Should Lodges be required, from time to time, to demonstrate that they are proficient in the ritual and Degree work?
Would such a requirement be a way to identify those Lodges that may be struggling, before things become so bad that the Lodge likely can not be saved?
If a Lodge is going to accept candidates for the Degrees, does the Grand Lodge have a responsibility to ensure that the Lodge is capable of conferring a quality Degree?
Having just gone into the chair I think that would be very harsh. Not everyone can be word perfect very few of us are. And should we close a lodge because someone miss a few words I for one would say no. Doing any office can be very stressful I was up learning my words to go into the chair at 4 am because I did not want to muck it up. When I went in I had an officer OF UGLE SITTING next to me and he gave me one prompt as I had lost my place. Brothers have enough stress with out having people check to see if they are any good at the job.
I feel this could be beneficial. I recently was out traveling and went to a degree, it was poorly performed and took away from the candidates experience and enjoyment.
I feel periodic proficiency would encourage practice and in turn more enjoyment from our esoteric work as well as a stronger brotherhood.
I don't feel word perfect would be a standard, but a goal. If someone misses a word or two is one thing. I believe as an individual it's about the delivery.
Was the message taught correctly and received by the candidate? Was the degree performed sincerely and without struggle by the conferring team? If so it's a success.
If they missed whole sections, butcher the obligation and make other huge errors they need practice.
Should proficiency be a requirement? Yes. In every way.
Should it cost a lodge its charter? No. But maybe more time with a deputy to encourage practice.
I would like to see this as a requirement since conferring the work is basically a hallmark of what it means to be a blue lodge (as opposed to another organization) but I predict it won't/can't happen. Lodges on a long decline get out of practice because they have no candidates to confer the work on, no one is knocking at the door. Additionally, recycling of officers kicks in. Would any grand jurisdiction end up shuttering a lodge for inability to maintain ritual standards? It's hard to imagine.
But I would ultimately spin this another way. The fact that you're asking this question is a symptom of something deeper going on. Namely that lodges have decayed to the point where you need to ask this, and no one has stepped in to whisper good council about consolidating or otherwise turning around the lodge by other means. As a consequence of *that*, the good advice that in past years was missing, there may be a whole host of challenging problems with no good answers.
You say "before things have gotten so bad the lodge can't be saved". If you can't confer the work, you're already past this point in my opinion. I suppose one day conferrals and courtesy work by other lodges can keep things going a while, but if a lodge loses its core capacity to make new masons, the critical thing that distinguishes a masonic lodge from many other forms of social organization is now absent.
Apr 6, 2023·edited Apr 6, 2023Liked by Cameron M. Bailey
I keep saying this, but its necessary context. I live in NC, we have a requirement that all lodges must be proficient in the degrees and able to perform their own degree work. That said its not always realistic given our dwindling numbers. The GL of NC has a ritualistic instruction program team that is deployed when the DDGM or DDGL discover unsatisfactory ritual work. That said, we also still have ciphered Monitors and all of our work is communicated mouth to ear other wise so we are used to it. I tell candidates and officers to keep in mind proficiency isn't perfection. Do your best, if its wrong help by correcting after the meeting or during degree practice not during the degree. I have asked quite a few past master who said, well this was a terrible degree the following question. Well how did they do at practice. If you weren't there helping, be quiet. This said, we should absolutely do our best to perform ritual that knocks the candidates socks off. Music, Incense, formal dress, costumes, props, treat it as the sacred retreat that it is.
I believe it’s in the best interests of the jurisdiction and the candidates to require that a lodge and its officers be proficient in their ritual and floor work. After all, that’s the first order of business for any lodge. It must be able to properly confer degrees on candidates. It’s the first thing a candidate sees is our presentation of the ritual as handed down from time immemorial. Does a Grand Lodge expect perfection? No! They expect competency. Did you convey the full meaning of the degree even though you screwed up some words?
I also believe in standards for floor work, how you do the ritual, carry the rods, walk about the room. If it’s not standard, how does one expect to perform the ritual in different lodges if they don’t all follow the same format? What if the stewards go one way and your lodge has them going another? Deacons carrying rods straight up, or at 45 degrees, or dragging them. These are all important, but the worst offense of any lodge is lack of practice in the ritual. If you don’t practice, you don’t learn anything until the day of a degree and then everyone sees lousy floor work and lousy ritual. That’s a disgrace.
So I am a firm supporter of standards in floor work and ritual. If some people don’t like conforming to a standard for ritual, just try helping out with ritual at a different lodge and find out how wrong you are, or how wrong they are! If you can’t do the same in every lodge in the jurisdiction, then you can’t expect brothers to help you when you have them over for a large degree day with multiple candidates and multiple teams of stewards or deacons. It all is connected by how we do the ritual. First and foremost. That ritual performed is your hallmark. Do it well and other things fall in place. Do it badly and it’s hard to get other parts of your lodge right.
I am writing this from a position of ignorance and as someone who generally knows ritual but if tested for word perfect recitation, I would fail miserably. I would paraphrase MW Jim Mendoza who is fond of saying that he will take passion any day over word perfect. If we are looking to use overall proficiency as a gauge of Lodge sustainability, isn't that part of the job of the District Deputies? After all, they are the ones that have the plain English texts and I often see them using it to check proficiency. I need more light on this.
Even the most seasoned and respected ritualists will miss a word or two, or need prompting, I don't believe that is MW's intent.
Also, it is the duty of the district deputy of the grand master to monitor and report such issues to GL as required. The deputy should be aware of any struggling lodges within his jurisdiction and provide any and all assistance in raising the standards of that lodge, especially within a degree.
You know when things aren't right in a lodge ritual-wise when you see it. Evidence I've seen includes the deacons not even knowing their opening and closing lines. Or the WM actually reading from the standard work just to open and close a lodge. Not being able to perform the closing charge. Lots of other indicators.
I am a firm believer that in order to become a pillared officer within a lodge they must pass their Proficiency in Lodge Management test, because they all are responsible for being able to perform the work and conduct the business of a lodge if required. This would eliminate 99% of our problems with lodge proficiency. But I am actually a little shocked at how many lodges I've seen that are letting their standards slip as far as they have.
I am not perfect, no one is, but I take pride in my ritual work, and strive to do the best I can, regardless of which chair I am sitting in. Failure to do that is frankly an insult to the fraternity.
Sorry if I am being harsh, but as I said, I'm alarmed at the state of some lodges that are allowed to conduct business.
Why is a Lodge granted a Perpetual Charter status without some verification that the basic requirements to earn that Charter could no longer be satisfied?
The ability to earn a charter are clearly defined by our Code \ Constitution, so what is the harm in requiring a Lodge to self-certify every so often?
As several have mentioned, not word perfect, we are human. But a reasonable expectation of quality, with final approval by the Grand Master, just as when a new Charter is issued.
What's the harm in this? Establishing a set of expectations for a quality Membership Experience and in the process there is no doubt the opportunity to delve in to areas of Masonic Education while learning and rehearsing the ritual.
Ensuring your Lodge could obtain or renew it's Charter at "any time" in the future would also support the idea of quality Leadership and Management of a Lodge.
Hmm, maybe these would make for good landmarks for planning and development of a Lodge or Jurisdiction. 😏
As an aside, since many GL Annual Communication proceedings are printed and made "public", the resolutions would also be public as well? If that's true, as the author, I'm ok with the presentation or quotation of my resolution here for discussion. There are areas I have questions about regarding the resolution, as well as the process, and would be curious to hear the response from other Brethren.
Apr 6, 2023·edited Apr 6, 2023Liked by Cameron M. Bailey
The less Grand lodge does the better off the lodges are. Lots of lodges don't do all that well with ritual and degree work. So what? The spirit of Freemasonry doesn't live there. I have know a lot of men who could reel off Masonic Ritual in perfect pitch that haven't a clue what the words actually mean. By this time my parrot could open and close lodge on three degrees with perfection. Even now after so many years working in quarry I am astounded by Brothers that can spew the perfect masonic words but not know or even guess their meaning.
I know Brothers that struggle to do this things whose hearts are afire with brotherhood. They get it.
I have a thought that Grand Lodge should have several degree teams to help out struggling lodges. Brothers helping brothers, that is the ticket. Most lodges have three chairs in the East at least, many have extra chairs in the West and South. Of course it used to be Past Masters were invited to the seats in the East. What is that guy doing sitting up there in the East without any support anyway?
I encourage brothers with less than great memories to read the work rather than standing there in cracking syllables.
I can only speak from the perspective of being a Washington State mason.
In Washington State we require that new lodges be able to show proficiency within their initial membership to put on every degree and know every part within that new lodge. I think most of us would agree with that standard because why would we want to charter a new lodge if they couldn't be self-sufficient.
With that in mind, it turns my attention to existing lodges that do not have the resources to accomplish that anymore. There's several levels of this in my opinion, from lodges that just need a lecturer to come in, to lodges that really have trouble filling seats on a regular basis. I don't think there is a one-size-fits-all solution because of these variances. Ultimately I believe that there should be some standard designated by Grand Lodge around this, because we need to make sure that new candidates of Freemasonry have the best experience possible going through their degrees. They only have one chance to experience these degrees, and we really want to have a minimum set standard for introducing them to our Craft. I have seen my fair share of candidates leave the craft before becoming a Master Mason, and I always wonder if the reason they left was because they truly weren't fit for the Craft or that they didn't have the fullest Masonic experience possible. There will always be candidates that find they are not a fit, but let's ensure that is TRULY the reason by always providing the best degree experience we possibly can.
One radical idea I have heard on this topic is to restrain lodges that cannot perform a set standard for degrees on their own. Have a minimum bar set by Grand Lodge, and if there are lodges that cannot meet it, we put a probation on new degrees in place. Not to say that they cannot get new members, but rather they need to find lodges that meet the minimum requirement to put on courtesy degrees for them until their lodge can get to a state where they can perform the degrees themselves. I realize this may be jarring to hear, but I think it would both ensure a minimum bar for candidate experience AND motivate struggling lodges to become healthy. And just to clarify, I do not believe that the "minimum bar" in this case would include having an in-house lecturer. Everyone has different skillsets, and there are a lot of Brothers in my district that are happy to give lectures at other lodges when asked (myself among them).
I'm certainly not suggesting we move to this "radical" idea overnight, but it's certainly something to think about.
There should be lodge ritual proficiency to maintain a charter.
It’s been said in this post several times that “proficiency” doesn’t imply word perfect and I agree with that. But proficiency does mean being able to conduct it with a high degree of accuracy.
Probably not a stretch to say that lodges that do not hold their candidates to a high standard end up creating a lodge that struggles with being proficient. So it starts with setting expectations.
I’ve seen lodges perform work and it’s clear they either don’t take it seriously and/or don’t bother to practice.
I’d like to say as a past district deputy, it should be their responsibility to report to the GM when they see poor ritual so the lodge can get some help. Not help filling parts so they can continue to perpetuate an issue but help lifting themselves up.
Unfortunately, there is currently nothing in the code that mandates a lodge maintain a certain standard. How this is absent in the code is a mystery.
I hope one day we have the wisdom to make this a requirement, the strength to enforce it so that the beauty of Freemasonry can be experienced by all new initiates.
OMG YES!!!! It's painful to sit in lodge with garbage ritual and folks reading form books. I'm not suggesting word-perfect by any means, but how many WM's get installed without obtaining their Proficiency In Lodge Management? It seems that it would be misfeasance and non-feasance on both the WM and the lodge as a whole. Installation is the pomp & circumstance to formally go through the motions of installing the officers and the "Speak now or forever hold your peace" is symbolic at best; it's not the time for someone to speak up and for the first time raise concerns or objections.
I think it's the outgoing Master's job, along with the DDGM's job and the brethren to ensure that the incoming Master is proficient in managing the lodge. That includes ritual, knowledge of the standard work and competency therein, and the inner-workings of how a lodge is run. How many times have we heard, "Well, he's put his time in and we'll just struggle through this year."? Frankly, if, in 5 years of going through the line, you're not able to demonstrate proficiency, folks will know.
Personally, I would love to see a resolution that requires PILM as a prerequisite for going into any elected position (JW, Secretary or Treasurer) and that one must serve at least one year in each Deacon position before advancing further. Exceptions can be made on a case-by-case basis by the GM, through the DDGM in exigent circumstances.
We have failing lodges because of poor leadership, mismanagement of assets and the mindset of, "In a year, it won't be my problem anymore."
If your lodge has a progressive line (almost all do) then lodges need to adopt internal policies (at the very least) to not only guard the west gate, but the east as well, and that starts at...the JD chair.
If a lodge follows the "step up" principle of having the SD confer the 1st, JW the 2nd and the SW the 3rd degree (so that the WM has conferred each before sitting in the east), then naturally, the JD *should* be fulfilling the SD role during a 1st degree.
The JD has an entire year to learn the SD role, which should include conferring the 1st, as well as the SD roles for the 2nd and 3rd. It is a lot to learn, but it gives a good indication to the rest of the lodge if that brother actually can both dedicate themselves to learning the ritual, but also can memorize and publically speak the parts. If the JD is struggling, they either buckle down and learn, or agree to either get out of the line completely, or spend another year in the chair to learn it.
More than once, as I was progressing up the line I had to sit the JD down who was behind me in line, and counsel them on what is required of them, and have them make a choice. It's hard, but it has to be done, for the sake of the lodge and the fraternity.
As the JD, you KNOW that you will need to learn to do those parts, and you have an entire year to prepare, there shouldn't be any excuse to progress a man up the line when he's not ready to, and there should be no expectation on a lodge to do so. Failure to guard the east gate is to fail the fraternity.
How do you expect to have a traveling team of past masters or ritualists if you never expect your officers to learn ritual, let alone require it. I admit I’m a dual member of another jurisdiction and in that state, it was required that the lodge perform all three degrees start to finish with their own officers, annually. You also had to be certified proficient in the Masonic code and ritual of your office before you were allowed to be installed in that office. Every WM was therefore able to minimally perform any degree or lecture by the time he was installed WM. Were all the proficiencies word perfect? No. But they were able to do them and convey the meaning of the ritual. Many of those WM’s did the bare minimum to qualify, but they had other PM’s in the lodge who could step in on any given night to help.
On the other side, if someone visited the lodge or a member sitting in the lodge wasn’t satisfied with the ritual, one phone call to the DD or Inspector would shut down the ritual going forward and GL would have the lodge re-certify on the questionable work performed. How else do you get new quality officers without setting a high standard? By the time you were through the chairs, you should be able to open and close in all 3 degrees, do all of the warden’s , Sr Deacon and WM from memory and give all three lectures. That was the standard and it worked. And it still works. Lodges without requiring maintenance of memory work in the officers soon run out of qualified members to confer degrees. If you challenge officers to learn the work, they either rise to the challenge or they don’t. Most do, in my history of 40 years in Masonry. And there’s nothing wrong with stepping away from the line if you don’t want to work the ritual. There are many other things to do within our fraternity besides the ritual. It just makes sense that you perform great degrees! Not mediocre. Not bad. Candidates only get 1 chance to see a degree on each night they do them. Why not be the best you can be?
It all starts with good coaching. Newly made masons need to be led by a coach who himself is proficient. "Mouth to Ear." That means the coach knows the degree obligation in order to pass it to the new mason. That means the coach must practice. Pillar officers should coach. They will improve in degree conferral at that time.
Apr 9, 2023·edited Apr 9, 2023Liked by Cameron M. Bailey
Members of the Clergy stand before God and their congregation every Sunday and they read what they're saying. The most skilled orchestral musicians on the planet sit before a conductor and they all read what they're playing. I think we'd all agree that they're proficient. For some reason we Masons are attached to the idea that memory is a required skill. Old Masons did memorize the ritual but have reached the point where they only think they still remember it. New Masons weren't educated around rote memory. Is it any wonder that our performances are inconsistent?
Yes, it's impressive to see a Brother deliver the ritual from memory. But how much time did he spend memorizing that may have been spent on other endeavors that truly make a good man better? The Washington Officers Handbook even suggests that failure to memorize the ritual is an indication of laziness, a judgment that I find disgusting.
What's the harm of having everyone read the ritual and coach around understanding what we're reading and learning how to read it well? If your answer is that we've never done it that way, I remember hearing that one already
Having just gone into the chair for the first time it suddenly stuck me how much there was to learn when it came to installation. We all see it and hear it but I think it goes in one ear and out the other.
I have been talking to a Brother from Alabam who is also on Emeth I found out that although the ritual some times sounds very different we could both have gotten through a meeting in each others Lodges. I like to watch the videos Emeth did but he has not done any for a few weeks which I miss .
I like to learn what other Lodges do across the world not just in my own temple which is used by about 10 different Lodges with a few different types of ritual.
Brother Clayton, if you're actually able to memorize AND you feel it makes you a better man then more power to you. I never said there's anything wrong with memorizing. I believe that we're missing opportunities by requiring memorization, and I haven't heard what's wrong with reading.
To clarify, I don't disdain the size of the WMC. Rather, I'm very frustrated with two things: 1) there are numerous rules and regulations that don't do anything except give an "enforcer" the opportunity to say that a Brother is doing it wrong or require a WM to ask the GM "mother may I"?, and 2} the number of committees is over the top. Absent these issues the WMC could probably be cut in half, so the size of the WMC is merely the result of the issues that bother me.
You're right, reading well or memorizing both take practice. Same for long distance road cycling and tennis. I've practiced both extensively, through which I've learned that as long as I'm fed and hydrated I can ride a bike all day long but with my poor hand-eye coordination I probably won't successfully return a serve.
Brother Glenn, Do you know what happened in Pennsylvania when they started to broadly distribute plain text at least 10 years ago? I don't, so I'm asking. What happened in Pennsylvania might help form the answer to my question: what's the harm?
Having just gone into the chair I think that would be very harsh. Not everyone can be word perfect very few of us are. And should we close a lodge because someone miss a few words I for one would say no. Doing any office can be very stressful I was up learning my words to go into the chair at 4 am because I did not want to muck it up. When I went in I had an officer OF UGLE SITTING next to me and he gave me one prompt as I had lost my place. Brothers have enough stress with out having people check to see if they are any good at the job.
I feel this could be beneficial. I recently was out traveling and went to a degree, it was poorly performed and took away from the candidates experience and enjoyment.
I feel periodic proficiency would encourage practice and in turn more enjoyment from our esoteric work as well as a stronger brotherhood.
I don't feel word perfect would be a standard, but a goal. If someone misses a word or two is one thing. I believe as an individual it's about the delivery.
Was the message taught correctly and received by the candidate? Was the degree performed sincerely and without struggle by the conferring team? If so it's a success.
If they missed whole sections, butcher the obligation and make other huge errors they need practice.
Should proficiency be a requirement? Yes. In every way.
Should it cost a lodge its charter? No. But maybe more time with a deputy to encourage practice.
Just my opinion.
I would like to see this as a requirement since conferring the work is basically a hallmark of what it means to be a blue lodge (as opposed to another organization) but I predict it won't/can't happen. Lodges on a long decline get out of practice because they have no candidates to confer the work on, no one is knocking at the door. Additionally, recycling of officers kicks in. Would any grand jurisdiction end up shuttering a lodge for inability to maintain ritual standards? It's hard to imagine.
But I would ultimately spin this another way. The fact that you're asking this question is a symptom of something deeper going on. Namely that lodges have decayed to the point where you need to ask this, and no one has stepped in to whisper good council about consolidating or otherwise turning around the lodge by other means. As a consequence of *that*, the good advice that in past years was missing, there may be a whole host of challenging problems with no good answers.
You say "before things have gotten so bad the lodge can't be saved". If you can't confer the work, you're already past this point in my opinion. I suppose one day conferrals and courtesy work by other lodges can keep things going a while, but if a lodge loses its core capacity to make new masons, the critical thing that distinguishes a masonic lodge from many other forms of social organization is now absent.
I keep saying this, but its necessary context. I live in NC, we have a requirement that all lodges must be proficient in the degrees and able to perform their own degree work. That said its not always realistic given our dwindling numbers. The GL of NC has a ritualistic instruction program team that is deployed when the DDGM or DDGL discover unsatisfactory ritual work. That said, we also still have ciphered Monitors and all of our work is communicated mouth to ear other wise so we are used to it. I tell candidates and officers to keep in mind proficiency isn't perfection. Do your best, if its wrong help by correcting after the meeting or during degree practice not during the degree. I have asked quite a few past master who said, well this was a terrible degree the following question. Well how did they do at practice. If you weren't there helping, be quiet. This said, we should absolutely do our best to perform ritual that knocks the candidates socks off. Music, Incense, formal dress, costumes, props, treat it as the sacred retreat that it is.
I believe it’s in the best interests of the jurisdiction and the candidates to require that a lodge and its officers be proficient in their ritual and floor work. After all, that’s the first order of business for any lodge. It must be able to properly confer degrees on candidates. It’s the first thing a candidate sees is our presentation of the ritual as handed down from time immemorial. Does a Grand Lodge expect perfection? No! They expect competency. Did you convey the full meaning of the degree even though you screwed up some words?
I also believe in standards for floor work, how you do the ritual, carry the rods, walk about the room. If it’s not standard, how does one expect to perform the ritual in different lodges if they don’t all follow the same format? What if the stewards go one way and your lodge has them going another? Deacons carrying rods straight up, or at 45 degrees, or dragging them. These are all important, but the worst offense of any lodge is lack of practice in the ritual. If you don’t practice, you don’t learn anything until the day of a degree and then everyone sees lousy floor work and lousy ritual. That’s a disgrace.
So I am a firm supporter of standards in floor work and ritual. If some people don’t like conforming to a standard for ritual, just try helping out with ritual at a different lodge and find out how wrong you are, or how wrong they are! If you can’t do the same in every lodge in the jurisdiction, then you can’t expect brothers to help you when you have them over for a large degree day with multiple candidates and multiple teams of stewards or deacons. It all is connected by how we do the ritual. First and foremost. That ritual performed is your hallmark. Do it well and other things fall in place. Do it badly and it’s hard to get other parts of your lodge right.
I am writing this from a position of ignorance and as someone who generally knows ritual but if tested for word perfect recitation, I would fail miserably. I would paraphrase MW Jim Mendoza who is fond of saying that he will take passion any day over word perfect. If we are looking to use overall proficiency as a gauge of Lodge sustainability, isn't that part of the job of the District Deputies? After all, they are the ones that have the plain English texts and I often see them using it to check proficiency. I need more light on this.
Even the most seasoned and respected ritualists will miss a word or two, or need prompting, I don't believe that is MW's intent.
Also, it is the duty of the district deputy of the grand master to monitor and report such issues to GL as required. The deputy should be aware of any struggling lodges within his jurisdiction and provide any and all assistance in raising the standards of that lodge, especially within a degree.
You know when things aren't right in a lodge ritual-wise when you see it. Evidence I've seen includes the deacons not even knowing their opening and closing lines. Or the WM actually reading from the standard work just to open and close a lodge. Not being able to perform the closing charge. Lots of other indicators.
I am a firm believer that in order to become a pillared officer within a lodge they must pass their Proficiency in Lodge Management test, because they all are responsible for being able to perform the work and conduct the business of a lodge if required. This would eliminate 99% of our problems with lodge proficiency. But I am actually a little shocked at how many lodges I've seen that are letting their standards slip as far as they have.
I am not perfect, no one is, but I take pride in my ritual work, and strive to do the best I can, regardless of which chair I am sitting in. Failure to do that is frankly an insult to the fraternity.
Sorry if I am being harsh, but as I said, I'm alarmed at the state of some lodges that are allowed to conduct business.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
😉
Why is a Lodge granted a Perpetual Charter status without some verification that the basic requirements to earn that Charter could no longer be satisfied?
The ability to earn a charter are clearly defined by our Code \ Constitution, so what is the harm in requiring a Lodge to self-certify every so often?
As several have mentioned, not word perfect, we are human. But a reasonable expectation of quality, with final approval by the Grand Master, just as when a new Charter is issued.
What's the harm in this? Establishing a set of expectations for a quality Membership Experience and in the process there is no doubt the opportunity to delve in to areas of Masonic Education while learning and rehearsing the ritual.
Ensuring your Lodge could obtain or renew it's Charter at "any time" in the future would also support the idea of quality Leadership and Management of a Lodge.
Hmm, maybe these would make for good landmarks for planning and development of a Lodge or Jurisdiction. 😏
As an aside, since many GL Annual Communication proceedings are printed and made "public", the resolutions would also be public as well? If that's true, as the author, I'm ok with the presentation or quotation of my resolution here for discussion. There are areas I have questions about regarding the resolution, as well as the process, and would be curious to hear the response from other Brethren.
-DC
The less Grand lodge does the better off the lodges are. Lots of lodges don't do all that well with ritual and degree work. So what? The spirit of Freemasonry doesn't live there. I have know a lot of men who could reel off Masonic Ritual in perfect pitch that haven't a clue what the words actually mean. By this time my parrot could open and close lodge on three degrees with perfection. Even now after so many years working in quarry I am astounded by Brothers that can spew the perfect masonic words but not know or even guess their meaning.
I know Brothers that struggle to do this things whose hearts are afire with brotherhood. They get it.
I have a thought that Grand Lodge should have several degree teams to help out struggling lodges. Brothers helping brothers, that is the ticket. Most lodges have three chairs in the East at least, many have extra chairs in the West and South. Of course it used to be Past Masters were invited to the seats in the East. What is that guy doing sitting up there in the East without any support anyway?
I encourage brothers with less than great memories to read the work rather than standing there in cracking syllables.
If I keep on like this I am going to get zeroed.
Nothing fires up a masonic conversation like ritual and proficiency.
I can only speak from the perspective of being a Washington State mason.
In Washington State we require that new lodges be able to show proficiency within their initial membership to put on every degree and know every part within that new lodge. I think most of us would agree with that standard because why would we want to charter a new lodge if they couldn't be self-sufficient.
With that in mind, it turns my attention to existing lodges that do not have the resources to accomplish that anymore. There's several levels of this in my opinion, from lodges that just need a lecturer to come in, to lodges that really have trouble filling seats on a regular basis. I don't think there is a one-size-fits-all solution because of these variances. Ultimately I believe that there should be some standard designated by Grand Lodge around this, because we need to make sure that new candidates of Freemasonry have the best experience possible going through their degrees. They only have one chance to experience these degrees, and we really want to have a minimum set standard for introducing them to our Craft. I have seen my fair share of candidates leave the craft before becoming a Master Mason, and I always wonder if the reason they left was because they truly weren't fit for the Craft or that they didn't have the fullest Masonic experience possible. There will always be candidates that find they are not a fit, but let's ensure that is TRULY the reason by always providing the best degree experience we possibly can.
One radical idea I have heard on this topic is to restrain lodges that cannot perform a set standard for degrees on their own. Have a minimum bar set by Grand Lodge, and if there are lodges that cannot meet it, we put a probation on new degrees in place. Not to say that they cannot get new members, but rather they need to find lodges that meet the minimum requirement to put on courtesy degrees for them until their lodge can get to a state where they can perform the degrees themselves. I realize this may be jarring to hear, but I think it would both ensure a minimum bar for candidate experience AND motivate struggling lodges to become healthy. And just to clarify, I do not believe that the "minimum bar" in this case would include having an in-house lecturer. Everyone has different skillsets, and there are a lot of Brothers in my district that are happy to give lectures at other lodges when asked (myself among them).
I'm certainly not suggesting we move to this "radical" idea overnight, but it's certainly something to think about.
There should be lodge ritual proficiency to maintain a charter.
It’s been said in this post several times that “proficiency” doesn’t imply word perfect and I agree with that. But proficiency does mean being able to conduct it with a high degree of accuracy.
Probably not a stretch to say that lodges that do not hold their candidates to a high standard end up creating a lodge that struggles with being proficient. So it starts with setting expectations.
I’ve seen lodges perform work and it’s clear they either don’t take it seriously and/or don’t bother to practice.
I’d like to say as a past district deputy, it should be their responsibility to report to the GM when they see poor ritual so the lodge can get some help. Not help filling parts so they can continue to perpetuate an issue but help lifting themselves up.
Unfortunately, there is currently nothing in the code that mandates a lodge maintain a certain standard. How this is absent in the code is a mystery.
I hope one day we have the wisdom to make this a requirement, the strength to enforce it so that the beauty of Freemasonry can be experienced by all new initiates.
OMG YES!!!! It's painful to sit in lodge with garbage ritual and folks reading form books. I'm not suggesting word-perfect by any means, but how many WM's get installed without obtaining their Proficiency In Lodge Management? It seems that it would be misfeasance and non-feasance on both the WM and the lodge as a whole. Installation is the pomp & circumstance to formally go through the motions of installing the officers and the "Speak now or forever hold your peace" is symbolic at best; it's not the time for someone to speak up and for the first time raise concerns or objections.
I think it's the outgoing Master's job, along with the DDGM's job and the brethren to ensure that the incoming Master is proficient in managing the lodge. That includes ritual, knowledge of the standard work and competency therein, and the inner-workings of how a lodge is run. How many times have we heard, "Well, he's put his time in and we'll just struggle through this year."? Frankly, if, in 5 years of going through the line, you're not able to demonstrate proficiency, folks will know.
Personally, I would love to see a resolution that requires PILM as a prerequisite for going into any elected position (JW, Secretary or Treasurer) and that one must serve at least one year in each Deacon position before advancing further. Exceptions can be made on a case-by-case basis by the GM, through the DDGM in exigent circumstances.
We have failing lodges because of poor leadership, mismanagement of assets and the mindset of, "In a year, it won't be my problem anymore."
If your lodge has a progressive line (almost all do) then lodges need to adopt internal policies (at the very least) to not only guard the west gate, but the east as well, and that starts at...the JD chair.
If a lodge follows the "step up" principle of having the SD confer the 1st, JW the 2nd and the SW the 3rd degree (so that the WM has conferred each before sitting in the east), then naturally, the JD *should* be fulfilling the SD role during a 1st degree.
The JD has an entire year to learn the SD role, which should include conferring the 1st, as well as the SD roles for the 2nd and 3rd. It is a lot to learn, but it gives a good indication to the rest of the lodge if that brother actually can both dedicate themselves to learning the ritual, but also can memorize and publically speak the parts. If the JD is struggling, they either buckle down and learn, or agree to either get out of the line completely, or spend another year in the chair to learn it.
More than once, as I was progressing up the line I had to sit the JD down who was behind me in line, and counsel them on what is required of them, and have them make a choice. It's hard, but it has to be done, for the sake of the lodge and the fraternity.
As the JD, you KNOW that you will need to learn to do those parts, and you have an entire year to prepare, there shouldn't be any excuse to progress a man up the line when he's not ready to, and there should be no expectation on a lodge to do so. Failure to guard the east gate is to fail the fraternity.
How do you expect to have a traveling team of past masters or ritualists if you never expect your officers to learn ritual, let alone require it. I admit I’m a dual member of another jurisdiction and in that state, it was required that the lodge perform all three degrees start to finish with their own officers, annually. You also had to be certified proficient in the Masonic code and ritual of your office before you were allowed to be installed in that office. Every WM was therefore able to minimally perform any degree or lecture by the time he was installed WM. Were all the proficiencies word perfect? No. But they were able to do them and convey the meaning of the ritual. Many of those WM’s did the bare minimum to qualify, but they had other PM’s in the lodge who could step in on any given night to help.
On the other side, if someone visited the lodge or a member sitting in the lodge wasn’t satisfied with the ritual, one phone call to the DD or Inspector would shut down the ritual going forward and GL would have the lodge re-certify on the questionable work performed. How else do you get new quality officers without setting a high standard? By the time you were through the chairs, you should be able to open and close in all 3 degrees, do all of the warden’s , Sr Deacon and WM from memory and give all three lectures. That was the standard and it worked. And it still works. Lodges without requiring maintenance of memory work in the officers soon run out of qualified members to confer degrees. If you challenge officers to learn the work, they either rise to the challenge or they don’t. Most do, in my history of 40 years in Masonry. And there’s nothing wrong with stepping away from the line if you don’t want to work the ritual. There are many other things to do within our fraternity besides the ritual. It just makes sense that you perform great degrees! Not mediocre. Not bad. Candidates only get 1 chance to see a degree on each night they do them. Why not be the best you can be?
Yes
Practice, practice before.
Schedule a half hour after the candidate approaches the Lodge realizing he may be voted on.
Seek help from other Lodges rather then settle for less.
Even earlier, start from the first stated to do walk through on floor work.
I don’t believe we have any standard floor work which causes the Ritual be be less then perfect.
It all starts with good coaching. Newly made masons need to be led by a coach who himself is proficient. "Mouth to Ear." That means the coach knows the degree obligation in order to pass it to the new mason. That means the coach must practice. Pillar officers should coach. They will improve in degree conferral at that time.
Members of the Clergy stand before God and their congregation every Sunday and they read what they're saying. The most skilled orchestral musicians on the planet sit before a conductor and they all read what they're playing. I think we'd all agree that they're proficient. For some reason we Masons are attached to the idea that memory is a required skill. Old Masons did memorize the ritual but have reached the point where they only think they still remember it. New Masons weren't educated around rote memory. Is it any wonder that our performances are inconsistent?
Yes, it's impressive to see a Brother deliver the ritual from memory. But how much time did he spend memorizing that may have been spent on other endeavors that truly make a good man better? The Washington Officers Handbook even suggests that failure to memorize the ritual is an indication of laziness, a judgment that I find disgusting.
What's the harm of having everyone read the ritual and coach around understanding what we're reading and learning how to read it well? If your answer is that we've never done it that way, I remember hearing that one already
Having just gone into the chair for the first time it suddenly stuck me how much there was to learn when it came to installation. We all see it and hear it but I think it goes in one ear and out the other.
I have been talking to a Brother from Alabam who is also on Emeth I found out that although the ritual some times sounds very different we could both have gotten through a meeting in each others Lodges. I like to watch the videos Emeth did but he has not done any for a few weeks which I miss .
I like to learn what other Lodges do across the world not just in my own temple which is used by about 10 different Lodges with a few different types of ritual.
AL.
Brother Clayton, if you're actually able to memorize AND you feel it makes you a better man then more power to you. I never said there's anything wrong with memorizing. I believe that we're missing opportunities by requiring memorization, and I haven't heard what's wrong with reading.
Brother Clayton,
To clarify, I don't disdain the size of the WMC. Rather, I'm very frustrated with two things: 1) there are numerous rules and regulations that don't do anything except give an "enforcer" the opportunity to say that a Brother is doing it wrong or require a WM to ask the GM "mother may I"?, and 2} the number of committees is over the top. Absent these issues the WMC could probably be cut in half, so the size of the WMC is merely the result of the issues that bother me.
You're right, reading well or memorizing both take practice. Same for long distance road cycling and tennis. I've practiced both extensively, through which I've learned that as long as I'm fed and hydrated I can ride a bike all day long but with my poor hand-eye coordination I probably won't successfully return a serve.
Brother Glenn, Do you know what happened in Pennsylvania when they started to broadly distribute plain text at least 10 years ago? I don't, so I'm asking. What happened in Pennsylvania might help form the answer to my question: what's the harm?