JohnnyFlotsam said:
No. Please support your curious definition of "Masonic Communication".
.
Johnny, we got into this before. You pick one little statement and attack it with a passion. I'm not going to play your game, but in this case I will tell you the source. Me. I stated an opinion. One that you disagree with, which is fine with me.
What I was attempting to say was an organization that was attempting to become recognized in Texas and requires Masonic affiliation as a requirement for member was allowing a clandestine mason present in Texas and in front of the Grand Master.
In my opinion, so don't ask for a source, this could be seem as a slap in the face to the Grand Lodge. This type of outside pressure can create discontent. It can set back the goal of visitation by years. If you don't believe me look at this thread. And this site has masons that are not old set in their ways guys. If we are going to have a heated discussion, the others are going to clam up and vote no.
The statement was made that we as masons in Texas were a living hipocracy since we allow co-masons, etc. to present papers. I do not know that any have in Texas. If they have they should have been treated the same. (My opinion - no source.)
I believe, no source, that the intent of the law is to prevent us and clandestine masons of any type to communicate (read that in my statement as to talk about the inner workings of masonry as would be done in a research paper). Until there is a change in Grand Lodge law, this should apply to all appended bodies operating within the Texas Grand Lodge jurisdiction or they should receive the same unapproved status (opinion - thus no source).
If we don't like the non visitation rules, a resolution needs to written to change the law. BTW the deadline for resolutions is tomorrow.