Grand lodge of California being more accepting of Co and female Masons.

[CantorArcani]

Looks like my old jurisdiction is leading a charge of being brotherly to co and female Masons. Welcomed certainly by me. It makes sense for a state like California to have a more accepting and liberal grand lodge. I am of the opinion that some day full acceptance of female Masons will come and it won't be in the far off future. The numbers simply demand it. I think it will be a grand lodge like California, Oregon or Minnesota to lead the way. Well, they are my pick anyway.

This is a good article on a very positive development.

The Grand Lodge of California’s Sudden Détente Toward Co- and Femalecraft Masonry is a Good Thing – I Hope

By Karen Kidd, PM(I speak only for me) The Grand Lodge of California, the state’s largest male-only Masonic body, apparently has suddenly concluded that it’s OK with women and mixed Fre…

masonicmouse.org

 

[MarkR]

I'd be shocked if Minnesota "led the way," for two reasons. 1. I've never heard of any interest in it; there is little to no female or co-Masonry in Minnesota. 2. Minnesota was burned a couple of decades ago when they decided to recognize the Grand Lodge of France in addition to the French National Grand Lodge. Several other states immediately pulled recognition of Minnesota, and Minnesota back tracked. I don't see them wanting to jump into being any kind of trailblazer again.

 

[K4DL]

If we honor our obligations, I don't think it will happen. But not all men honor their obligations.

 

[Glen Cook]

If we honor our obligations, I don't think it will happen. But not all men honor their obligations.

My obligation doesn‘t say anything about being accepting or polite even to those whom we deem irregular.

My obligation is limited to Masonic communication, to include sitting in a tyled lodge.

 

[CantorArcani]

I'd be shocked if Minnesota "led the way," for two reasons. 1. I've never heard of any interest in it; there is little to no female or co-Masonry in Minnesota. 2. Minnesota was burned a couple of decades ago when they decided to recognize the Grand Lodge of France in addition to the French National Grand Lodge. Several other states immediately pulled recognition of Minnesota, and Minnesota back tracked. I don't see them wanting to jump into being any kind of trailblazer again.

I remember when GL of MN recognized GLdF, IMHO MN should have held the line on that one.

I think there is in general less female Masonry around the country has to do with just the lack of even knowing such a thing exists. The co and female jurisdictions, even my own do a terrible job at marketing as it were.

I'm very active in Scouting and I have been since I was 6. It was said that opening the doors to girls would kill scouting. Hell, that was the line for over 75 years. Then we actually did open the doors and that move while some got upset, left and went home, the bigger result was it saved scouting.

 

[Mike Martin]

Do you have a more recent update on the progress? With that article coming from 2019 I think it could be useful.

 

[dfreybur]

Looks like my old jurisdiction is leading a charge of being brotherly to co and female Masons. Welcomed certainly by me. It makes sense for a state like California to have a more accepting and liberal grand lodge. I am of the opinion that some day full acceptance of female Masons will come and it won't be in the far off future. The numbers simply demand it. I think it will be a grand lodge like California, Oregon or Minnesota to lead the way. Well, they are my pick anyway.

This is a good article on a very positive development.

The Grand Lodge of California’s Sudden Détente Toward Co- and Femalecraft Masonry is a Good Thing – I Hope

By Karen Kidd, PM(I speak only for me) The Grand Lodge of California, the state’s largest male-only Masonic body, apparently has suddenly concluded that it’s OK with women and mixed Fre…

masonicmouse.org

An article from 2019? I was invited to a female-only installation in 1999 in California. That's "olds" rather than "news".

I promised to not enter a tiled meeting of women who call themselves Masons. I didn't promise to deny that they live by our principles. I also didn't promise to refuse to go to some meeting that's open to the public not tiled.

I don't know if our jurisdictions will move towards open by gender. Should that happen, we still have generations who promised to not cross a tiler when a lady is in attendance. I thought about the gender topic for a long time. It's a tempest in a teapot. Coed and female only jurisdictions have under one percent of our male only membership. The numbers don't remotely say it's inevitable.

Our society needs single gender sanctuary societies. For men and separately for women. I think that's a general human need not even particularly Masonic in origin. We just happen to be one of the few societies left who deliver on that need. So we're in the crosshairs of those who see a need for involuntary integration but not a need voluntary separation.

Any of us and/or any of our wives could petition to become Oddfellows. They did integrate. I'm happy to watch how history sorts out that topic. We all know how cliche' it is - I have friends who are Oddfellows. They are good people.

For many years I have asked myself a list of questions. Do my jurisdictions have the moral authority to make some random moral decision for me? How does my oath dictate my actions relative to some random moral topic?

Before my obligations, I was told that my obligations would not interfere with the duty I owe to God, my country, my neighbor or myself. That's called context. But it just kicks the can farther down the road. What is duty itself?

Importantly, if I figure out answers for myself to those questions, I certainly have no authority to impose my own answers on anyone else. And THEN what does it mean when one of my Grand Lodges tries to pull what I view as imposing their own morality onto me? Where does their authority end, given the context that was explained to me before I took my obligations?

I see this discussion needs to be applied to 3 categories of topics.

One is gender. Once I figured out that it's a tempest in a teapot, I stopped caring. I view single gender organizations as a social need.

Second is clandestine status. One of my sponsors was a Prince Hall Mason. That was before recognition started rolling around. I sort of care about lineage. I sort of care about how well or badly someone followed the rules when they declared some Grand Lodge. But I also understand that in some situations were were no good choices. So I don't really care about clandestine status at the same time as declining to pass a tiler into one of their meetings.

Third is jurisdictions pulling recognition over various topics. I have asked myself very closely if any one pulling of recognition is about a topic I care about or grant authority on. This one is where I diverge from blind obedience. I petitioned for membership in a Tennessee lodge without surrendering my California life membership. I deny the moral authority to pull recognition in that situation. It's the difference between blind obedience and my view of duty to my neighbor.

About a year ago we moved from near Austin, TX to near Knoxville, TN. I have affiliated with a local lodge. I've been through the line twice so I'm not going through the line again. But I do learn enough to take smaller parts in degrees ...

By the way, as you read this post I ask you to play a Steely Dan song inside your head. The Logical Song. They call me a radical, a liberal. Nice tune to give background for this context.

Pasadena 272, CA. Barrington 522, IL. Lombard 1098, IL. Tranquility 2000, TX. Faith 756, TN. If your jurisdiction is a single affiliation one, play that Steely Dan song and call me a radical ...

 

[JanneProeliator]

THis is part of the ongoing global trend. UGLE has been working to gether with Women freemasins for couple of years and Grand lodge of Finland has started to work with our local women freemasons. Not to combine the male and female lodges or grand lodges but to offer the option for women to join freemasonry in their own organisation.

Partly this is to promote inclusivity within freemasonry so we don´t seem as an old boys club that trys to keep women outside the benefits of the freemasonry.

 

[CantorArcani]

An article from 2019? I was invited to a female-only installation in 1999 in California. That's "olds" rather than "news".

I promised to not enter a tiled meeting of women who call themselves Masons. I didn't promise to deny that they live by our principles. I also didn't promise to refuse to go to some meeting that's open to the public not tiled.

I don't know if our jurisdictions will move towards open by gender. Should that happen, we still have generations who promised to not cross a tiler when a lady is in attendance. I thought about the gender topic for a long time. It's a tempest in a teapot. Coed and female only jurisdictions have under one percent of our male only membership. The numbers don't remotely say it's inevitable.

Our society needs single gender sanctuary societies. For men and separately for women. I think that's a general human need not even particularly Masonic in origin. We just happen to be one of the few societies left who deliver on that need. So we're in the crosshairs of those who see a need for involuntary integration but not a need voluntary separation.

Any of us and/or any of our wives could petition to become Oddfellows. They did integrate. I'm happy to watch how history sorts out that topic. We all know how cliche' it is - I have friends who are Oddfellows. They are good people.

For many years I have asked myself a list of questions. Do my jurisdictions have the moral authority to make some random moral decision for me? How does my oath dictate my actions relative to some random moral topic?

Before my obligations, I was told that my obligations would not interfere with the duty I owe to God, my country, my neighbor or myself. That's called context. But it just kicks the can farther down the road. What is duty itself?

Importantly, if I figure out answers for myself to those questions, I certainly have no authority to impose my own answers on anyone else. And THEN what does it mean when one of my Grand Lodges tries to pull what I view as imposing their own morality onto me? Where does their authority end, given the context that was explained to me before I took my obligations?

I see this discussion needs to be applied to 3 categories of topics.

One is gender. Once I figured out that it's a tempest in a teapot, I stopped caring. I view single gender organizations as a social need.

Second is clandestine status. One of my sponsors was a Prince Hall Mason. That was before recognition started rolling around. I sort of care about lineage. I sort of care about how well or badly someone followed the rules when they declared some Grand Lodge. But I also understand that in some situations were were no good choices. So I don't really care about clandestine status at the same time as declining to pass a tiler into one of their meetings.

Third is jurisdictions pulling recognition over various topics. I have asked myself very closely if any one pulling of recognition is about a topic I care about or grant authority on. This one is where I diverge from blind obedience. I petitioned for membership in a Tennessee lodge without surrendering my California life membership. I deny the moral authority to pull recognition in that situation. It's the difference between blind obedience and my view of duty to my neighbor.

About a year ago we moved from near Austin, TX to near Knoxville, TN. I have affiliated with a local lodge. I've been through the line twice so I'm not going through the line again. But I do learn enough to take smaller parts in degrees ...

By the way, as you read this post I ask you to play a Steely Dan song inside your head. The Logical Song. They call me a radical, a liberal. Nice tune to give background for this context.

Pasadena 272, CA. Barrington 522, IL. Lombard 1098, IL. Tranquility 2000, TX. Faith 756, TN. If your jurisdiction is a single affiliation one, play that Steely Dan song and call me a radical ...

That's an excellent post and I deeply thank you for your perspective Brother. I shall ponder further and will post my thoughts.

 

[Bloke]

For me, I really value the male space of a lodge. I really support Co-Freemasonry, even though I cannot and have no desire to be a member. I would love to see their workings., but cannot because my GL does not recognize them... but again, I think single gender spaces have a place and are valuable.. but never should actually be hostile to the other gender..

If my GL over suggested we should become Co-Masonic, even putting our international standing and network aside (and that's beyond the Craft but extends to Other Orders), I would resist because I think fraternities create a special place for men.

 

[K4DL]

I have always thought Eastern Star was the thing for women and men. As membership is declining I would think adding another body would do more harm than good.

 

[James Brent]

what is being talked about is changing Masonry into something it was not designed for. It is like feeding your body genetically modified food full of glyphosate, other chemicals and highly refined seed oils not designed for the human body and expecting not to get cancer and other problems. If you listen to the obligation it implies no females, no homosexuals. The principle tenets of Masonry is about a monotheistic belief in a supreme being and freedom and being free born, the exact opposite of Communism. Masonry is about taking good men and making them better. Not taking felons and make them good men. All of these areas of Masonry have been attacked for well over two decades. Masonry by nature is exclusive not inclusive.

I want present an interesting concept. If the above changes are not following Masonries rules and laws and the obligation, then why follow any law or rule or the obligation in Masonry. If your Grand Lodge is pushing for these “unlawful” changes; would your Grand Lodge be more likely to not follow any other law or rule or the obligation to enforce these changes. What if your Grand Lodge is pressured to do so. One post mentioned that the UGLE was pressuring other Grand Lodges to except women. I believe the UGLE did the same for recognition of Prince Hall. If you think the above scenario would never happen, it did in Texas. And the way it happened will hopefully wake you up to the changes happening in Masonry and how our Fraternal Order is self destructing and possibly being used for another purpose.

I submitted resolutions to the Grand Lodge of Texas (GLoT) several years ago. The Resolutions I submitted were to enforce what was already in our Masonic laws, rules and obligation in regards to not allow homosexuals, communist and felons as members. There was a fourth resolution that our Grand Lodge would not recognize any other Grand Lodge that didn't have similar laws.

Today if the last resolution had passed it would have been a lot of Grand Lodges, Texas would have not recognized including Prince Hall. Prince Hall proudly honors a large number of communist and felon members. At that time women in masonry was not an issue, if there had, there would have been a fifth resolution. Texas has (or had a law at that time) being a communist is a Masonic offense. They may have changed it after the resolution were submitted. i am not sure how many other Grand Lodges have that law.

Before I petitioned i was concerned with whom i would have a binding oath with. Before I asked for a petition I asked a Mason questions for four month about Masonry. Part of those questions was, I asked specifically if i would have a binding oath with a homosexual, communism and a felon. At that time the answer was no to all three. After i join, over the years, i was forced into have a binding oath with all three in Texas. When i joined i took it as a contract that i signed on for.

So for the above reason, I wrote the above resolutions. When I was writing them I was very open with GLoT Grand Secretary what i was doing even told him why. I made sure I followed all the rules. The Worshipful Master of my Lodge( and my Lodge as a whole) liked the resolutions so much so he wanted to recruit other Lodges to be cosponsors of the resolutions. I got approval from the Grand Secretary and followed his instructions.

GLoT had no problem with anything I was doing until they saw how I wrote the resolutions. I had several Masons ask if i was an attorney or how many people helped me. I am not an attorney and other than proofreading I did all the work on writing them. I simply took my time and read all our rules and laws and what was in our obligation. I saw other resolutions and the general language that was used in them. It was not that difficult to write the resolutions, just time consuming. It took me four months.

Before they were officially submitted someone sent GLoT a copy of resolutions. The then DDGM told me, after a Lodge meeting, although our Lodge had ever right to submit the resolutions we better not. Our Lodge took it as a threat. We could not believe we were threatened by a Mason to not follow one of our rights as a Mason. My lodge asked if we were doing anything wrong I told I have hid nothing from the Grand Secretary and we are following his ordered to the letter. Our Lodge agreed if we are doing nothing wrong let’s continue to recruit Lodges as co-sponsors.

GLoT response to our continuing to recruiting Lodges as co-sponsors of the resolutions, was an investigation by two FBI trained law officers. They came down to our Lodge. In that question and answer session they were told I got permission to do everything we did from the Grand Secretary, which I did. That I did not hide anything i was doing from the Grand Secretary, which I was 100 percent open with what our Lodge was doing. After the law officers were finished questioning us, my Lodge was very confident that the whole matter was a misunderstanding and over with.

However the deposition report they wrote contained fabricated information and very little of what we discussion the in the questioning session. The deposition report led to Masonic charges on three members, me being one, took possession of all items in the lodge building "real" and "personal" (that is not a typo), took possession of the Lodge building and the bank account, the fallout caused an Eastern Star Chapter to close and almost kill the our Lodge. Our Lodge Secretary will still today not issue me a membership card although I am listed in good standing on the GLoT books.

The false information in the deposition report claimed the Lodge as a whole was racist, and the Grand Secretary never gave our Lodge permission to recruit other Lodges and co-sponsors. The investigating officers failed to figure out our Treasurer at the time was Hispanic and we had other Hispanic members. Our members regularly participated in initiations of minorities at our and other area Lodges. The FBI trained law officers were lazy in their research.

GLoT was very detailed in documenting their falsified information in the deposition with signatures and dates from the investigating officers and the Grand Master. It will be very easy to prove, making it very easy to win a defamation case in a real world trial. I felt confident there was not going to be a trial because my defense would have exposed the corruption at GLoT.

The place GLoT wanted to have the trial was outside the maximum distance in the Texas Masonic Constitution. This matter had the Grand Lodge Masonic attorneys, board of trustees and past present and future Rite Worshipfuls (at that time) involved in the meeting that decided what to do with me and our Lodge, I was there.

There was no attacks on the resolutions after they were submitted, because I believe they followed the GLoT obligation, laws and Constitution perfectly. They were written in such a way, that the only way to vote against them is to knowingly violate Masonic law, the Constitution and the obligation they took. Each resolution had about 10 to 15 "WHERE AS" statements referencing our laws, Constitution and the obligation. I believe at least 3 of the 4 resolutions would have passed of GLoT would allowed them to be voted on. If you did hear about these resolutions, you probably did not hear this version.

Please post if this has happened to any other Masons at any other Grand Lodges. However I also want to clear my name and what happened to our Lodge and this forum gives me a partial way to do that. However I do not trust GLoT officers to conduct a proper follow up investigation to clear my name and the name of our Lodge, only because of what happened before. I don't want to take that chance. I have talked to a one of the then current but now past-Grand Masters and a Past Grand Secretary about this matter. i told them i would not follow the normal protocol because what happened. GLoT didn't follow any rules with me to create this situation. I told them i would go outside normal channels to clear my name, if necessary. They did not take me seriously. I could get on talk shows like Joe Rogan and others and still I might.

Enough time has passed that probably none of the current Grand Lodge officers know anything about what i am talking about or maybe they do. Since they are separated from what happened and hopefully they want to correct what happened however i still don't trust them. The way GLoT reacted was not normal. They broke a number of our own laws and obligation. It didn't make since that that acted that way. It goes back to if they are being pressured and by whom. I don't know about other Grand Lodges but our Constitution gives Grand Lodge officers too much power.

I could not understand how Masons helped create our US Constitution and then centralized power in the GLoT Constitution. I believe the centralization of power was a contributing factor in what happened to my Lodge. It would be best if all Grand Lodges respected the obligation and Masonic law. Masonry is on a path of self destruction because they are not following our own laws, rules and obligations. What GLoT did shows the extent at least one Grand Lodge is willing to make sure Masonry goes woke. The degree of disappoint I had in our Grand Officers was beyond words. It saddened my heart what the GLoT had become. It is concerning for me for other Grand Lodges and how they may handle this issue. This ends badly for everybody the way it is going if we don’t follow our principle tenets.

I do believe the one post was right about the UGLE influence over these matters. I believe Masonry is being manipulated or forced into promoting inclusion and tolerance. That would possibly explain the GloT illogical behavior violating a number of our own laws and obligation in handling the resolutions i submitted. Although Masonry is not a religion, I think it could be a model for a one world religion based on tolerance and inclusion with a monotheistic god that you are forbidden in praying in Jesus' name that John talked about in the book of Revelation.