Bob Franks
Past District Deputy Grand Lecturer
Now, an applicant being found to have lied on his petition...Those would be circumstances in which I could be in agreement. People change, and that is proof of that.
S&F
Now, an applicant being found to have lied on his petition...Those would be circumstances in which I could be in agreement. People change, and that is proof of that.
People change. Yes.
But at the same time, do we not want only the best that society has to offer?
Freemasonry should, by our very definition, be elitists.
I agree. I think I understand what he meant, but I do not believe that elitism is what Freemasonry teaches.How do we go about this?.....Societal standards on what is the best is just as much subject to understanding as putting a definition on morality.
Elitist???..... to me this term is contrary to part of what being a mason (to me) teaches.... acceptance...... What scale do we use to define Elite??? Is the farmer that never went past high school not on the same level as the man with a PhD....... To me "Elitist" is a derogatory term.... I prefer the word "Selective"..... it, to me, is more of what I understand we are.
Exactly. I however, currently have no idea how the GL of TN feels about the matter. My post was simply my personal opinion.NICE!!!..... very well said Brother.
I believe when we review a petition and do our investigations, we must keep the saying:
"Let he without sin cast the first stone"
Now dont get me wrong.... we MUST Guard the West Gate and not just open it for every man..... but we must be willing to hear the whole story before we simply say NOPE.....we must however follow the rules of our GL
Undoubtedly true.I am going to royally piss off a lot of Brothers on this forum with this post.
OK, The jury is still out on my feelings about this, but I'll bite...We. Are. Elitist.
Absolutely. Does that mean a felon who has learned his lesson and bettered himself before petitioning is ineligible?A man who would be a Brother in our Order must already have proved his worth in society. Before he ever knows the shape or form of a Lodge.
I'll agree with that.Masonry has nothing to do with toleration or acceptance when considering members of society who are not wholeheartedly devoted to its betterment.
True. Such references are biased toward one religion and exclude others. That's why religion is not discussed in Lodge. (although I do see what Fireman was trying to convey.)The Christian values of "casting stones" have no place in Masonry.
And that includes all walks of life. We don't make bad men better. We make good men better. The good man can and does make mistakes and sometimes does bad things, and afterwards strives to improve himself. Does that mean that he is ultimately is not worthy?We are not a self-help program or a 12 step program. We do not exist to help people get back on their feet. We have always been a Society that was meant to be a Haven for the best that our respective communities have to offer in order to band together for the betterment of the world around us.
I think I understand your point, but I disagree with the way you worded it. The statement in bold is my sticking point.When we, as an Order, decide to lower our standards and admit any who might want to better themselves or maybe be interested, in order to swell our ranks, we do nothing but insult our Brothers who came before us.
Exactly. That's guarding the Western Gate.We must only admit that man who has shown that he is devoted to his fellow human being and his community. Not the man who "wants to make a change". Let him make the change first.
As long as "the best the world has to offer" isn't corrupted to mean the same thing as today's corrupted commonly perceived definition of elitist. (He who has the money is elite)I challenge any Brother to debate why we should not be elitist and only ever admit the best that the world has to offer. I will accept no less in the Brothers around me.
I agree people change, some made mistakes and paid for them. The question I would have, "what makes this petitioner stand head & shoulder above any other petitioner?" ... "Does the 'reputation & good standing' of this petitioner out weigh his being a convicted felon?" ... "Will accepting this convicted felon into the Lodge keep other Good Men & well recognized leaders away?" Is the Lodge willing to take on a reputation of being a club for the 'Chain Gang'?People change. Yes.
But at the same time, do we not want only the best that society has to offer?
Freemasonry should, by our very definition, be elitists.
But doesn't the definition of elite mean that Freemasons would be the best that the world has to offer? I believe that the group that we both belong to is one of a very noble purpose, but I also believe that there have been, are, and will be, many great men who aren't Masons.Check out the definition from Merriam-Webster:
Main Entry: elite
Function: noun
Etymology: French élite, from Old French eslite, from feminine of eslit, past participle of eslire to choose, from Latin eligere
1 a singular or plural in construction : the choice part : Cream (the elite of the entertainment world) b singular or plural in construction : the best of a class (superachievers who dominate the computer elite -- Marilyn Chase) c singular or plural in construction : the socially superior part of society (how the elite live -- A P World) (how the F.-speaking eliteEconomist) d : a group of persons who by virtue of position or education exercise much power or influence (members of the ruling elite) (the intellectual elites of the country) e : a member of such an elite -- usually used in plural (the elites ..., pursuing their studies in Europe -- Robert Wernick) ... was changing --
The definition of Elite and by extension, elitist seems to indicate that we are a group of elitists in that we only select, or, rather, allow, only the best, most honorable men into the fraternity.
Do the lessons of the working tools not ask for changes to be made to the man? I think I do understand what you meant, that we are not a self-help program, but at the same time, I do not see how a man could truly examine the teachings of the degrees and not see areas of his life where improvements could be made.We must only admit that man who has shown that he is devoted to his fellow human being and his community. Not the man who "wants to make a change". Let him make the change first.
After re-reading the OP, I see the the Member was convicted felon 3 X's; and he LIED on the petition.Our 2008 Worshipful Master was recently discovered to be a three time convicted felon. He failed to disclose his lengthy criminal history on his membership petition and carried on the deceit for over a decade. I feel his actions are an affront to every Master Mason in good standing all across the globe.
I understand where it is coming from, and the term elitist can have such a negative connotation. But at the same time, I honestly believe that Freemasonry makes me a better person. That I have accepted the responsibility for my Brother, my fellow man, and society as a Freemason. I maintain high standards and expect the same from my Brothers. I want to maintain the standard of our Fraternity at the elite level. And I believe that we should guard the West Gate more diligently and turn away a questionable petitioner. No matter how you slice it, we should be more elitist.In reference to Elite: ... this is an exert from the Sunday Masonic News by Cochran Lodge.
".... Are we ashamed today to think that our fraternity is an elite organization? Or, perhaps, we do not believe that it is!
We have high standards; admit no one who is not moral, upright before God and of good repute before the world. We do "good works" throughout the United States that are worth billions of dollars. The secret is that it is okay to be elite; but we should not be elitist. Elite is to have high standards; elitist is to consider yourself better than everyone else and to let them know it.
To be an elite organization requires constant effort. It can never be satisfied with the status quo; the standards can always be lifted. ....'
I just hesitate when asked to judge the character of someone else. We all have checkered pasts one way or another and we have all exhibited conduct that would no be fitting of a MM at all, probably even after we joined the Fraternity.Of course there are men who are nothing but honorable that are not Masons. My stance is, and always will be, that we should only ever accept members from the best that society has to offer. the elite of that society in the sense that they are the best, not necessarily monetarily. Men who have proven that they are dedicated to improving themselves even more, as well as the world around them. I will always be very leary about accepting a man with a checkered past who claims to have changed. Freemasonry is about making good men better, not making men who may be alright now better.
Ergo, when it comes to Masonry, I will always be an elitist. It's not for everyone. And I love Freemasonry a great deal because it joins me with other men with the highest ideals.
That being said, every case must be investigated on it's own merits and the individual investigated based on the facts. But we must remember, when we accept the man into our Order, we also accept his past into our Order. And our detractors can and will use that against us. Sometimes we must make the difficult decisions for the good of the Fraternity as a whole.