Still disturbed!

[Winter]

We're getting a bit far afield. The basic discussion revolves around a few points.

1. Certain jurisdictions codify and regulate personal behavior in a Freemasons life that many of us (apparently) find distasteful.
2. A GL has the right to do this if the resolution is legally proposed and enacted.
3. While Freemasonry is a system of morality, should it dictate specific actions such as marriage?

Yes, if that is stated in the Code for that jurisdiction that a Mason cannot live with a woman out of wedlock than by all means you must adhere to the Code. But I think an interesting topic would be to consider "why" the GL felt the need to put this rule in their Code when the overwhelming majority of jurisdictions do not.

 

[jaya]

I think that it has something to do with morality. Our code actually does not specifically say anything about living together. It does say something about "illegal communications" (and not just with a relative of a brother) as Hellas anything that goes against the moral code. The GM may brought it up was interpreting it to include living together. Over the years our society as a whole has seen a loosening in what is considered immoral. We want freemasonry to hold on to its history and go back to what it teaches but find it bad when traditional morals are concerned. I find that a little hypocritical.

 

[Hank]

I think Hank meant to marry her as in your Lodge...

Exactly, Marry her in the lodge.

 

[Winter]

I think that it has something to do with morality. Our code actually does not specifically say anything about living together. It does say something about "illegal communications" (and not just with a relative of a brother) as Hellas anything that goes against the moral code. The GM may brought it up was interpreting it to include living together. Over the years our society as a whole has seen a loosening in what is considered immoral. We want freemasonry to hold on to its history and go back to what it teaches but find it bad when traditional morals are concerned. I find that a little hypocritical.

Jaya, you said that your jurisdiction specifically said that a Brother cannot live with a woman out of wedlock. I still challenge that whether a couple are married or not either by religious or social conventions is not the pervue of the Lodge to regulate among it's members. And considering the actions of an individual's character as opposed to the form or process that two people become man and wife is more important, not hypocritical. By your thinking we should bar a man from becoming a Freemason for homosexuality, regardless of his character.

 

[jaya]

No, I did not say that it specifically said it. I did say it is against our code. That is how the GM at the time interpreted it. That is what matters. He specifically said that if he found out someone was living out of wedlock, he would have no choice but to bring up charges. It was a don't ask, don't tell sort of thing. The GL (which is actually brethren) can make any rule that it chooses. The Grand Line of officers has very little voting power. The voting power comes from the WM, SW and JW of every lodge. Proposed rule changes come from the lodges, committees, or officers but is voted on by the GL before it is a rule. If someone does not like the rules, the are not forced to join. If they do not like the rules and they have joined, they are free to propose a rule amendment.


Actually our code does say:

REG. 86-2 SPECIFIC MASONIC OFFENSES.

4.To have illegal carnal intercourse with wife, sister, mother, or daughter of a Master Mason. Penalty expulsion
5.To have illegal carnal intercourse with one who is not the wife, sister, mother, or daughter of a Master Mason

Many do interpret number 5 above to include living with someone. Some do not interpret it that way. However, it does not have a mandatory penalty as number 4 does.

 

[Winter]

It is not "illegal" for me to have sex with my girlfriend. No amount of puritanical interpretation of the Masonic Code could get me penalized.

 

[Windrider]

It is not "illegal" for me to have sex with my girlfriend. No amount of puritanical interpretation of the Masonic Code could get me penalized.

It is if you're married

 

[Winter]

It is if you're married

Touche' Windrider.

 

[Duncan1574]

While the wife and girlfriend thing is illegal someplaces, it is not in others. Or multiple wives or husbands for that matter. Brother brother husband?

 

[jaya]

Illegal is not just a term for criminal activity. One might be legally able to do something but it does not mean that it is considered "illegal" by a different group or method. While it is not criminal in nature, something can be still considered illegal by a Grand Lodge.

For example, under Specific Masonic Offenses our code list the following that, while not criminal, are masonic offenses.

28.To violate the moral law or to violate the criminal statutes involving moral turpitude. [66-1.11].

29.Drunkenness is a serious Masonic offense.
32.To conduct, promote, participate in, profit by, aid or assist, in the name or in behalf of Masonry, in any lottery, game of chance, door prize, or other device or activity by any name, whether or not permitted by public authority. This subdivision covers both individual brethren and Masonic bodies in this jurisdiction and the so called collateral bodies or other organizations in North Carolina whose membership is dependent upon or related to Masonic membership or which are likely to be regarded as Masonic organizations in the public mind as well as individual Masons, within the Jurisdiction of the Grand Lodge, are enjoined and required to respect the purposes of this regulation. In addition to the power and authority contained in Chapter 58 of THE CODE, the Grand Master shall have the authority to direct the Judge Advocate to institute a Masonic Trial against any Master Mason within the Jurisdiction of the Grand Lodge whom he believes, after investigation, to have been or is a party to the promoting of a lottery, or game of chance of any kind or character. [ 43-3.12 ](This subsection amended, effective 7/31/2000)

33.To be a professional gambler, or to keep a gambling establishment, or permit gambling in any form in any place under his control. Penalty expulsion.

34.To play cards or dice, or otherwise, in any manner, gamble for money or for things of intrinsic value


It is technically against the code for a mason in NC to play the lottery. When I was in the class on the code at Wilkerson College we were asked how many had tickets for the record power ball drawing. It was brought to our attention that was technically illegal for us to do even though it was legal acording to the state.

 

[Winter]

Sorry brother. Not trying to bash you or your jurisdiction at all. But I fail to see how buying a lottery ticket makes a person immoral.

 

[Ashlar2006]

Some of these rules blows my mind .

 

[jaya]

Sorry brother. Not trying to bash you or your jurisdiction at all. But I fail to see how buying a lottery ticket makes a person immoral.

I am not saying that it does. However, it is listed in our code under specific masonic offenses as I posted above. If someone does not agree with the code, they are free to not join or demit. You can also propose a change to the code to be voted on at the next GL session.

There are some GL jurisdictions that are even more strict. If you have never looked at your code I would enchourage you to. You might find some interesting things in there.

 

[2SONDAD]

So Jaya, in your jurisdiction, a trip to Vegas, with some time losing your money at a casino can bring you up on charges?

 

[Winter]

I know my Code. (Although I am still learning FL's since moving here) And I never said you thought a person who bought a lottery ticket was immoral, but the Masonic Code in your jurisdiction apparently does. Which means, since it has never been changed, that the majority of the Brothers there agree with it. That's fine.

If your jurisdiction has a rule, it has to be followed. But I don't have to agree with a rule in another jurisdiction if I don't want to. And considering what NC was in the news for this week I think I can understand a little better.

 

[jaya]

So Jaya, in your jurisdiction, a trip to Vegas, with some time losing your money at a casino can bring you up on charges?

Technically, yes but that has never happend that I know of. On another forum there was a discussion about alcohol and in a different jurisdiction (Mississippi and/or Alabama if I remember right) it is considered a masonic offense to own a place that serves alcohol.

NC overwhelmingly voted for what was alluded to, including myself. 32 other states have done the same thing. 0 have voted against it.

 

[Hank]

Pull the handbrake!
Whats this about drunkenness?