive line is helping further the demise of our lodges as it allows men that have no business being in the east, to sit there, simply because they did their "time". We don't want to not elect them to the next station for fear of hurt feelings and being accused of the dreaded "Unmasonic behavior" (which is Goodwin's Law in masonic debates).
I have witnessed men who went through the progression line who were awesome in one station and horrible in the next, I think any Master Mason that has been around long enough see men that had no business sitting in the east, yet are still elected out of "tradition".
Still there was one Worshipful Master we had that went from Junior Deacon to Junior Warden to Worshipful Master who was one of the best WMs I had, he was "quasi" progressive.
So, my question to the seasoned masons, is the progressive line a good thing or bad thing? I am still personally torn on the issue, as I can see the benefits of both, but a historical count of competent Masons that have gone through the progressive line and elected to the East, isn't that good.
Thoughts?
S&F,
-Bro Vick
I have witnessed men who went through the progression line who were awesome in one station and horrible in the next, I think any Master Mason that has been around long enough see men that had no business sitting in the east, yet are still elected out of "tradition".
Still there was one Worshipful Master we had that went from Junior Deacon to Junior Warden to Worshipful Master who was one of the best WMs I had, he was "quasi" progressive.
So, my question to the seasoned masons, is the progressive line a good thing or bad thing? I am still personally torn on the issue, as I can see the benefits of both, but a historical count of competent Masons that have gone through the progressive line and elected to the East, isn't that good.
Thoughts?
S&F,
-Bro Vick