Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Nov 18, 2007 9:32:56 GMT
I am disappointed / "malcontented" Those who profess to favor freedom and yet deprecate agitation, are people who want crops without plowing the ground.
Frederick Douglass This post might be seen as an instance of the negativity you have so recently abjured or as a deprecation of the disharmony for which you sought forbearance. Whether or not such Brethren are "malcontents" ought not be a problem (after all, your Founding Fathers might be considered "malcontents"): Whether or not their actions are ethical ought to be the issue.
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Nov 18, 2007 19:38:10 GMT
Malcontent is not a euphemism for bad. OK. Thanks, Bro. Theron.
|
|
|
Post by hollandr on Nov 18, 2007 22:00:08 GMT
>malcontents that are vocal, noisy, destructive and, frankly, unmasonic.
Having been around a few benevolent organisations I have noticed four relatively common groups, particularly with organisations under stress:
- the group in power, controlling the organisational body, generally seeing themselves as preservers of the tradition or vision - a group that considers that the tradition/vision is being eroded and who agitate for change - a group that considers that the tradition/vision is being eroded but have no hope that the group in power will pay attention, and therefore look to break away - a group that seeks to infiltrate the corridors of power and when strong enough, take over
Generally each of those groups considers that they hold the High Moral Ground and is content to place derogatory labels on opposing groups
As far as I have seen each of those groups has something to contribute to a better future.
But how to get them to talk constructively?
Cheers
Russell
|
|
|
Post by hollandr on Nov 19, 2007 3:46:55 GMT
Theron
I thank you for the clear statement of your position
I wonder how all this will look in in 50 years
Cheers
Russell
|
|
|
Post by devoutfreemason on Nov 19, 2007 4:59:32 GMT
Br. Holland; You appear to be unfamiliar with the issues at hand, and that is understandable, seeing as I have not named anyone, lodge or grand lodge. Let me be perfectly clear. I DO NOT CARE IF SOMEONE HAS COMPLAINTS. PERIOD, END OF SENTENCE. FULL STOP. I commend folks with complaints to seek redress within the system, and if that will not work, then to vote with their feet. Now, if the brothers in the case at hand were honest, forthright, upright, on the level and acting on the square, they would all have simply demitted and left the grand master "holding the bag" so to speak. He would have either found officers to sit the chairs, taken the charter, or temporarily, as is the right of the grand master, to have "sat" as master of the lodge while they rebuilt the line in that lodge with members who have been driven off or who have quit in disgust, and they do exist. Had the brothers been forthright, upright, on the level and acting on the square, they would not have tried to move the assets of the lodge to an outside "charity", in contravention to the bylaws and constitution of the grand lodge of that state. Instead, they "surrendered" their dues cards, an action that, while symbolic, has ZERO meaning. They would have then left, closed the doors and moved on to whatever other action they had planned. Instead, they "surrendered" their charter, and tried to keep the assets of the lodge to form a new clandestine "lodge" without a charter. After closing the lodge, and "surrendering" their charter (and there does not appear to have been appropriate notice sent out to the other 200 some odd members of that lodge prior to this vote, though I am willing to be corrected on this) they immediately met to form this new clandestine lodge. So, a small minority of players, moving out of a sense of ego, because that is really all this is about, have created a storm of flying fecal matter to self aggrandize... or so it seems from their own statements and actions. Oh, and last point. On another thread on this forum, one of the members of that cabal posted that he does not post on my blog because I block his comments. THAT is an outright, bald faced lie, and given all the support and aid I have given him over the years, despite our differences, I expected better of him. I am a STRONG proponent of free speech, and defend brothers right to post what they think, EXCEPT when they stoop to personal attacks. Attack the idea, if you can, not the person. And Karen? Thank you for your very eloquent defense, riposte and points. Theron, just like you I am on the outside of this issue. What I know of it comes to me second hand, just as the information comes to you. What is plain to see here is that Halcyon has had issues with the GL of Ohio and visa versa. I have a hard time believing that they all just woke up one day and decided to shake up the system. More than likely, this stew has been brewing for a while. I know Theron, to you everything begins and ends with a GL charter. Obviously, there are others who do not subscribe to that idea. Realizing this reality has obviously made you very upset.
|
|
|
Post by devoutfreemason on Nov 19, 2007 5:55:13 GMT
No, not at all... and trying to boil me down to a black and white is to miss the point. I do not care, really, about their issues with their grand lodge, nor the issues their grand lodge has with them. Really. What irritates me are manifold. First, if they were serious about their issues, why all the focus on moving the assets OUT of the lodge and into a "non profit" charity that then rents it back to the lodge that owned it... in contravention to the bylaws and constitution of the grand lodge they hold their charter through. How come, when they all decide to quit regular freemaosnry did they not just... do so? Why "surrender" the charter, unless the intention was to retain control of the lodge building and assets, which is precisely what happened? I am certain they did not just wake up one day and say: What the heck, lets destroy the lodge, surrender the charter, abscond with the assets, surrender our dues cards and form a new clandestine lodge. The secretary of the lodge is a lawyer, and acts as their legal counsel... I know this because the master of the lodge TOLD ME SO. They are very concerned that the Grand Lodge might "get" the lodge building, that someone tried "illegally" to sell it, so to keep the grand lodge from "getting their hands on it", they transfer title to an outside "non profit corporation" called Halcyon Charities. It LOOKS bad, especially given the fact that doing so is against the bylaws and charter. The master has a fiduciary responsibility to the lodge, and transferring the assets to an outside corporation against the legal charter is NOT fulfilling that obligation. Further, surrendering the charter to the grand lodge seems a move designed to eliminate the lodge as an entity to remove the grand lodge's ability to take the assets of the lodge, as called for in the constitution of the grand lodge under which the charter was granted. They surrendered an empty shell, with its core removed. This action stinks, and if nothing else, does not reflect well on the brethren of that lodge. Do you seriously think the grand lodge is just going to throw up its hands and say: Oh well? Not bloody likely. As I noted above, if they were honestly unhappy with the grand lodge, they should have demitted, voted with their feet. They did NOT do that, they took actions that SEEM, based on their own actions and statements, designed to ensure these men, when they surrendered the charter, would have access to and control over the assets of the lodge. Their complaints with the grand lodge have never been enunciated, and nothing they have described seems to dovetail with their actions. However, I am not a member of the Grand Lodge of Ohio, so I have no dog in this hunt. Please note that in my blog comments, I did NOT name the lodge, the grand lodge, or any brother involved in this seamy series of evernts. I spoke in generalities and used their actions ONLY as a support for my overarching point about malcontents, men who would be unhappy in any group as long as they had to submit to authority. Shake up the system? Not at all. This is a very minor event in the scale of freemasonry, and irrelevant to real masons... which is precisely the point I was making in my blog. We need to stop getting wrapped around the axle with these folks. I am not averse to hearing a brothers complaints, though frankly, I would also prefer to hear what they are doing to change it, rather than being exposed to a complaint session. That is useless. However, when brothers take actions such as some of the Halcyon members just took, they prove themselves unworthy to be taken by the hand, and thankfully, have lead themselves out of the lodge, without, apparently, ever beholding the true form thereof. It seems to me that the Brothers of Halcyon did what they had to do to prevent another "Masonic" land grab. I say good for them. They spent the time to restore the building, they but thier blood, sweat and tears into it so to speak. We should anyone else be able to take the building and turn it into yet another day care center? The Brothers of Halcyon may not be "real" Masons Theron, but those of us in the "fake" side of the hill have a pretty nice view. ;D
|
|
|
Post by devoutfreemason on Nov 19, 2007 6:24:08 GMT
I am glad you like the view. And I am saddened to see that you are encouraged by a land grab. Remember, every brother in that lodge SIGNED the bylaws, which is a contract, more binding than their word, which seems to be about worth used TP. The constitution of the Grand Lodge calls for assets of a closed lodge to revert back to the grand lodge. How is that wrong? Do you seriously think that the efforts of over a hundred years of masons should belong the the last masons in a lodge? How can anyone rationally make the claim that any brother can personally take the assets of lodge for their own use, when the rules of the charter under which the assets they worked under to GATHER THOSE ASSETS, calls for it devolving to the Grand Lodge if it closed??? I am sorry, brother, really, that you cannot see a lack of integrity in the actions. As I have noted, if they wanted to quit, I would encourage them. After all, if they are really that unhappy, they SHOULD quit and go where ever they want, even to another non regular lodge. Its not a matter of concern to the rest of us, its a personal decision, and huzzah to them. When they try to violate the law, the constitution, the bylaws that they operated under, THEN I have a moral objection, since they are not the owners of the assets, just trustees for them. And being trustees, they should act in a disinterested manner, not a manner that enriches them and their goals. But if you don't see that... well, perhaps we are further apart than I ever dreamed. Masonic Land Grab??? Its the CONSTITUTION, the BYLAWS, and supported by state court decisions in the past over precisely the same type of events. Its HARDLY a land grab. The GL never tried to seize the assets... though now that the brothers have surrendered the charter, the law is the assets devolve to the grand lodge. THATS THE LAW. Theron, Pleasanton #321 decided to give me lemons. They hoped I would leave the lemons on the doorstep and slink away. Instead I made lemonade, lemon bars, lemon cake, lemon ice cream I even made some lemon toothpaste. The GL of OH didn't rebuild the temple. It was destined to be destroyed, those hard working "fake" Masons restored it. So now that it is restored it should be grabbed up by the GL of OH and sold off? Ummmm OK. On a side note. I really was looking foward to hearing from you this weekend. I think it would have been a good discussion.
|
|
|
Post by whistler on Nov 19, 2007 7:45:45 GMT
Great Stuff Theron - Keep it up this whole thread looks like making a great Novel - Just the sort of thing to attract outsiders to your Freemasony. Wonder if the Novel will have a happy ending - or will leave with a few strands for the next one. Yeah Theron keep it up Thanks again
|
|
|
Post by whistler on Nov 19, 2007 7:58:02 GMT
Theron have you and the opposition ever thought of keeping your scrapping to your Blog and not exposing your Masonic quarrels to the many casual people who visit this sight. Your Masonic friends know about your Blog which is much more focused to your Masonic slant and surely can chat away to their hearts content. Without exposing the craft to ridicule and laughter. Does the fact that MFOL has a links to Blogs mean they endorse those Blogs.
|
|
|
Post by billmcelligott on Nov 19, 2007 8:53:45 GMT
No it does not and it has never said so.
|
|
|
Post by penfold on Nov 19, 2007 12:17:31 GMT
Bizarre question whistler, as our rules state, the poster alone is responsible for the content of their post, and links, ad's - nothing in fact - that appears here has the 'endorsment' of MFoL, simply just the backing of the poster that sticks it up.
And FWIW, I find myself agreeing with some of the concerns raised by Theron, it does appear as if a full and fair democratic process wasn't completed with regard to the extinguishing of the lodge from the rolls of the GL of Ohio. The sad thing is that the actions of both parties will colour the opinions of the world outside of masonry. The only winners are detractors of masonry.
|
|
|
Post by devoutfreemason on Nov 19, 2007 20:24:42 GMT
Ah, you give the detractors too much credit. They are fools, and will complain regardless. Whistler, if you feel the discussion is unworthy of... whatever, please, DON'T participate. This seems to be a valid issue, as it is getting comments on every forum and blog where it appears. NOTHING I have done is negative, I have commented on an overarching issue that I see, and used an anonymous lodge and grand lodge as an exemplar. If brothers wish to see Halcyon in the commentary, then that in itself should be an issue of concern. My blog had nothing to do with Halcyon, per se. It had to do with brothers who claim one thing while doing another... and our responsibility to whisper good counsel to them, and if that fails, take action to stop them... which in the instant case of Halcyon is probably in the works right now, but I have no direct information on such. Thanks Still awaiting some simple phone correspondance. Even though I am a fool. Silly me.
|
|
|
Post by whistler on Nov 19, 2007 21:17:14 GMT
"Whistler, if you feel the discussion is unworthy of... whatever, please, DON'T participate. This seems to be a valid issue" Yes Theron I do find the discussion unworthy. All families have differences and the odd black sheep but they do not do their dirty washing in public. There was a time when MFOL was a brilliant advertisment for Freemasonry - and still is most of the time. Can you imagine what a Seeker must think when they find topics such as this with shouting like " I DO NOT CARE IF SOMEONE HAS COMPLAINTS. PERIOD, END OF SENTENCE. FULL STOP" and "I do not care, really, about their issues with their grand lodge, nor the issues their grand lodge has with them. Really." and The Brothers of Halcyon may not be "real" Masons Theron, but those of us in the "fake" side of the hill have a pretty nice view.. Ever wonder how many good people who may be interested in joining the craft would be stunned reading the above - laugh and walk in the other direction. I truly don't understand what both sides of the argument expect from this topic - other than tarnishing the organisation that talks of Brotherly Love relief and Truth - Never fear the Hidden mysteries will always be available to those who care to look Brother Theron you seem to need help with anger management - I am sure you would find many Bros only to pleased to offer you Brotherly Love relief and Truth to assist you HGW
|
|
|
Post by whistler on Nov 19, 2007 21:46:56 GMT
Bro Theron ""Whistler, if you feel the discussion is unworthy of... whatever, please, DON'T participate. This seems to be a valid issue" Yes Theron I do find the discussion unworthy. All families have differences and the odd black sheep but they do not do their dirty washing in public. There was a time when MFOL was a brilliant advertisment for Freemasonry - and still is most of the time. Can you imagine what a Seeker must think when they find topics such as this with shouting like " I DO NOT CARE IF SOMEONE HAS COMPLAINTS. PERIOD, END OF SENTENCE. FULL STOP" and "I do not care, really, about their issues with their grand lodge, nor the issues their grand lodge has with them. Really." and The Brothers of Halcyon may not be "real" Masons Theron, but those of us in the "fake" side of the hill have a pretty nice view.. Ever wonder how many good people who may be interested in joining the craft would be stunned reading the above - laugh and walk in the other direction. I truly don't understand what both sides of the argument expect from this topic - other than tarnishing the organisation that talks of Brotherly Love relief and Truth -" I have removed some of the esoteric comments. Of the rest Yes I am very serious about. - Much or your comments and the comments of the opposition are very valid and should be discussed within the family - My dislike is the standing on the street corner and broadcasting to the whole world a families squabble. If you look at the snippets from the blog that I repeated - in my view does not make good advertising for the craft - The MFOL is one of the windows that outsiders may view Freemasonry through.
|
|
|
Post by penfold on Nov 19, 2007 22:02:47 GMT
Possibly the saddest thing of all is that both 'sides' are allegedly striving for the same goal....more life in freemasonry and more freemasonry in life.....
|
|
jmd
Member
fourhares.com
Posts: 1,081
|
Post by jmd on Nov 20, 2007 2:12:26 GMT
I honestly do not think that the brethren who were involved in the event described have fairly been represented. It is obvious that they have, as most of us have, a passion for Freemasonry. To claim that they acted as described by TheronDunn in the following manner just doesn't ring true of human nature. Viz.: What the heck, lets destroy the lodge, surrender the charter, abscond with the assets, surrender our dues cards and form a new clandestine lodge Let's imagine a more likely scenario. Here is a group of Freemasons who are unhappy with the manner in which development has occurred in their region. Due to local regulations, they also find themselves unable to choose with whom to affiliate (or not affiliate at all) because of some cunning regulation that renders the Temple in the property of their GL instead of themselves (this was tried here a few years ago with great uproar). Their only way into movement Masonically was to first ensure that their Temple would remain in Freemasonic hands for the purposes of their own future Masonic activity, which, it seems, they effectively and carefully protected themselves. Once this happened, they reformed their Lodge - being Master Masons they were justly entitled to do so. Now perhaps that is not liked by the local GL. Too bad. These brethren headed in a positive Masonic direction, as far as I can tell. That the local GL considers them 'clandestine' is more a reflection of the GL than it is of the Brethren who formed the new Lodge.
|
|
|
Post by devoutfreemason on Nov 20, 2007 3:05:46 GMT
I honestly do not think that the brethren who were involved in the event described have fairly been represented. It is obvious that they have, as most of us have, a passion for Freemasonry. To claim that they acted as described by TheronDunn in the following manner just doesn't ring true of human nature. Viz.: What the heck, lets destroy the lodge, surrender the charter, abscond with the assets, surrender our dues cards and form a new clandestine lodge Let's imagine a more likely scenario. Here is a group of Freemasons who are unhappy with the manner in which development has occurred in their region. Due to local regulations, they also find themselves unable to choose with whom to affiliate (or not affiliate at all) because of some cunning regulation that renders the Temple in the property of their GL instead of themselves (this was tried here a few years ago with great uproar). Their only way into movement Masonically was to first ensure that their Temple would remain in Freemasonic hands for the purposes of their own future Masonic activity, which, it seems, they effectively and carefully protected themselves. Once this happened, they reformed their Lodge - being Master Masons they were justly entitled to do so. Now perhaps that is not liked by the local GL. Too bad. These brethren headed in a positive Masonic direction, as far as I can tell. That the local GL considers them 'clandestine' is more a reflection of the GL than it is of the Brethren who formed the new Lodge. Thank you Brother JMD, once again you are the voice of reason. With yourself, Brothers Philip Carter and Jeff Peace as regular contributors MFoL has the most intellectual firepower of any Masonic board in exsistance. Let's hope the powers that be don't kill that off.
|
|
|
Post by therondunn on Nov 20, 2007 4:19:58 GMT
Br JMD
You are, of course, entitled to your opinion and interpretation.
|
|
|
Post by penfold on Nov 20, 2007 12:30:25 GMT
JMD, it is extremely common for orgainising bodies such as GL's to be the owners of property if an entity goes out of existence, its not a cunning device, it is actually there as two way protection, nothing nefarious about it. The local YH group I was chair of had a simalr agreement in place with YHA nationally, in the event of the group winding up or no longer being part of the YHA then all monies, property etc would revert back to the parent body, likewise any debts or liabilities would likewise transfer. It has been suggested we stop debating the whole Halcyon thing - which seems to fly in the face of all those protesting from the sidelines about a lack of freedom of speech.
|
|
|
Post by devoutfreemason on Nov 20, 2007 15:59:48 GMT
. It has been suggested we stop debating the whole Halcyon thing - . Why?
|
|