When a man is Initiated an Entered Apprentice, he is told (in my Jurisdiction anyway) that his obligation is binding for life and that it can never be repudiated or laid aside.
He is also told that he has just been made a Mason.
Yet a few years ago, at an Annual Communication, it was decided by the Craft here in Washington that a Mason who fails to advance through the Degrees in a timely manner can be dropped from the rolls.
As a part of that, if a Lodge drops a Mason from the rolls, and he decides that he would like to return to the Lodge, all that is required is a simple majority vote of the Lodge to reinstate him, provided that he has only been dropped for two years or less.
If it is longer than two years, he has to once again petition for the Degrees of Masonry.
That has never struck me as right, but I know that a lot of Masons who I respect think it is good policy. So tell me what you think. Is this good policy, or bad? Why do you feel that way?
At our upcoming Annual Communication, a resolution will be offered that will get rid of the requirement to re-petition. It would allow a Mason who had been dropped for failure to advance to be reinstated by a simple majority vote of the Lodge, no matter how much time has passed.
Personally, I think that would be a positive change in policy. But, what do you think? Yea, or Nay?
Lastly, I hope that those of you who are not from Washington can let us know how your Lodges and Grand Lodges handle Entered Apprentices and Fellowcrafts who don’t advance.
Is there a good policy that other Grand Lodges should consider?
How can we best be fair to both the Mason, and the Lodge?
Let’s chat about it…
1×
0:00
-2:24
Completely unrelated to the above, author JK Rowling has been in the news a great deal over the past few days for her recent posts to Twitter/X. Those posts reference the Scottish Enlightenment. Freemasonry as we know it was certainly a driver of the Enlightenment, and it has since at least it’s public inception stood for the values of the Enlightenment.
Thinking about those western values, predominantly free speech and the intellectual freedom it allows drove me to write a bit of a political piece, not suitable for Emeth, but, if you would like to read it, you can find it here:
Here we have a 1yr rule, and it applies to everyone. Whether a MM is suspended for not paying his dues, or if an EA or FC is dropped from the roll for not coming back, after one year they all face the scrutiny of a new background check, investigation committee, and ballot box.
Truthfully, I like that formality because people change and a simple majority hand vote can lead a lodge into a bad situation where someone knows reinstating could be an issue, but doesn’t want to rock the boat, or have it get back to the petitioner how they voted.
Here we also have the 1 year rule before suspension for non payment of dues. and if with in 2 years you true up your dues you can come back with out a investigation. While it may seem romantic that men could just repetition, they that have decided to part ways with the Lodge did so with reason, be it in their control or not. It is in my opinion the prerogative of the lodge as to whether or not to allow the gentleman or we will call him ex brother back in to our ranks, if we no longer know him it is also our prerogative to determine if he is still a gentleman.
I think the issue gets complicated with our new requirements for a background check. We had men who were on the books for over 20 years that never made it past FC, and with a required background check we can't have them miss a lenght of time before needing to redo it all over again. Who is to say they missed out doing 3-5 in Shelton correctional facility?
During my time in the East, my Lodge purged a lot of men from our membership roll for failing to advance. Some had been on the roll for a very long time. It was a difficult and time consuming process to go through. Many attempts were made to contact the brothers in question. Some were surprised when they were contacted (perhaps an attempt to contact them sooner may have brought them back) and others were no longer interested in Masonry. I found it disheartening to purge a Brother. You hear frequently that there are no “ex” or “former” Marines, I feel the same of an initiated brother. If a brother is purged from the rolls for failure to advance, am I no longer allowed to greet him as a Mason. With electronic correspondence or GL assessment fees, there is no cost to the lodge, other than the rare times when physical mail needs to be sent out, to keep the brother on the roll. Perhaps an indication of inactive would be more appropriate than a purge.
1. A man was initiated a week after me. We never saw him again. Masonry was not what he expected.
2. A man was initiated in another state 20 years ago, leaving the craft and the state soon after (work and family reasons). He ended up here, came to Lodge functions, wanted to resume Masonry. Our Secretary did a lot of work over some months to organize a change of jurisdiction. Once done… work and family reasons kept him from Lodge. He failed to advance for over a year and now is dropped from our roles.
Having read all of the comments I find it harsh to drop someone from a lodge for not progressing. I think some people find it hard to learn the ritual. Should we not try to help them learn rather then drop them from a lodge
Being from the UK 🇬🇧 I don't think I ever heard of a Brother being drop because he has not gone to the next rank. If its for non payment of fees then he gets 6 months to pay after that he is out after a vote. Now if you don't know the words for
Next job say JW THEN you don't move up a job. We should be trying to get people to join not throwing them out
While I typically prefer to avoid advocating for increased regulation, I believe it's crucial to address a matter that aligns directly with our core objective: “Making good men better”. Our pursuit of this goal is intricately tied to our degrees, ongoing Masonic education, and the collective wisdom shared among lodge members. It stands to reason that a lodge comprised of "better men" has the potential to produce better Masons.
Regarding the practice of dropping Entered Apprentices (EA) and Fellow Crafts (FC) who fail to prove themselves, I view this as a necessary measure for two primary reasons.
Firstly, one of the fundamental traits we seek in a potential member is the ability to make sound decisions. This ability is demonstrated through recognizing needs, gathering information, considering diverse opinions, and ultimately making rational and just choices. Individuals who struggle in this aspect often stagnate in personal growth or are even combative in response to change. Within Masonry, it's crucial to address such deficiencies early on, both for the individual's sake and the lodge's well-being. This proactive approach also aligns with our commitment to supporting each other's growth and addressing areas that need improvement, fostering an environment of honest self-assessment and constructive feedback.
An earnest conversation you can engage in with your brethren is posing the question: "Given what you know about me today, would you still cast a favorable vote on my petition?" This inquiry holds immense significance; it epitomizes our commitment to support each other's growth, smoothing out the rough edges of our ashlar within the sanctuary of our lodge. If we cannot respectfully navigate such challenging discussions without causing offense or prompting departures from the lodge, it suggests that some among us may have grown complacent, finding solace in a comfortable environment that strokes their ego.
Let us remember that joining the lodge is a profound lifelong decision, not a fleeting indulgence to alleviate momentary boredom or seek transient entertainment. It is a call to action, a commitment to a journey of continuous improvement and enlightenment. Therefore, it is imperative that we embrace these difficult conversations with courage and humility, for they are the crucible through which our fraternity forges stronger bonds and shapes better men.
Secondly, Masonry operates on the principle that it takes a collective effort to nurture and develop a Mason (“It takes a lodge/district to raise a mason”). When individuals join with a lack of dedication or respect for the time and effort invested by others, it undermines the value of our shared journey. I understand that this is a two-way street; the lodge must offer value to keep members engaged, but we must not devolve into mere entertainers. Each individual within the lodge brings intrinsic value, and the lodge serves as the focal point where these invaluable individuals leverage our communication methods within a secure place for instruction.
This distinction is crucial, as it positions us not only as facilitators of personal growth but as architects of perpetual improvement. Our mission extends beyond refining good men; we are charged with enhancing these refined men into ever-better versions of themselves, continuously striving for excellence. Newly initiated members must bring their unique value to the table, as Masonry has the potential to yield returns far greater than what it receives. However, if we admit men lacking in substance, the results will be quite the opposite.
Our lodge should be a place of anticipation, where meetings with brethren ignite excitement rather than dread. It should be a sanctuary of motivation and firm guidance, fostering growth and empowerment. Let us not approach it with trepidation but with readiness to confront challenges and emerge stronger, united in our pursuit of Masonic ideals and the relentless pursuit of personal and collective excellence! This reciprocal exchange between young initiates and seasoned members forms the foundation of Masonic growth and fulfillment.
In essence, granting lodges more discretion in evaluating the progress and commitment of EAs and FCs is not about imposing strict measures but rather about ensuring that our shared journey remains purposeful and mutually beneficial. Just as we emphasize guarding the west gate, We can all agree finding out about these things after someone is a MM or WM is to late nor is the immediate answer to make men be a candidate for a year+ while we try to learn who these people truly are. We must prioritize proactive measures to uphold the integrity and vitality of our Masonic Lodges.
In the UK we ask I think it is 10 questions and answers from EA to FC And then 10 more from FC TO MM. SOME people find it hard and get very nervous about standing up in lodge and doing the words. I have 3 weeks left of being master then I hand over. I have pages and pages to learn and I am having trouble now would you throw a master out because he is finding hard to learn the words? I am 69 so I don't have a young quick mind anymore so it takes longer to learn
Perhaps we should charge dues from the time they are initiated. This would be a reminder to them that they have started on the journey and are expecting to continue.
While I realize it isn’t 1390 any more, the concept of advancement rightly can be traced to the thinking expressed in the Regius Poem, where we learn apprenticeship is capped at seven years. To this day in the Swedish Rite, an Apprentice will serve several years before being considered for the Second Degree.
My lodge has Apprentices and Fellows still on the books from decades ago. No one considers them candidates in waiting for advancement (we’re not insane), but the law is what it is, so they remain on the books. We don’t know that they’re even alive. No current contact info.
Lodges should have the latitude to close the books on brethren of the inferior degrees who are incommunicado or otherwise fail to participate. If we can suspend a Master Mason for non-payment of dues, we should be free to use our discretion to suspend a derelict Apprentice or Fellow Craft.
Here we have a 1yr rule, and it applies to everyone. Whether a MM is suspended for not paying his dues, or if an EA or FC is dropped from the roll for not coming back, after one year they all face the scrutiny of a new background check, investigation committee, and ballot box.
Truthfully, I like that formality because people change and a simple majority hand vote can lead a lodge into a bad situation where someone knows reinstating could be an issue, but doesn’t want to rock the boat, or have it get back to the petitioner how they voted.
Here we also have the 1 year rule before suspension for non payment of dues. and if with in 2 years you true up your dues you can come back with out a investigation. While it may seem romantic that men could just repetition, they that have decided to part ways with the Lodge did so with reason, be it in their control or not. It is in my opinion the prerogative of the lodge as to whether or not to allow the gentleman or we will call him ex brother back in to our ranks, if we no longer know him it is also our prerogative to determine if he is still a gentleman.
In New York, it's no big deal not to advance, other than some Lodges rushing people through out of the notion they will lose interest if they don't.
One Brother local to me was an EA for over 9 tears (or was it 19?). He advanced when he was ready. No drama or red tape.
NOTE: Here we do not sign the bylaws or become a member of the Lodge until our 3rd Degree, meaning there are no dues until that time.
I think the issue gets complicated with our new requirements for a background check. We had men who were on the books for over 20 years that never made it past FC, and with a required background check we can't have them miss a lenght of time before needing to redo it all over again. Who is to say they missed out doing 3-5 in Shelton correctional facility?
During my time in the East, my Lodge purged a lot of men from our membership roll for failing to advance. Some had been on the roll for a very long time. It was a difficult and time consuming process to go through. Many attempts were made to contact the brothers in question. Some were surprised when they were contacted (perhaps an attempt to contact them sooner may have brought them back) and others were no longer interested in Masonry. I found it disheartening to purge a Brother. You hear frequently that there are no “ex” or “former” Marines, I feel the same of an initiated brother. If a brother is purged from the rolls for failure to advance, am I no longer allowed to greet him as a Mason. With electronic correspondence or GL assessment fees, there is no cost to the lodge, other than the rare times when physical mail needs to be sent out, to keep the brother on the roll. Perhaps an indication of inactive would be more appropriate than a purge.
1. A man was initiated a week after me. We never saw him again. Masonry was not what he expected.
2. A man was initiated in another state 20 years ago, leaving the craft and the state soon after (work and family reasons). He ended up here, came to Lodge functions, wanted to resume Masonry. Our Secretary did a lot of work over some months to organize a change of jurisdiction. Once done… work and family reasons kept him from Lodge. He failed to advance for over a year and now is dropped from our roles.
Yeah I’m in favor of having a man start over.
Having read all of the comments I find it harsh to drop someone from a lodge for not progressing. I think some people find it hard to learn the ritual. Should we not try to help them learn rather then drop them from a lodge
Being from the UK 🇬🇧 I don't think I ever heard of a Brother being drop because he has not gone to the next rank. If its for non payment of fees then he gets 6 months to pay after that he is out after a vote. Now if you don't know the words for
Next job say JW THEN you don't move up a job. We should be trying to get people to join not throwing them out
Help them learn.
While I typically prefer to avoid advocating for increased regulation, I believe it's crucial to address a matter that aligns directly with our core objective: “Making good men better”. Our pursuit of this goal is intricately tied to our degrees, ongoing Masonic education, and the collective wisdom shared among lodge members. It stands to reason that a lodge comprised of "better men" has the potential to produce better Masons.
Regarding the practice of dropping Entered Apprentices (EA) and Fellow Crafts (FC) who fail to prove themselves, I view this as a necessary measure for two primary reasons.
Firstly, one of the fundamental traits we seek in a potential member is the ability to make sound decisions. This ability is demonstrated through recognizing needs, gathering information, considering diverse opinions, and ultimately making rational and just choices. Individuals who struggle in this aspect often stagnate in personal growth or are even combative in response to change. Within Masonry, it's crucial to address such deficiencies early on, both for the individual's sake and the lodge's well-being. This proactive approach also aligns with our commitment to supporting each other's growth and addressing areas that need improvement, fostering an environment of honest self-assessment and constructive feedback.
An earnest conversation you can engage in with your brethren is posing the question: "Given what you know about me today, would you still cast a favorable vote on my petition?" This inquiry holds immense significance; it epitomizes our commitment to support each other's growth, smoothing out the rough edges of our ashlar within the sanctuary of our lodge. If we cannot respectfully navigate such challenging discussions without causing offense or prompting departures from the lodge, it suggests that some among us may have grown complacent, finding solace in a comfortable environment that strokes their ego.
Let us remember that joining the lodge is a profound lifelong decision, not a fleeting indulgence to alleviate momentary boredom or seek transient entertainment. It is a call to action, a commitment to a journey of continuous improvement and enlightenment. Therefore, it is imperative that we embrace these difficult conversations with courage and humility, for they are the crucible through which our fraternity forges stronger bonds and shapes better men.
Secondly, Masonry operates on the principle that it takes a collective effort to nurture and develop a Mason (“It takes a lodge/district to raise a mason”). When individuals join with a lack of dedication or respect for the time and effort invested by others, it undermines the value of our shared journey. I understand that this is a two-way street; the lodge must offer value to keep members engaged, but we must not devolve into mere entertainers. Each individual within the lodge brings intrinsic value, and the lodge serves as the focal point where these invaluable individuals leverage our communication methods within a secure place for instruction.
This distinction is crucial, as it positions us not only as facilitators of personal growth but as architects of perpetual improvement. Our mission extends beyond refining good men; we are charged with enhancing these refined men into ever-better versions of themselves, continuously striving for excellence. Newly initiated members must bring their unique value to the table, as Masonry has the potential to yield returns far greater than what it receives. However, if we admit men lacking in substance, the results will be quite the opposite.
Our lodge should be a place of anticipation, where meetings with brethren ignite excitement rather than dread. It should be a sanctuary of motivation and firm guidance, fostering growth and empowerment. Let us not approach it with trepidation but with readiness to confront challenges and emerge stronger, united in our pursuit of Masonic ideals and the relentless pursuit of personal and collective excellence! This reciprocal exchange between young initiates and seasoned members forms the foundation of Masonic growth and fulfillment.
In essence, granting lodges more discretion in evaluating the progress and commitment of EAs and FCs is not about imposing strict measures but rather about ensuring that our shared journey remains purposeful and mutually beneficial. Just as we emphasize guarding the west gate, We can all agree finding out about these things after someone is a MM or WM is to late nor is the immediate answer to make men be a candidate for a year+ while we try to learn who these people truly are. We must prioritize proactive measures to uphold the integrity and vitality of our Masonic Lodges.
In the UK we ask I think it is 10 questions and answers from EA to FC And then 10 more from FC TO MM. SOME people find it hard and get very nervous about standing up in lodge and doing the words. I have 3 weeks left of being master then I hand over. I have pages and pages to learn and I am having trouble now would you throw a master out because he is finding hard to learn the words? I am 69 so I don't have a young quick mind anymore so it takes longer to learn
Perhaps we should charge dues from the time they are initiated. This would be a reminder to them that they have started on the journey and are expecting to continue.
While I realize it isn’t 1390 any more, the concept of advancement rightly can be traced to the thinking expressed in the Regius Poem, where we learn apprenticeship is capped at seven years. To this day in the Swedish Rite, an Apprentice will serve several years before being considered for the Second Degree.
My lodge has Apprentices and Fellows still on the books from decades ago. No one considers them candidates in waiting for advancement (we’re not insane), but the law is what it is, so they remain on the books. We don’t know that they’re even alive. No current contact info.
Lodges should have the latitude to close the books on brethren of the inferior degrees who are incommunicado or otherwise fail to participate. If we can suspend a Master Mason for non-payment of dues, we should be free to use our discretion to suspend a derelict Apprentice or Fellow Craft.
Jay