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!

The Shrine has now been "de-recognized" in Arkansas

Bill Lins

Moderating Staff
Staff Member
I left my lodge due to a bully in one of the chairs, and I believe that when this man sits in the east, the lodge may suffer irreparable damage to its reputation, and several men have already left.

A house divided cannot stand. When Good Men leave, what will you be left with?

You aren't the first & you won't be the last. We need to be careful and vigilant at not only the West gate, but even more so at the East.
 

ironman

Registered User
Suppose a Mason in your jurisdiction violated a masonic law (any masonic law) and was charged and found guilty. Whether suspended or expelled, isn't the Shrine supposed to follow suit and suspend or expel him as well? Even if the guilty one happens to be the current Potentate?

What if they don't? What if, even after being notified of their failure, they simply ignore or refuse the Grand Master's advice? What are your Grand Master's options?
He certainly can't back down...what would that do to Masonry in general?
Chew on that for a while...
 
Last edited:

mrmarcust

Premium Member
Good good for thought. But for a whole jurisdiction to suffer for one's man action. And the next GM also has to think to stand on that order or to have to create division. Not to mention how it would effect divisions to the state. In short, I completely understand that thought process, but feel that it's really hard to stand one way or another.

Sent from my EVO using Tapatalk 2
 

ironman

Registered User
So far, I believe this affair has spanned three GM's.
I know the second to be a very intelligent man and mason...a credit to mansonry in general.
I wouldn't second guess him...I doubt I'm that wise.
 

mrmarcust

Premium Member
I only knew of two accounts. One I personally am on the fence on. The other is to me a pissing contest and a punishment to the shrine and it's members for the shrine not violating rules that are set. So like I said, you really can't be one way or another.

Sent from my EVO using Tapatalk 2
 

sands67

Premium Member
We talk about the Shrine as if it is already a separate organization, which it is, to a point. However, the people who made the rules the Shrine follows ARE MASONS. I think that the Shrine in the end will have no choice but to expel those members unless they are part of a lodge in another jurisdiction. Let the lodges sort it out between them if that is the case. However, given the bumpy history of the Shrine in Arkansas I think the Temples or Shrine Centers as they are called now should be closed and the kids in Arkansas served by Shrine Centers in neighboring States. It would not be ideal and the local presence would be missed, but this pissing contest as some have called it has to end for the good of Masonry in general.
 

mrmarcust

Premium Member
One of the three that is having issues, the brother that is involved is a member in another jurisdiction in good standings. That particular one sounds like a passing contest amongst members and not between the GL and the Shrine.

Sent from my EVO using Tapatalk 2
 

Michael Hatley

Premium Member
this pissing contest as some have called it has to end for the good of Masonry in general.

Quoted for truth.

The hospitals. That is what the Shrine is really about. Children that have been burned or injured so badly they lose multiple limbs. These children are real. The hospitals are real. The cause is real.

These disagreements are horse shit. If the leaders cannot put them aside for the good of the children, for the good of Masonry - then new leadership is required.
 

Michel Vigeant

Registered User
It looks like the Grand Lodge of South Carolina will follow suit and expel all S.C. Shriners from the Craft. The Grand Master has taken the Imperial Potentate to task for allowing those expelled masons in Arkansas to join the Grand Lodge of Indiana in order to 'circumvent' the GM's decree in Arkansas, thereby keeping them as Shriners. It is a very touchy subject.
 

mrmarcust

Premium Member
If caught in the middle of that, I'd just have to walk away from it all.

Sent from my EVO using Tapatalk 2
 

sands67

Premium Member
The Shrine does not have the power to make a Grand Lodge accept members. The condition of membership in the Shrine is to be a mason. It doesn't say from any particular place. Maybe it is time the Grand Lodges sat down and straightened this out once and for all. Technically the rules of Shrine membership are being followed.

Freemason Connect Premium App
 

mrmarcust

Premium Member
Point and case. Now if one GL honored the wishes of another GL when it comes to expulsion, them the proven wouldn't be with the shrine.

Sent from my EVO using Tapatalk 2
 

Michel Vigeant

Registered User
Nothing further to report other than the foolishness has spread to SC and there may be a motion on the floor in Indianapolis this July attempting to put closure to this sordid tale of airing our dirty laundry.
 

Plustax

Registered User
Personally, I find all this apalling & embarrassing toward Masons in general. All this due to Power & Politics & "I'll show you what I can do if you piss me off". Kinda puts us (Masonry) at "One giant step BACKWARDS for mankind. I'm sure this is going to be a MAJOR topic in Indianapolis next week. Oh wel... We'll see.
 

masonicknight

Registered User
Please correct me if I am wrong. I thought that if one were in another state and violated that jurisdictions rules and was punished in that state by that GL for said violation it was recognized in that members home state GL also.

With that said, I wonder if the best possible outcome would be for a amicable separation of sorts between the GL's and the Shrine. Numbers are important to all sides of the equation as far as membership is concerned. We can see this when the Shrine decided that Scottish Rite and York Rite was no longer needed as a stepping stone to membership. Their numbers didn't increase like they hoped it would. There are Masons out there who have never been to a Lodge meeting since they received their 3rd degree and feel that it was a waste of time and money and continues to be a drain on them every year at dues time. They joined just to be a Shriner.

That same year, the separation of York and Scottish Rites, Shrine proposed that a person should be allowed to become a Shriner first and start the process of Masonic membership within a definite timeline or risk loss of membership if they failed to start their steps to Lodge membership. It would have allowed them the opportunity to recruit easier.

The sad part is to all of this is that there are good people out there that could be members of a great organization, pick anyone group including non-masonic, and don't because of lack of understanding of its programs, requirements to join, or even who its members are and where they meet. When something like this comes along it gives bad press to the organization as a whole as well as its separate parts.

I sincerely hope that they can look at this in a rational and logical way at some point and realize they are doing more damage then the good they are doing. Ironically, many Shriners that I know in my state have not even heard of this going on. Would their participation in a group in any one of these states hurt their status. More then likely it would based on my understanding of the Masonic Code.
 
Top