|
Post by wayseer on Dec 2, 2007 0:16:14 GMT
Bro 2 Bowl Cain has posted an intersting link to Richard A. Graeter's paper (book) Reform Freemasonry!.
There is a lot to digest but I take the essense of what he says -
My favorite target to blame for all our misfortunes was failed leadership, particularly at the grand lodge level. But I was wrong. I have come to understand that I had mistaken what was merely the symptom of the disease (failed leadership) for the disease itself.
Now, it seems to me that his paper in fact contradicts his opening message. Quoting from that other well know source by Dwight Smith, Laudable Pursuit -
The real hope for our survival lies at the doorstep of the local Lodge, not the halls of grand lodge. No one idea, plan or program will be the magic bullet that saves us from a slow death. The time has come to devolve power into the hands of the local Lodges, so they may better serve the needs of their local members. Instead of central planning, we have hundreds of laboratories to experiment in, within the confines of the Ancient Landmarks.
It may well be that there is an argument that 'survival lies at the doorstep of the local Lodge' but the local Lodge is more than a little hamstrung in its ability to act.
The single greatest obstacle to local Lodges using their initiative is the overbearing attitude of GL in not allowing the local Lodge to find its own path - there is simply no room for the local Lodge to maneuver - except by moving the deckchairs yet again.
And that lack of room to maneuver lies fairly and squarly at the door of GL.
We have seen instances of such attitude illustrated on the forum just recently. Lodges and Brethren are voting with their feet and I wonder just how many of these Brethren have been sought out asked asked why it is that they have so voted. GL sticks its collective head in the sand as says it's all your fault - the fault of the local Lodges - get out there you dummies at get more members.
If one is to see a revival in FM get rid of GL - it has reached its used by date.
... and Bro Graeter acknowldeges as much in his paper. Free of such entities as the various Grand Assistance Superintendent of Workings who job is to spy on local Lodges thereby ensuring nepotism and cronyism are the real vitues of present day FM, local Lodges will literally explode with innovation - and innovation will spell the death knell for GL. Lodges will once more become what there were always meant to be - local, meeting specific needs of the indigenous - not the decrees of the far removed pompous.
|
|
|
Post by lauderdale on Dec 2, 2007 0:21:41 GMT
I agree with your there Bro John. A GL and the GM (even more so a Prov GL and its PGM) should be the Servant of its constituent Lodges NOT their Master.
|
|
|
Post by billmcelligott on Dec 2, 2007 2:59:35 GMT
Well I don't know where your Freemasonry is at, but what you describe above is completely alien to my experiences in Freemasonry. And I suspect is as alien to most of Modern Freemasonry.
I have seen nothing but support and understanding from my PGL and my GL.
That does not mean I get action on what I want when I want it. But I have never seen any interference in any of my Lodges business and each time I have asked for assistance in Lodge matters my Provincial Secretary and the APGM's have been very happy to help.
|
|
|
Post by wayseer on Dec 2, 2007 5:37:05 GMT
Bill, as I understand the ritual work in England, Scotland, Europe is not rigid - it is flexible and variations are more the norm. In fact I understand that UGLE does not 'recommend' any one particular ritual.
In Australia things are very much different with a one cap fits all mentality - it's all about control which inevitable leads to the worst aspects of human endeavour.
|
|
|
Post by lauderdale on Dec 2, 2007 9:55:42 GMT
Bro John, UGLE that is GRAND LODGE does not recommend any particular Ritual it is true, but some of the little Satraps called Provincial Grand Masters try to micromanage their Lodges in respect of Ritual etc.
For Bro Bill's info Lodges in LDH have a lot more autonomy in such matters, we don't of course have Provinces nor PGMs.
|
|
|
Post by billmcelligott on Dec 2, 2007 10:00:16 GMT
Never seen or heard of any APGM telling Lodges what ritual to have, I would be interested if any UGLE Freemasons have seen this.
|
|
|
Post by lauderdale on Dec 2, 2007 10:15:37 GMT
Right. In Sussex the Province insists that all Lodges use the Sussex Ritual, only very old Lodges have been allowed to use Taylor's, or Logic or West-End etc.
There was a whole raft of ""Recommendations" (closer in tone to Instructions) to Lodges to change some ritual matters such as the outgoing Officers lining up in the North to be thanked by the retiring Master, Officers staying in post at an Installation being proclaimed in their place and not to be Invested with their Collar by the new Master and various other such matters. Some Lodges meekly acquiesced but some took these "suggestions" under advisement. After each Installation if one of the Chain Gang had attended there was in a letter to the Lodge DC in the name of the Prov DC with criticisms of how they performed their Ritual not only as far as "mistakes" which one could understand but on some Customs and Practices that the Lodge had followed over the years possibly before that PGM or Prov DC was even Initiated. This used to cause resentment amongst ordinary Brethren.
If one likes top-down Management then fine, depending on the Province you have have it by the Shed Load. I am glad to be away from all that. Yes we have our Rules and our Management but it is both Democratic and its yoke is light.
|
|
|
Post by middlepillar on Dec 2, 2007 10:26:32 GMT
Never seen or heard of any APGM telling Lodges what ritual to have, I would be interested if any UGLE Freemasons have seen this. Bill It is also my experience there is very little interference at Lodge level regarding ritual from any of the Provinces that I have been involved in. What I have experienced and it is in this I would agree with Steve, that if a PGM gets to hear of something happening in your Lodge (This could be a proposed idea for raising money or even a delivery of a lecture) and he personally does not like the idea. You suddenly get two or three letters or e-mails descend on the secretary 'Advising' him that this is not done in this Province! This has happened in too many instances inmy knowledge to be anything other than The PGM's personal take and that is of course wrong in my opinion. (Most of the time these letters have been ignored) I can give you a prime example. A good friend of mine heard about my talk, he asked me if I would be prepared to give it at his Lodge, I replied I would and he asked me to send a copy to him. This I did and I never heard anything, at our meeting last week, he was there and came up to me first to thank me for the talk which he thouroughly enjoyed and secondly to apologise because his Province had told him it was unsuitable! He was livid and wants me to deliver it asap! I am really torn on this subject because I really dont see it as a 'big' problem and I find very little wrong with my Craft Freemasonry, however I do recognise that some Provinces tend to stick thier noses into business which quite frankly is not thier business! There is quite a big argument going on in Surrey at the moment, this is because it is alleged there was a planned programme of delivering talks to Craft Lodges in Surrey about the benefits of The Mark Degree but because Chapter is struggling so much in Surrey. The Grand Superintendant (Who is also PGM) has decided to stop it! The argument is that if any Lodge is called off what is to stop them? (Most Lodge Secretaries dont want to upset Province! I wonder why?)
|
|
|
Post by billmcelligott on Dec 2, 2007 11:00:29 GMT
I am aware that a Lecture given in open Lodge should get permission from Provincial Grand lodge.
I can see why this is, because for example I could give a lecture which is factually incorrect or misleading.
It comes under the same rule as publishing this forum, an individual must not advise on Freemasonry unless authorised by PGL, in cases of direct advice we should refer the questioner to the PGL Office.
|
|
|
Post by maat on Dec 2, 2007 22:44:59 GMT
I can see why this is, because for example I could give a lecture which is factually incorrect or misleading. Thought police! Which, incidentally was a major reason for the need for secrecy in Freemasonry! Don't think like me? You're dead man. Fortunately, in our Lodge a Bro would feel free to present a paper on the relevance of Mark Degree to Aliens from where-ever and the Brn are free to make of it what they will We would accept the paper in manner in which it was offered, a gift of thought from someone we honour. Maat PS - Interested to know Bill, who would be qualified enough to know about 'everything in the universe' in UGLE, or do you just talk about history all the time?
|
|
|
Post by middlepillar on Dec 2, 2007 23:04:21 GMT
The problem isnt in giving the lecture in open Lodge, as members of UGLE we should acknowledge any lecture given in open Lodge should have the approval of The PGL or GL.
It is when a Lodge is called off and no longer at Labour that I find it difficult to handle interference, we are all after all private Lodges and if we are not doing anything contrary to the BOC then we should be left alone to do what we please. Having a PGM say 'Well of course if you want to do it you can but I personally do not like it' Is in three simple words 'Out of Order!'
Another example I have just thought of.
In Rose Croix in the final part of the ceremony my Chapter always turned the lights down, now our Man has let it be known that he prefers the lights to be up! But it is up to individual Chapters, we took a vote to keep them down. What happens when we get a visit from our man? Our DC stands up and says I think we should change! And although we didnt vote and subsequently we have told him we want them down, on this occasion we felt we had to keep them turned up!
This is simply bullying members by innuendo (Well you can....but.......)
|
|
|
Post by billmcelligott on Dec 2, 2007 23:09:56 GMT
We very rarely have lectures in the 2 Lodges of which I am a member or the other 4 that I attend, too busy initiating Freemasons.
OK , well lets say I was invited to a Co Masonic Lodge to give a lecture.
The lecture might be, the reason why Co Masonry is not real.
Now would your Grand Lodge be happy for that lecture to be given and would they be happy for you to invite me again.
Come on lets get real here no GL is going to allow subversive elements to give lectures, well I don't believe they will. If that is the case then how do you otherwise regulate the Lodges within your jurisdiction.
If there is no regulation then why bother to have a GL, it does not seem to have a purpose ? if all Lodges do what they want when they want.
who is qualified?
Its not a matter of who is qualified, it is a matter of what is qualified to be read.
There are many places where individuals can exercise FREE Speech.
When I signed up I pledged my allegiance to the Grand Master for the time being and his officers and the rules adopted and incorporated in the BOC . If they change the rules then I will gladly comply.
|
|
|
Post by billmcelligott on Dec 2, 2007 23:15:40 GMT
It is when a Lodge is called off and no longer at Labour that I find it difficult to handle interference, we are all after all private Lodges and if we are not doing anything contrary to the BOC then we should be left alone to do what we please. Having a PGM say 'Well of course if you want to do it you can but I personally do not like it' Is in three simple words 'Out of Order!' Well of course under UGLE Lodges the call off is accepted as part of the Lodge meeting. The festive board is a tiled part of the evening also. So there is structure required in that but there is also a great deal of lee way. I have to say that what I would do is get the meeting over and call a white table. Then your outside of the BOC. You can call separate meeting 'not tiled' and give lectures and have discussions, outside of the Lodge stated meetings. In house problem - those that voted need to tell the Guy, we voted you keep sitting. I agree heavy handed tactics, but it makes the DC look like just that , heavy handed.
|
|
|
Post by lauderdale on Dec 2, 2007 23:42:24 GMT
If I wish to present a paper, what we call a Piece of Architecture (POA) at my Lodge then it is quite simple. I only have to ask the RWM. Now as it is likely to be on some Esoteric Matter or possibly on something less arcane such as "Robert Burns-The Freemason" then there would be unlikely to be any objection. Quite simple really, no fuss. Indeed it is encouraged for Brethren to present POAs of their own authorship and other Brethren can then ask questions or raise points arising therefrom.
As for A&ASR, Rose Croix, we don't lower the Lights although I can see a nice symbolical touch in so doing. We do wear Aprons and Swords as well as Collars and at the end of the Meeting when the Word is removed the two Latin words are still said.
|
|
|
Post by penfold on Dec 2, 2007 23:55:41 GMT
I do think that UGLE is sometimes at a disadvantage with regard to its relationship with the side orders when compared to other parts of the masonic world. It's relationship with Chapter under the english system has a tendency to cause some to look down on the side orders and see them as competition as opposed to seeing them as contributing to the masonic experience. I've been in a fair few FB's and meetings where a GO has exhorted people to join chapter and told them its the completion of masonry, but speak to them after about Mark or any of the others and they are dismissive and certainly not encouraging.
I have no issue with PGL or GL's checking to see that politics or religion are not brought into the meeting, but other than that can't see why they would need to intervene/interfere?
I can imagine a situation where last years Prestonian Lecture on Women in Freemasonry would have run into trouble from some PGL's if a private lodge had asked to present it, obviously as a private paper before it became the Lecture.....if that makes sense....
|
|
|
Post by billmcelligott on Dec 3, 2007 1:53:05 GMT
I think most believe that Chapter should be the next step after becoming a MM. To me it completes the Third degree, indeed it was originally part of the Craft degrees but as the Third was added it got hived off.
So my view would be join Chapter first, [ you can join 4 weeks after MM] that then lays a great foundation to go off into the other orders, when you are ready. It does not have to replace anything.
Many of the APGM's would also be in side Orders.
|
|
|
Post by antoninus9 on Dec 3, 2007 1:57:54 GMT
I had the opportunity to read this essay a couple of weeks before it was published. As it concerns American Masonry I find it to be dead accurate. I only wish it had been written several years ago so that I could have avoided being pulled out of orbit by the giant hairball.
If I had known then what I know now I wouldn't have even bothered to try to help mainstream Masonry; I would have just jumped on a plane for Paris and kissed the floor at Rue Cadet.
Jeff
|
|
|
Post by maat on Dec 3, 2007 1:58:31 GMT
OK , well lets say I was invited to a Co Masonic Lodge to give a lecture. The lecture might be, the reason why Co Masonry is not real. Now would your Grand Lodge be happy for that lecture to be given and would they be happy for you to invite me again. Yep! Maat
|
|
|
Post by billmcelligott on Dec 3, 2007 2:21:33 GMT
Has it ever happened , or is that a hypothetical Yep ?
|
|
|
Post by billmcelligott on Dec 3, 2007 2:28:16 GMT
Hi Jeff You surprised me with that comment because the author does not have your views of Freemasonry and its failings. Author’s Note There is a substantial and growing body of work addressing the decline of Freemasonry in the 21st Century. The decline has been so painfully obvious for so long that the body of work analyzing its causes stretches back decades. With the advent of the Internet and online publishing, forums, and BLOGS, the growth in the conversation of this topic has become exponential. Over the years I have added my voice to this cacophony as well. My favorite target to blame for all our misfortunes was failed leadership, particularly at the grand lodge level. But I was wrong. I have come to understand that I had mistaken what was merely the symptom of the disease (failed leadership) for the disease itself. The good news is that I believe that the disease afflicting Freemasonry is curable. But treatment will not be easy. Like a radical treatment regiment for cancer, it will be painful and may even cause the patient to become more ill over the short term. But, the patient is still strong; is possessed of a good heart and a noble sprit; and, if it can face the brutal truth with courage, it will prevail. Both 'Reform Freemasonry' and 'Laudable Pursuit' can be found at the Lodgeroom Int. Download Center, among many other files. www.lodgeroomus.net/downloadcenter/index.phpI am happy to add other files if anyone would like to send them in.
|
|