The best way is to talk about it and solve it right there at the lodge. Evading the conflict is very anti-masonic, it won't solve the problem. Issues has to be talked about, not ignored them.
Some conflicts cannot be resolved! I was the person who founded the Widows Sons Masonic Motorcycle Riding Association in my jurisdiction. There were several “Old Boy” past grand masters who did not like this. Luckily for the first 7-8 years we had great support from the Grand Masters of the day, but once the Old Boys got their person in the Grand East, they became very anti our group and made some really unrealistic demands even threatening masonic action if we didn’t comply. Bigotry would be the best way to describe it. The plain problem was they didn’t like motorcycles associated with anything masonic. After 32 years as a member of my mother lodge I took a demit from my mother lodge and left the district that I was under the control of and threatened by. Fortunately I was a member of a lodge in a different district that had a better “attitude” towards Mason motorcyclists. This ended the aggression from the “Old Boys”, I don’t have to follow their unreasonable restrictions, and I can continue to enjoy Freemasonry and the camaraderie that it has provided me as well as support the lodges that don’t have any of the old boys in it. By old boys I am not referring to old members, I am 73 and a 37 year Mason. I mean old thinkers, old school, “that the way it’s always been done” kind of thinkers. The jurisdiction I originally was raised in is slowly declining as is my mother lodge unfortunately. I didn’t join the craft to argue with old thinkers, Masonry should be a progressive organization that adjusts to time and conditions. There is lots of room to welcome in good young men who experience the same hobbies. Unfortunately there are some “old boys” who just don’t look out the front windshield but still want to drive the vehicle. The sad part is they can’t even see the damage they are doing.
I feel the WM should sit them both down, with a neutral party (mediator) present to discuss the issue, reminding them of our closing charge, and come to an agreement on how best to work and best agree🫱🏼🫲🏻
Sometimes the best and only option is to leave. "Evading the conflict" is *not* anti-masonic, far from it. I would much rather walk away from the conflict than to continue to endure a person's (or group) inability to compromise. Some people can't be reasoned with and inevitably sides will be drawn that can tear a lodge apart.
Many years ago, too many to remember if I read about it or just developed the approach myself, I started to use the "Sponge Method". I have used it with significant success in groups , business and with my wife and children. When someone approaches me in anger or heated discussion, I politely interrupt and ask them what did I say or do to upset them, I then let them do the talking, I don't argue with them.
I attempt to soak the anger or motion right out of the discussion.
It does not always work but has for me in many situations. This is similar to Glen's walk away but stay with my antagonist. Many the time I have had a colleague enter my office for a confrontation and leave satisfied and calm.
Have been forced to facilitate three of those in the last 18 months. It takes positive problem-solving tactics that uses win-win thought processes. As a neutral facilitator and having the ability to challenge all emotion, it worked. It's not perfect but the parties agreed to work together and resolve the nasties when necessary. These could not be handled in an open Lodge setting as there would not be any open discussion and it'd be embarrassing to the Lodge members as well. This is an easy topic to discuss but the devil is in the details as my old Uncle Ross Perot used to say.
I agree with that characterization. Earlier this week, I was forced to facilitate just such a discussion for one of my Lodges when two Brothers chose to bring disharmony into our sacred retreat because they decided to engage in a personal feud.
I've had to do similar before.
But, the thing is, I don't want to do these things. And if the people involved would act Masonically, I wouldn't have to do these things. So yeah, earlier this week I was forced to lead a discussion like this, to settle a conflict.
But these conflicts are choices, and I think that when they come into our Lodges, it is our duty to recognize that fact. The Brothers could choose instead to be the bigger man. They could choose to let it go. They could, as W Tom says, just be a sponge to soak up the other's perspective.
W Glenn mentions leaving, and in cases where the conflict can't be resolved, I agree, it is a good choice, and perhaps the only possible choice. But, I would add to it, shunning. In the situation I had to mediate this week, one of the men involved has been involved in similar personal conflicts in other Lodges that he has been a part of in the past. Rightly or wrongly I don't know, but it does seem to be a pattern. While moderating the discussion, and seeing his anger, I did keep his pattern in the back of my mind. While the current situation seems to be resolved, if it continues, our Lodge will need to take steps to sideline him from the work of the Lodge.
But, whatever may happen, as William and Todd rightly point out, we can't ignore these things. I think we must, as they suggest, sit the Brothers down and force them to discuss their issues so that they can be put to rest.
The best way is to talk about it and solve it right there at the lodge. Evading the conflict is very anti-masonic, it won't solve the problem. Issues has to be talked about, not ignored them.
Some conflicts cannot be resolved! I was the person who founded the Widows Sons Masonic Motorcycle Riding Association in my jurisdiction. There were several “Old Boy” past grand masters who did not like this. Luckily for the first 7-8 years we had great support from the Grand Masters of the day, but once the Old Boys got their person in the Grand East, they became very anti our group and made some really unrealistic demands even threatening masonic action if we didn’t comply. Bigotry would be the best way to describe it. The plain problem was they didn’t like motorcycles associated with anything masonic. After 32 years as a member of my mother lodge I took a demit from my mother lodge and left the district that I was under the control of and threatened by. Fortunately I was a member of a lodge in a different district that had a better “attitude” towards Mason motorcyclists. This ended the aggression from the “Old Boys”, I don’t have to follow their unreasonable restrictions, and I can continue to enjoy Freemasonry and the camaraderie that it has provided me as well as support the lodges that don’t have any of the old boys in it. By old boys I am not referring to old members, I am 73 and a 37 year Mason. I mean old thinkers, old school, “that the way it’s always been done” kind of thinkers. The jurisdiction I originally was raised in is slowly declining as is my mother lodge unfortunately. I didn’t join the craft to argue with old thinkers, Masonry should be a progressive organization that adjusts to time and conditions. There is lots of room to welcome in good young men who experience the same hobbies. Unfortunately there are some “old boys” who just don’t look out the front windshield but still want to drive the vehicle. The sad part is they can’t even see the damage they are doing.
I feel the WM should sit them both down, with a neutral party (mediator) present to discuss the issue, reminding them of our closing charge, and come to an agreement on how best to work and best agree🫱🏼🫲🏻
Sometimes the best and only option is to leave. "Evading the conflict" is *not* anti-masonic, far from it. I would much rather walk away from the conflict than to continue to endure a person's (or group) inability to compromise. Some people can't be reasoned with and inevitably sides will be drawn that can tear a lodge apart.
Many years ago, too many to remember if I read about it or just developed the approach myself, I started to use the "Sponge Method". I have used it with significant success in groups , business and with my wife and children. When someone approaches me in anger or heated discussion, I politely interrupt and ask them what did I say or do to upset them, I then let them do the talking, I don't argue with them.
I attempt to soak the anger or motion right out of the discussion.
It does not always work but has for me in many situations. This is similar to Glen's walk away but stay with my antagonist. Many the time I have had a colleague enter my office for a confrontation and leave satisfied and calm.
Have been forced to facilitate three of those in the last 18 months. It takes positive problem-solving tactics that uses win-win thought processes. As a neutral facilitator and having the ability to challenge all emotion, it worked. It's not perfect but the parties agreed to work together and resolve the nasties when necessary. These could not be handled in an open Lodge setting as there would not be any open discussion and it'd be embarrassing to the Lodge members as well. This is an easy topic to discuss but the devil is in the details as my old Uncle Ross Perot used to say.
VW Jon mentioned being 'forced to facilitate...'
I agree with that characterization. Earlier this week, I was forced to facilitate just such a discussion for one of my Lodges when two Brothers chose to bring disharmony into our sacred retreat because they decided to engage in a personal feud.
I've had to do similar before.
But, the thing is, I don't want to do these things. And if the people involved would act Masonically, I wouldn't have to do these things. So yeah, earlier this week I was forced to lead a discussion like this, to settle a conflict.
But these conflicts are choices, and I think that when they come into our Lodges, it is our duty to recognize that fact. The Brothers could choose instead to be the bigger man. They could choose to let it go. They could, as W Tom says, just be a sponge to soak up the other's perspective.
W Glenn mentions leaving, and in cases where the conflict can't be resolved, I agree, it is a good choice, and perhaps the only possible choice. But, I would add to it, shunning. In the situation I had to mediate this week, one of the men involved has been involved in similar personal conflicts in other Lodges that he has been a part of in the past. Rightly or wrongly I don't know, but it does seem to be a pattern. While moderating the discussion, and seeing his anger, I did keep his pattern in the back of my mind. While the current situation seems to be resolved, if it continues, our Lodge will need to take steps to sideline him from the work of the Lodge.
But, whatever may happen, as William and Todd rightly point out, we can't ignore these things. I think we must, as they suggest, sit the Brothers down and force them to discuss their issues so that they can be put to rest.