|
Post by Proton on Aug 28, 2005 18:42:00 GMT
For those forumites who have not witnessed the consecration of a new lodge, a consecration meeting is to be held on Tuesday afternoon, 11th October 2005, at Freemasons' Hall, GQS, London. Lord Millet, who is the Metropolitian GM, will be the Consecrating Officer. The link for further details, for those who are interested is at : www.metgl.com/news_index.htmProton
|
|
|
Post by taylorsman on Aug 29, 2005 7:21:31 GMT
Does London Freemasonry really NEED such a special Lodge? Are we becoming just another "Province" and losing the distinctive London Masonry as many Brethren feared at the time this great change was being discussed a few years ago?
Since I will be returning from my Mother Lodge's Installation the previous evening I will be otherwise engaged anyway so would not be attending.
|
|
|
Post by waynecowley on Aug 30, 2005 7:55:31 GMT
I suppose it is the next step in making Met GL look like a normal Province - perhaps one day it will take its proper place in the order of precedence too rather than queue jumping above the other provinces (said tongue in cheek before I get howls of protest from London based brethren)
Wayne
|
|
|
Post by taylorsman on Aug 30, 2005 8:09:12 GMT
Bro Wayne. As to whether London under the old system "Queue Jumped" or not is a moot point. As there are more Brethren in London than in some of the smaller Provinces then it could be argued that its influence was proportionate to its size.
The point at issue is that London Masonry had its own distinctive character but is now beginning to assume the wrappings of just another ordinary Province. I feel that this is a step in the wrong direction as did many rank and file London Brethren at the time and who still do. The establishment of a "London Metropolitan Grand Stewards Lodge" would appear to be a further step down the road to Provincialisation.
|
|
|
Post by waynecowley on Aug 30, 2005 10:00:10 GMT
Bro Wayne. As to whether London under the old system "Queue Jumped" or not is a moot point. As there are more Brethren in London than in some of the smaller Provinces then it could be argued that its influence was proportionate to its size. Indeed so - but no distinction is made between other Provinces based on their size (which vary considerably - for example South Wales - Eastern Division 180 lodges or thereabouts; South Wales Western Division around 30 lodges; Monmouthshire around 30 lodges to take the local provinces down here) so why should London be different In truth, I feel there is much to commend the London way of doing things and believe that it would be helpful if some of these could be transplanted out to "the sticks" Wayne
|
|
|
Post by Proton on Aug 30, 2005 17:35:42 GMT
London has some 1600 lodges (and 1000 or so chapters). To adopt a full Provincial format there would be the need of a team of at least 40 APGMs and a sizeable Provincial type team. What you have is a MetGL with the trappings of a Provincial Grand Lodge. MetGL officers hold the rank of an active Prov Officer for the period of one year and at the end of it they go back to what ever they were SLGR, LGR etc. There is not this collar or apron collectors attittude, that exists in the Provinces where brethren expect to have this or that rank, and are dissappointed when they do not get it. One of the drawbacks with the MetGL system is that there are only 80 or so active places which means that 20 lodges are chasing each MetGL appointment. Given its faults the MetGL system does have its advantages. Remember LGR, London Grand Rank is an appointment where the LODGE proposes an individual, to be considered for that rank. It is different from Provincial Lodges where the Province decides what rank you will get. Yes I agree that the formation of a new lodge is strange when others are struggling. It may have been pudent to have used another lodge with problems of falling numbers etc. Proton
|
|
|
Post by JulesTheBit on Sept 4, 2005 12:52:38 GMT
All
In a miltary system ranks indicate the precedence of officers who are managing and controlling the structure and their subordinates within it. They have proper jobs to do and in the UK completely lose their rank on retirement apart from the most senior.
The UGLE Masonic rank structure makes little or no sense to me. I was once an Acting Provincial Officer, and enjoyed being able to contribute something during my year of office, but I don't approve of the "Past" rank system, especially when active ranks are very much the exception and most people are receiving honorary ranks with no accompanying responsibility.
I have absolutely no problem with long service awards or certificates of merit, but a rank structure implies a pecking order and handing out ranks to people with no corresponding job to do is not a good idea. The amount of time spent discussing and administering appointments and promotions in UGLE in general is an enormous waste of time. Has it ever brought us 1 good new member? On the contrary .... the squabbling over rank actually costs us members, particularly good young ones who see the nonsense of the honorary rank system and want no part of it. The fact that many UGLE members have become conditioned to expect rank as some kind of reward is a weakness of the system, not a strength.
London Freemasonry was in decline and needed some structure and help to guide it, hence MetGL. London Lodges still have a vast amount of independence compared to most provincial systems. The London group structure and VGO system improves communication and I think they are a sound idea.
The Met Stewards are extremely hard working, active Masons. If they want a special Lodge where they can all meet together I have no problem with that. In fact I think it a very good idea to encourage the active, contributing members to get closer together.
I will be at the consecration.
S&F, Julian 3 London Lodges, 2 London RA Chapters 2 provincial Lodges, 2 provincial RA chapters and other orders in London, UGLE provinces and other constitutions
|
|
|
Post by waynecowley on Sept 5, 2005 7:58:50 GMT
The amount of time spent discussing and administering appointments and promotions in UGLE in general is an enormous waste of time. Has it ever brought us 1 good new member? On the contrary .... the squabbling over rank actually costs us members, particularly good young ones who see the nonsense of the honorary rank system and want no part of it. The fact that many UGLE members have become conditioned to expect rank as some kind of reward is a weakness of the system, not a strength. Indeed so, even in my short time in the Craft I have seen all to much bitterness and envy caused by the present system. Only recently I have seen the green-eyed monster emerge to almost destroy a brother locally because others got a "better" appointment than he did The Met Stewards are extremely hard working, active Masons. If they want a special Lodge where they can all meet together I have no problem with that. In fact I think it a very good idea to encourage the active, contributing members to get closer together. Indeed so - and I suspect that is true of Provincial Stewards generally as well - they seem to be amongst the hardest working appointments and down here are often called on frequently even after their time in office is formally ended Wayne
|
|
bod
Member
UGLE - MM (London), MMM RAM(Middx), OSM (London)
Posts: 1,296
|
Post by bod on Sept 26, 2005 21:26:28 GMT
Initially I wasn't convinced that London needed a PG Stewards lodge, however, from coming to understand more of their function and the work they do I think it is a good idea. Not sure if I will make it to the consecration, but I hope it goes well.
|
|