mdonahue66
Mike
Yeah, probably. And I'm just going by what I've been told. 136 pages of Masonic manual, and 80 pages of Masonic code, and not a word of it about dress code and hat
What would YOU like to see changed in Masonry?
- Thread starter cemab4y
- Start date
Laxguy38922
New Member
I believe it, they have rules for the most random things published but not something that seems somewhat important.
In TN i believe it is up to the WM. I have seen a few different ones. My personal favorite was the cowboy hat.
Laxguy38922
New Member
In TN i believe it is up to the WM. I have seen a few different ones. My personal favorite was the cowboy hat.
My WM asked at our practice on monday if he could wear a different hat and he was told no... Only way is if it is a degree team and all officers are in their gear(police, firefighters, etc)
removed12612
Guest
I think it would be cool for the WM to wear a firefighter helmet.....
OR a hockey helmet....now that would be cool....
OR a hockey helmet....now that would be cool....
Duncan1574
Lodge Chaplain & arms dealer
There should be a certain amount of decorum, however if your team was in the Stanley Cup I could see it.
Ashlar2006
Masonic Mafia
We wear fedoras . We also have one of those Master's Hats that can be purchased from JP Luther . I have a Brother who hates it , so I normally wear it to get under his skin .
removed12612
Guest
My lodge has historically had the WM hat you mentioned....but I think a fedora or a derby would be nice.
Duncan1574
Lodge Chaplain & arms dealer
My Lodge's WM gets to pick his hat, last year was a cowboy hat (he is from Texas), this year is a small brimmed fedora, both were black.
removed12612
Guest
Duncan....what about a Bootsie Collins ...Earth, Wind and Fire inspired hat....LOL
Duncan1574
Lodge Chaplain & arms dealer
Our long time Tyler & PM takes the WM part in some of the degrees, when he does he wears an Austrian hiking hats with the little feather in the band.
Not sure what I would wear as WM as I have a large collection of chapeaus.
You are indeed confused, about several things.
quote I am confused here . I have read your "Masonic Bill of Rights" threads out there where Masons (and subordinate lodges I take it ) could conduct business with LESS Grand Lodge interference and doing away with rules that lessens the grip of Grand lodges on it's members . But here is a Grand Lodge doing just that , interfering with the subordinate lodges business , and you are all for it because it is something you agree with . If it was the other way around and a Grand Lodge banned lodges from having web sites , you would be screaming bloody murder .
You can not have it both ways , either Grand Lodges allow their subordinate lodges to conduct their business as they see fit within the existing GL Code , or you are for Grand Lodges forcing their will on lodges at their whim . You can not have your cake and eat it too .
-end quote.
Masonry in the USA is run on a "subordinate" lodge system. The lodges created the Grand Lodges. Kentucky was once under the jurisdiction of the GL of Virginia. Lexington lodge #25 (GL of VA), became Lexington lodge #1, when the Grand Lodge of Kentucky was formed, after Kentucky's statehood in 1792.
The GL of Kentucky holds annual "communications" in Louisville, and the representatives of the subordinate lodges, meet together to pass the legislation, that will run the Grand Lodge. The lodges in Kentucky run the Grand Lodge, not the other way around.
Nevertheless, there are certain areas, where the Grand Lodge has been given certain authority by the lodges. The running of the Masonic home, for example. Masonic governance is based on the membership ceding certain powers to the Masonic government (lodges/Grand Lodges).
The lodges in Kentucky, (and other states) often have the Grand Lodge pass legislation, in some areas, which is binding on all the lodges. The Grand Lodge of Ohio, because of the legislation passed by the subordinate lodges, has compelled all lodges in the state of Ohio, to get a webpage. Not all of the lodges in the state of Ohio are happy about this development. But the lodges agreed to conform to Grand Lodge policies, and so they are stuck with it, like it or not. Grand Lodges are not required to have unanimous support, to act. Some actions, like amending the constitution and by-laws, require a "supermajority", like 2/3 of the constituent lodges.
Notwithstanding the superiority of Grand Lodges in some aspects of Freemasonry, I am highly supportive of ceding more autonomy and sovreignity to constituent lodges. There are many activities, which can be handled at the local level, without a Grand Lodge mandate. Setting of dues rates, and deciding whether to hold fund-raisers, are two activities, where the Grand Lodge, should have a "hands-off" attitude.
Have you read, Tim Bryce's proposed Bill of Rights? Many of the proposals, deal with individual rights, and protecting individual Masons from being "clobbered" by the Grand Lodges. No Grand Master should have the power to walk up to a Mason, and demand his dues card, and then tear it up, and say "You are no longer a Mason", on a whim.
You are quite confused about one other thing. If a Grand Lodge, acting in conformance with their constitution, had a Grand Communication, and their subordinate lodges voted properly, to ban every lodge in their state from having an internet website, I would be all for it. The Grand Lodge would be acting within their rules, and a duly passed resolution would be the way they wanted it. I would say HOORAY!, that is how democracy is supposed to work.
The program in Pennsylvania, where all PA masons can pay their dues on line, is another example. The Lodges in PA, acting in conformance with their rules, passed legislation, requiring every lodge in the state to join the program. The legislation did not pass unanimously. There were protests. But the majority prevailed, and the legislation passed. This is how it is to supposed to work. The on-line dues program was NOT a "whim" of the Grand Lodge leadership.
In Masonry, there has to be a "balance". Certain powers and responsibilities are vested in the Grand Lodges. These are very limited (at least they should be limited), and the subordinate lodges must carefully determine which powers are to be held at the Grand Lodge level. Grand Lodge leadership must not act on "whim", but must act in accordance with the wishes and desires of the majority of the subordinate lodges. Certain powers and responsibilities are vested in the subordinate lodges. The lodges hold the "keys to the kingdom", because lodges determine who may be made a Mason.
Certain rights and privileges belong to the individual Mason. The right to a fair Masonic trial, should the individual be brought up on Masonic charges, for instance.
Yes, we can operate our lodges and Grand Lodges, in a fair and balanced way. We can properly decide which powers, we will delegate to the lodges, and which STRICTLY LIMITED powers, we will delegate to the Grand Lodges.
We can have some cake at the lodge level, and some cake at the Grand Lodge level.
"Government is like fire, a dangerous servant, and a terrible master"- George Washington, Freemason
"It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried. " - Winston Churchill, Freemason
quote I am confused here . I have read your "Masonic Bill of Rights" threads out there where Masons (and subordinate lodges I take it ) could conduct business with LESS Grand Lodge interference and doing away with rules that lessens the grip of Grand lodges on it's members . But here is a Grand Lodge doing just that , interfering with the subordinate lodges business , and you are all for it because it is something you agree with . If it was the other way around and a Grand Lodge banned lodges from having web sites , you would be screaming bloody murder .
You can not have it both ways , either Grand Lodges allow their subordinate lodges to conduct their business as they see fit within the existing GL Code , or you are for Grand Lodges forcing their will on lodges at their whim . You can not have your cake and eat it too .
-end quote.
Masonry in the USA is run on a "subordinate" lodge system. The lodges created the Grand Lodges. Kentucky was once under the jurisdiction of the GL of Virginia. Lexington lodge #25 (GL of VA), became Lexington lodge #1, when the Grand Lodge of Kentucky was formed, after Kentucky's statehood in 1792.
The GL of Kentucky holds annual "communications" in Louisville, and the representatives of the subordinate lodges, meet together to pass the legislation, that will run the Grand Lodge. The lodges in Kentucky run the Grand Lodge, not the other way around.
Nevertheless, there are certain areas, where the Grand Lodge has been given certain authority by the lodges. The running of the Masonic home, for example. Masonic governance is based on the membership ceding certain powers to the Masonic government (lodges/Grand Lodges).
The lodges in Kentucky, (and other states) often have the Grand Lodge pass legislation, in some areas, which is binding on all the lodges. The Grand Lodge of Ohio, because of the legislation passed by the subordinate lodges, has compelled all lodges in the state of Ohio, to get a webpage. Not all of the lodges in the state of Ohio are happy about this development. But the lodges agreed to conform to Grand Lodge policies, and so they are stuck with it, like it or not. Grand Lodges are not required to have unanimous support, to act. Some actions, like amending the constitution and by-laws, require a "supermajority", like 2/3 of the constituent lodges.
Notwithstanding the superiority of Grand Lodges in some aspects of Freemasonry, I am highly supportive of ceding more autonomy and sovreignity to constituent lodges. There are many activities, which can be handled at the local level, without a Grand Lodge mandate. Setting of dues rates, and deciding whether to hold fund-raisers, are two activities, where the Grand Lodge, should have a "hands-off" attitude.
Have you read, Tim Bryce's proposed Bill of Rights? Many of the proposals, deal with individual rights, and protecting individual Masons from being "clobbered" by the Grand Lodges. No Grand Master should have the power to walk up to a Mason, and demand his dues card, and then tear it up, and say "You are no longer a Mason", on a whim.
You are quite confused about one other thing. If a Grand Lodge, acting in conformance with their constitution, had a Grand Communication, and their subordinate lodges voted properly, to ban every lodge in their state from having an internet website, I would be all for it. The Grand Lodge would be acting within their rules, and a duly passed resolution would be the way they wanted it. I would say HOORAY!, that is how democracy is supposed to work.
The program in Pennsylvania, where all PA masons can pay their dues on line, is another example. The Lodges in PA, acting in conformance with their rules, passed legislation, requiring every lodge in the state to join the program. The legislation did not pass unanimously. There were protests. But the majority prevailed, and the legislation passed. This is how it is to supposed to work. The on-line dues program was NOT a "whim" of the Grand Lodge leadership.
In Masonry, there has to be a "balance". Certain powers and responsibilities are vested in the Grand Lodges. These are very limited (at least they should be limited), and the subordinate lodges must carefully determine which powers are to be held at the Grand Lodge level. Grand Lodge leadership must not act on "whim", but must act in accordance with the wishes and desires of the majority of the subordinate lodges. Certain powers and responsibilities are vested in the subordinate lodges. The lodges hold the "keys to the kingdom", because lodges determine who may be made a Mason.
Certain rights and privileges belong to the individual Mason. The right to a fair Masonic trial, should the individual be brought up on Masonic charges, for instance.
Yes, we can operate our lodges and Grand Lodges, in a fair and balanced way. We can properly decide which powers, we will delegate to the lodges, and which STRICTLY LIMITED powers, we will delegate to the Grand Lodges.
We can have some cake at the lodge level, and some cake at the Grand Lodge level.
"Government is like fire, a dangerous servant, and a terrible master"- George Washington, Freemason
"It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried. " - Winston Churchill, Freemason
Azpir8king
Member
Now I will have to attend their lodge the next time I am back home in Sierra Vista. Awesome.
Duncan1574
Lodge Chaplain & arms dealer
I could that one easy, think they mind if I worn my hogleg?
Bob Franks
Past District Deputy Grand Lecturer
Duncan1574
Lodge Chaplain & arms dealer
Nay, good old iron, brass, and .44 lead of course, with 30gr of black powder behind each of the 6 cylinders.
Bob Franks
Past District Deputy Grand Lecturer
Going heeled.
Even my Glock has too much metal. (I love black powder, but I'm not going to keep one on me as my Carry piece!)
S&F
The wood handles and black powder are OK, but the caps are copper, the ball are lead, the frame is brass, and the cylinders are steel. Remember how (and why) you were prepared for Initiation as an Entered Apprentice!
Even my Glock has too much metal. (I love black powder, but I'm not going to keep one on me as my Carry piece!)
S&F
Duncan1574
Lodge Chaplain & arms dealer
So does my Glock,
But if you carried BP as your C&C, you could just escape in the cloud smoke!
PatrickWilliams
I could tell you ...
No, sorry ... Wisconsin Code forbids firearms in Lodge buildings unless you are a duly licensed peace officer on duty. That means you cannot even bring your smoker in for show and tell.So does my Glock,
But if you carried BP as your C&C, you could just escape in the cloud smoke!
This is an explanation of the incident which prompted this decision: http://www.masonicinfo.com/ny_shooting.htm
After the Patchogue, NY incident described in the above article, GL's nationwide had knee jerk reactions to it. Many, many jurisdictions now forbid firearms of any kind in the Lodge building. A bummer for my Lodge, as we had a guest lined up for a dinner who was going to bring in a wide variety of smokepoles and give us a talk about the history of the black powder weapon just as this decision came in.