The whole "official line" policing thing has always puzzled me. I just don't get it. Gatekeeping is it's own weird pathology. The search for Truth demands a badger's eye view, multiple lenses of analysis and generosity of Spirit. Often it's a stereoscopic picture.
Cops and lawyers know this - eyewitness accounts are notoriously unreliable because perception and perspective are two very different critters. The hard physical evidence can also be contradictory until you take it down to its most basic elements.
Looking for the historical story is one of the most interesting endeavours to me, because once the dust settles, the outlines of events remain if you know how to look at it. But in some cases, we'll just never know the nitty-gritty of the facts.
In all instances, for me personally, the *human* story is the most interesting and engaging.
I think that it comes from fear. People fear revolution, and have the misguided view that if dissent is not allowed, revolution won't come. But surely it is misguided, for nothing breeds revolution like censorship and oppression.
The ongoing search for Truth is de facto a revolutionary - and even sometimes perceptually subversive - act. It tips over apple carts and exposes human nature - parts of it that people would sooner not look at. And that's usually because they'd sooner not look into themselves.
Inertia likes to settle into everything. And a story that's been accepted likes to remain unchallenged. Normalcy bias and group-think demand it.
When I first joined Masonry, I was sitting with brothers at dinner before one of our stated meetings, and I remarked, quite innocently, that it was sure nice to belong to an organization without any bickering or disagreements. So Naive.
Limitations on the Freedom of Thought and Expression of views outside of the lodge is a no brainer. Who am I to stop education on anything. Ignorance births fear, fear births hate on and on... More classes and more education on all topics. If an old past master doesn't like the topic he doesn't have to attend. He can pout at home. Goodness...... good topic.
The idea of suppressing free and open communication, other than politics and religion, among Masons defeats the whole purpose of convening as Masons. Nobody has a complete understanding of what exactly was on the minds of our Masonic forebears when speculative lodges were first created, but I'll bet a paycheck that it wasn't absolute conformity to what some bygone brother once wrote or said, nor was it that we should take sides and silence anyone we disagree with.
I'm a recovering CFO and I often described myself as my company's chief skepticism officer, not because I longed to be anyone's bubble buster, but because I wanted to test their ideas and plans to make sure we'd covered everything before we made financial commitments. And it takes a devil's advocate to do that. I didn't agree with every idea or plan that was presented to me, but by the time my review was done I fully understood what was being presented and, if I say so myself, I think at times I strengthened the plan. That same thought process can be applied to any controversial topics discussed among Masons.
And before I close, I particularly noticed one thing you wrote: "... someone was saying mean things about Grand Lodge ...". Was that me? If if was I hope you know me well enough to know that I at least try to offer observations in the most friendly manner, and with the intention of strengthening Grand Lodge.
-The fellow they were complaining about is, like you, an extremely dedicated Mason, looking to strengthen Masonry. It's just a sad fact of life that some folks can't handle criticism, no matter how constructive or intended.
Well, I suppose it could have been me. Hey, if I'm not falling down every now and then I'm not skiing hard enough (glad you started this thread after the season's first snowfall, I don't have a similar metaphor for the warmer months).
A note that the original article that Bro Hodapp wrote was dealing more with the circumstances surrounding why that organization was objecting to the speaker, not as a suppression of free speech but who he represented.
Much like Washington Grand Lodge, there are most, if not all GLs around the country that would have similar rules about who can claim to be a masonic organization, and if a new group sprouted up claiming to be the "real" Knights Templar versus the already established and recognized group calling themselves the same thing, you can imagine the same issues would rear its ugly head. This is yet another example of how concordant and appendant bodies can cause havoc amongst its members.
I'm not taking sides either way on this topic, as I don't know all of the circumstances (I wasn't there), but I can see where this can cause an uproar. But in the end, the GL should have the authority within it's jurisdiction to allow or deny affiliations within the umbrella of masonry. They have to because they are the guardians of Amity amongst the fraternity.
I'll use a hypothetical example, something that could conceivably happen here in Washington.
The Rite of Memphis, as a legal Masonic organization, does not exist here in Washington. The Degrees were long ago enveloped into the Grand College of Rites, a regular Masonic body.
So if a guy, from a foreign land who somehow or another held the Degrees of Memphis, came here to Washington, and tried to confer those Degrees on Washington Masons, claiming them to be Masonic Degrees, then without a doubt the Grand Lodge of Washington would have a right to object and to put a stop to it. And, without a doubt, the Grand Lodge of Washington would do so.
And importantly, the Grand College of Rites, as the legitimate holder of those Degrees within this Jurisdiction would have a right to object and would object.
But, if a guy from a foreign land who somehow or another held those Degrees came here to Washington to talk about them, within the bounds of his own obligations, there could be no legitimate cause to tell him that he couldn't do so. I don't think that the Grand Lodge could or would try to stifle that discussion, nor would I imagine the Grand College of Rites trying to do so.
There is a huge difference, in my mind, between talking about Degrees and Conferring Degrees. A vital difference.
As I read Bro. Hodapp, the fellow is coming to the US to talk about the Rectified Scottish Rite Degrees, not Conferring or even exemplifying them.
MW, when you were running the show I also couldn't imagine GL stifling a discussion. And I'm pleased to say that this has been the case for most of the years that I've been a Mason. However, I've also experienced Grand Masters who seemed to take great joy is ruling on just about anything, and that ruling showed up in the form of a prohibition.
I apologize, I had actually took a deeper dive into the history behind this entire escapade and was actually referring to the previous bruhaahaa rather than the current events. Should have pointed that out, but you're right, Bro Chris' article and your commentary is spot on.
The whole "official line" policing thing has always puzzled me. I just don't get it. Gatekeeping is it's own weird pathology. The search for Truth demands a badger's eye view, multiple lenses of analysis and generosity of Spirit. Often it's a stereoscopic picture.
Cops and lawyers know this - eyewitness accounts are notoriously unreliable because perception and perspective are two very different critters. The hard physical evidence can also be contradictory until you take it down to its most basic elements.
Looking for the historical story is one of the most interesting endeavours to me, because once the dust settles, the outlines of events remain if you know how to look at it. But in some cases, we'll just never know the nitty-gritty of the facts.
In all instances, for me personally, the *human* story is the most interesting and engaging.
I think that it comes from fear. People fear revolution, and have the misguided view that if dissent is not allowed, revolution won't come. But surely it is misguided, for nothing breeds revolution like censorship and oppression.
Fear is usually at the root of control issues.
The ongoing search for Truth is de facto a revolutionary - and even sometimes perceptually subversive - act. It tips over apple carts and exposes human nature - parts of it that people would sooner not look at. And that's usually because they'd sooner not look into themselves.
Inertia likes to settle into everything. And a story that's been accepted likes to remain unchallenged. Normalcy bias and group-think demand it.
Which takes us back to fear.
The timing of this post on the Magpie Mason is great. https://themagpiemason.blogspot.com/2023/12/a-lodge-may-hear-lectures.html?m=0&fbclid=IwAR1ewPsM8DEx6JPakPBeXuzAPpE24-wXE1cEUN-a6GaI0lIa3RVf3_97n7Q
That is excellent timing! Thanks for passing the link along!
When I first joined Masonry, I was sitting with brothers at dinner before one of our stated meetings, and I remarked, quite innocently, that it was sure nice to belong to an organization without any bickering or disagreements. So Naive.
Limitations on the Freedom of Thought and Expression of views outside of the lodge is a no brainer. Who am I to stop education on anything. Ignorance births fear, fear births hate on and on... More classes and more education on all topics. If an old past master doesn't like the topic he doesn't have to attend. He can pout at home. Goodness...... good topic.
Agree.
The idea of suppressing free and open communication, other than politics and religion, among Masons defeats the whole purpose of convening as Masons. Nobody has a complete understanding of what exactly was on the minds of our Masonic forebears when speculative lodges were first created, but I'll bet a paycheck that it wasn't absolute conformity to what some bygone brother once wrote or said, nor was it that we should take sides and silence anyone we disagree with.
I'm a recovering CFO and I often described myself as my company's chief skepticism officer, not because I longed to be anyone's bubble buster, but because I wanted to test their ideas and plans to make sure we'd covered everything before we made financial commitments. And it takes a devil's advocate to do that. I didn't agree with every idea or plan that was presented to me, but by the time my review was done I fully understood what was being presented and, if I say so myself, I think at times I strengthened the plan. That same thought process can be applied to any controversial topics discussed among Masons.
And before I close, I particularly noticed one thing you wrote: "... someone was saying mean things about Grand Lodge ...". Was that me? If if was I hope you know me well enough to know that I at least try to offer observations in the most friendly manner, and with the intention of strengthening Grand Lodge.
Two thoughts VW Brother:
-No, it wasn't you.
-The fellow they were complaining about is, like you, an extremely dedicated Mason, looking to strengthen Masonry. It's just a sad fact of life that some folks can't handle criticism, no matter how constructive or intended.
Well, I suppose it could have been me. Hey, if I'm not falling down every now and then I'm not skiing hard enough (glad you started this thread after the season's first snowfall, I don't have a similar metaphor for the warmer months).
You wouldn't believe how much I bite my tongue over :P
A note that the original article that Bro Hodapp wrote was dealing more with the circumstances surrounding why that organization was objecting to the speaker, not as a suppression of free speech but who he represented.
Much like Washington Grand Lodge, there are most, if not all GLs around the country that would have similar rules about who can claim to be a masonic organization, and if a new group sprouted up claiming to be the "real" Knights Templar versus the already established and recognized group calling themselves the same thing, you can imagine the same issues would rear its ugly head. This is yet another example of how concordant and appendant bodies can cause havoc amongst its members.
I'm not taking sides either way on this topic, as I don't know all of the circumstances (I wasn't there), but I can see where this can cause an uproar. But in the end, the GL should have the authority within it's jurisdiction to allow or deny affiliations within the umbrella of masonry. They have to because they are the guardians of Amity amongst the fraternity.
I'm afraid that I don't see it that way.
I'll use a hypothetical example, something that could conceivably happen here in Washington.
The Rite of Memphis, as a legal Masonic organization, does not exist here in Washington. The Degrees were long ago enveloped into the Grand College of Rites, a regular Masonic body.
So if a guy, from a foreign land who somehow or another held the Degrees of Memphis, came here to Washington, and tried to confer those Degrees on Washington Masons, claiming them to be Masonic Degrees, then without a doubt the Grand Lodge of Washington would have a right to object and to put a stop to it. And, without a doubt, the Grand Lodge of Washington would do so.
And importantly, the Grand College of Rites, as the legitimate holder of those Degrees within this Jurisdiction would have a right to object and would object.
But, if a guy from a foreign land who somehow or another held those Degrees came here to Washington to talk about them, within the bounds of his own obligations, there could be no legitimate cause to tell him that he couldn't do so. I don't think that the Grand Lodge could or would try to stifle that discussion, nor would I imagine the Grand College of Rites trying to do so.
There is a huge difference, in my mind, between talking about Degrees and Conferring Degrees. A vital difference.
As I read Bro. Hodapp, the fellow is coming to the US to talk about the Rectified Scottish Rite Degrees, not Conferring or even exemplifying them.
MW, when you were running the show I also couldn't imagine GL stifling a discussion. And I'm pleased to say that this has been the case for most of the years that I've been a Mason. However, I've also experienced Grand Masters who seemed to take great joy is ruling on just about anything, and that ruling showed up in the form of a prohibition.
I apologize, I had actually took a deeper dive into the history behind this entire escapade and was actually referring to the previous bruhaahaa rather than the current events. Should have pointed that out, but you're right, Bro Chris' article and your commentary is spot on.
"Trains of thought are continually passing to and fro, from the light into the dark, and back from the dark into the light." E. S. Dallas, (1867)
Thats easy to answer. Ignorance.
A person that prohibit any other reading on anything is an ignorant person and its show his lack of understanding of the craft.
How can a person dare to call himself a "free" mason of it cannot wander around the path.