Many here on Emeth have commented over time that our Jurisdictions need to right-size and simplify our Masonic Codes. I certainly agree. Here in Washington we have far too many rules and regulations, many of which stifle Freemasonry, many of which are simply ignored. I must presume that it is much the same everywhere else.
We would do well to remember the words of Winston Churchill:
“If you have ten thousand regulations you destroy all respect for the law.”
Here is an example from my Jurisdiction, provided by an Emeth reader:
In Washington, as in some other Jurisdictions, the Past Master’s emblem is the Compasses extended across the Quadrant.
The Past Grand Master’s emblem is the Compasses extended across the Square and Quadrant.
This is an explicit part of the Washington Masonic Code.
But in practice, this is either widely unknown or ignored. Vendors at our own Annual Communications sell Past Master’s aprons containing the Past Grand Master’s emblem. Lots of our Past Masters wear these incorrect aprons each day in violation of our Code.
I know, because I’ve read about it on social media platforms, that this happens in other Jurisdictions as well.
It is, frankly, absurd to maintain a Masonic law that is ignored by all.
Given that, the question facing Washington Masons is:
Should we begin enforcing this regulation? Or should we repeal this regulation?
But of course similar questions will undoubtedly hold among the vast majority of mature Jurisdictions around the world. Our Codes almost certainly have provisions that hold no relevance to today’s Freemasonry.
Should we scour our Codes, find those provisions that are widely ignored and begin enforcing them? Or, should we scour our Codes, find these provisions, and remove them?
I would argue that Freemasonry would be strengthened if we were to do the second.
There is one item I would guess nearly every grand jurisdiction still has on the books from centuries past. I think it universally is termed “penal jurisdiction,” meaning a man seeking initiation must go to the lodge nearest his legal residence, and if he, as a Mason, later relocates, he must seek membership in his new locale.
I can’t say that is enforced where I am. I don’t know how many recent Past Grand Masters of my Grand Lodge of New York are actually citizens of New Jersey. 🤫
I didn't know about this. It isn't something that we have in my Jurisdiction. Since the Lodge I'm currently Senior Warden of is an hour and a half each way from my home, I guess that wouldn't work in some other places.
I presume that this was thought of in times of old as a way of Guarding the West Gate? Assuming that the people in a man's town would know him?
This was VERY common in the 1800s, men had to join whichever lodge was closest to his residence, and Grand Lodge proceedings are filled with rulings on which of two Lodges a man had to petition. I think it was less about guarding the west gate and more about Lodge’s guarding “their territory”. Many Lodges were chartered predicated on there being a sufficient population of men in the area to make them viable, especially when transportation was by horse or rail. (Louisiana had an exemption only within the city of New Orleans for a man being able to choose among Lodges).
Most jurisdictions had dropped these requirements by the 1920s, but some went longer.
Wow! I, having a better grip on the way in which I should demean on the chat, hope to proceed with a clearer correspondence recognizing Brother Camerons' scholarly endeavor hosting the chat in the first premise; I think that the question is very legitimate- I greet the brother who raises the question in all fairness to the Masonry in all its' cognition being qualified for a broad scale of questioning obviously all leading in to the common gavel. I believe moreover that the variety of questions which Masons cannot foresee coming are just and of innocence on behalf of the inquirer; on the one hand I should hope that on the yet other hand can come a bit of humiliation admitting that the scale of educated brothers united in that quest for knowledge composes much of what we have to reason over, majoring in many fields together in the band. This entails that on an exclusive panel with the brotherhood I would not be surprised to learn that the Masonry is too large in roster to append a change to Masonic Code for the intellectual association that it appends to us within the public mass population. For a subtle discussion it is legitimate, and for a presentation of it I seem more or less to imagine it might very well more likely than not be understood for something under which it represents that might be more well within our masonic grip, as in a simplistic version of it that is not as broad as the 24- inch gauge.
First, coming clean I'm not a WA mason (I'm east coast) so take this with a grain of salt.
In principle, codes are very important. If you accept they're important, then you should absolutely enforce what's there and do any spring cleaning necessary to get rid of stuff that you are not comfortable enforcing. I would argue that if you do not do these two steps, then the value of the code itself is questionable. Any document of rules & policies that's more than 2 decades old is bound to have some of those "you're not allowed to walk a donkey down the street on a Tuesday" kind of bizarre, outdated rules. Here's a good example: I'm aware of an east coast jurisdiction that has special rules for guys with vasectomies. Apparently the old rules were overly concerned with who had been sterilized and what this means about being a man, I guess, I'm not sure. Anyway, 2023 will look at some of those things and laugh.
But I have to admit I'm becoming disillusioned with the very concept of Masonic codes. The documents are fine, but the GL practices around them are often not (again, non WA perspective here, I'm not calling anybody in WA out)
The issue is with the "we've always done it this way" perspective. Lodges have found that there are 'rules' which aren't in the code, and that other code rules have seen remarkable flexibility when the GL decided to look the other way. This has the tendency to make the code look pointless. If the code doesn't disallow something, you still can't do it unless the GM is OK with it (lodges have remarkably narrow or nonexistent discretion). If the code *does* disallow something, you might still be able to do it. "We're all friends here, exceptions can be made, that's old, etc. etc. etc."
The code, like the constitution, like the law, derives its legitimacy from its equitable, even application. If attention is not given to that even application then in very real ways, it doesn't matter what the code says.
I agree with the principles as you have laid them out. If the code is important, then all of its provisions must either be enforced or removed. Leaving provisions that are not enforced degrades the very idea of law. Likewise, law that is not equally enforced is unjust. But as Freemasons, we are to hold justice in very high regard indeed.
Thanks so much for putting the issue out there, MW.
Our code is necessary to preserve our ritual, standardize and protect our elections, and to ensure compliance with tax and other regulations that are essential to our not for profit status. I can't think of why we need anything more. But of course, we have much more.
In its application the Code prohibits judgements that a good man should be able to make, or should be taught how to make. Instead, those judgements are off the table and are already made for everybody in the Code. Your example of aprons is excellent. There are customs that should probably be respected, but how is our mission to help good men become better impaired if a Brother wears an apron that departs from custom? Beyond aprons, the code presumes that our Worshipful Masters, those guys we make a big fuss over when we install them by telling them how worthy they are, can't make judgments. No, they have to ask permission from the Grand Master for numerous exceptions from the Code. And the Grand Master often can't respond until he checks with the Jurisprudence Committee, even though we made a big fuss over his worthiness too.
Then there are the numerous instances when the flow of our meetings is destroyed when somebody is compelled to ask if what we're about to do is in compliance with the Code. This gives a "knowledgeable" Brother the opportunity to display his immense understanding of the Code by declaring what he knows (read: thinks) is in the Code. (What a shame. Instead of spending all that time pouring over the code he could have spent at least some of it challenging himself to be a better man). And we've all seen Brothers, often a Secretary or a visiting District Deputy, who take it upon themselves to exert their presumed authority by contradicting a Worshipful Master because "the Code says you can't do that". (So much for reminding a Brother of his faults in the most friendly manner.)
Last and not least, Brothers across our Jurisdiction use their vacation time and spend their or their Lodge's money on gas, hotel rooms and over priced meals to spend up to two days in a conference room bickering over Code minutiae. I've been to a few of these gatherings, our biggest of the year, and not once did I feel like I walked out a better man. But the Code said my Lodge had to be represented and I drew the short straw those years.
If our Code was stripped down to its essentials I could have spent the last 10 minutes, 10 minutes I'll never get back, considering what actions I'll take today to continue to be a better man. I'll see if I can make up the time.
The Code usually grows because someone does something stupid. Then someone decides that we need to legislate against it so that it doesn't happen again. But, of course, it was something stupid, so probably wouldn't have happened again anyway. Sometimes, it passes, and now it is in the Code, there to remain until the next guy does something stupid, so more changes are made, more things are added.
What needs to happen, in my view, is we need to spend as much energy looking at what should be removed from the code as we spend looking at what can be added to the code. That is of course all of our shared responsibility, as every Lodge has the ability to recommend such changes.
Where I must disagree with you however is our Annual Communications. You and I are completely opposite, as I love them. One of the highlights of my year in all honesty.
Allow me to explain...
I don't disagree with you at all, the sessions are dull as dirt. They can be no other way given the nature of the beast, debating and voting and such.
But that isn't what is great about our Annual Communications. What is great is all that we do around them. Staying with friends in a great condo or vacation property somewhere wonderful for a couple of days before or after the event, on our way there or home. Making reservations for 30 at a great Steakhouse or other wonderful restaurant and going out as a District delegation. Renting a large room in the hotel and creating our own hospitality suite for our own Lodge to enjoy. Seeing Brothers from across the State, friends we haven't seen for awhile, but are close enough that it seems like we can pick up exactly where we last left off. All of those wonderful things that can come from having so many friends, all just down the hall.
In recent years I haven't been able to do much of that, as I've needed to stick close to all of the Grand Lodge events and happenings, but I look forward to getting back to it at our very next AC.
So, I find it to be a truly wonderful event each year, but that is because those of us from my Lodges expand it well beyond the business into truly superb social times.
MW, you and I actually agree. The off session fellowship gatherings are great but as you say, the sessions themselves are as dull as dirt. Maybe we should limit the code bickering to a very small allocation of the schedule (no more than 20%) and dedicate the rest to Masonic education. If we had a right-sized streamlined code that would be pretty easy to accomplish.
When I purchased my PM ring, I made absolutely sure it was the correct one and not one with a square in it. I also just ran downstairs (well, sauntered) and checked my PM apron to make sure it was the correct one as well (it is). I think the confusion is that the wrong symbol is on a blue (not purple) apron, and so folks may just assume as long as it's not purple it's ok.
As for the broader question, the WMC contains a lot of conflicting rules scattered throughout its pages. Another example is the issue of begging letters. One one hand, we're not allowed to read a petition for money in lodge, yet elsewhere we're told the lodge has its own discretion on how it gives out charity or spends its money. For quite a long time I was objecting to any mention of spending money in lodge, under the false impression they were all under the umbrella of a begging letter.
But, as MW Cameron mentioned, brothers routinely violate the code, most without realizing it. There are several reasons for that.
1. Ignorance. They simply don't know the code.
2. Misinterpret the rule. Some folks read a rule, and depending on how it's written, don't interpret the rule as intended.
3. Create rules that don't even exist. My well worn example is what color hat must the WM wear in lodge? When I first joined, I was told it could ONLY be a black hat.
When I am told by someone something that is a rule within masonry, 9 times out of 10 I will look it up and find out for myself. And most of the time, what I was told was wrong.
I have honestly never understood our prohibition against 'begging letters.' If a Lodge gets a letter and doesn't want to donate to whatever it is about, why not just throw it in the trash? I've always wondered why on earth the members of the Grand Lodge, so long ago, decided that Lodge's shouldn't even receive such letters.
But yeah, your last two sentences are something I've often experienced as well.
I think it's important that we revisit our regulations every few years and add or subtract that which helps or hurts. For example, I find it absurd that we have Master Masons armed with a sword guarding our doors when providing them with a nuclear-armed missile will do the job. easily. Plus it reduces the number of accidental paper cuts.
Coming from my rural area, I'm always surprised when I visit a more urban Lodge and see that there are actually enough men to have that man with a sword! As often as not here we have Mr. Casper guarding the door.
Much of this surrounds the secretary's position as he is often asked to clarify code questions. Keeping up with code helps to make the secretary's position the least desirable in lodge. The never ending code keeps the job of secretary also never ending. We are supposed to be enjoying lodge not struggling to keep up with code requirements. Grand Lodge needs to take this on and review our entire with endless reporting required and come back to some basic Masonry. Yes, this would probably take a number of years to clean up the code or we can just continue on as always with a code that makes a lot of sense in some areas and not so much in others.
But I do wonder, is simplifying the code the responsibility of the Grand Lodge? Or should the Lodges that compose the Grand Lodge be making recommendations, putting up resolutions, that would simplify it?
What I'm getting at is I remember when I was a Lodge Secretary, some things that I thought were unneeded and that we could do better without. But I didn't suggest to my Lodge that we draft a resolution to change them. I probably should have done so. I say that I probably should have, because when I was no longer involved with that position, I no longer noticed those things that needed to be changed. I figure I had a very good picture of potential problems when I was the Secretary, that I didn't have before or after.
I've also assumed that the code grows year after year simply because people keep turning to GL and WMC to decide things that should be left to the local lodges. They also simply assume something is in the code because "that's the way we've always done it". I'll give another example. In the WMC under elections, it says it must be a majority vote by all members present via secret paper ballot. That's it. Nothing else. Nothing about someone else not a member of the lodge handling ballots, or using a hat. There is also nothing about writing down multiple names on one piece of paper as votes for two or more offices to speed things up, much like how we ballot in civil elections. Simply hand out a paper ballot with write in sections for each elected position. But I was told that we couldn't do that. I didn't argue with the brother at the time, as it wasn't a hill I was willing to die on, but as I said, there is nothing specific in the code that forbids it, and I'm of the mind that if it's not strictly prohibited, it's allowed and it should be up to the lodge how they handle it.
But, if someone wanted to make a big deal out of it, they would submit a resolution to amend the code forbidding it. And that's how we get the WMC we have today.
We need to have a special committee maybe of past Grand Master's and review our codes and make recommendations on how to revise them to todays standards
Brother Clay, a committee is a good idea and perhaps a PGM or two should be on it. However, unless the perspective of the Blue Lodge guides the process we'd be at risk of the committee suggesting an even more bloated code. I mean no disrespect to PGMs. And the committee has to have a charter and a deadline. My recommendation for a charter is in the first paragraph of my post above. And the deadline should be delivery of a recommended revised code before the next annual Grand Lodge communication
I could get on board with this idea. But I think it would be best if it were broader based. I think WM's perspective and Lodge Secretaries perspectives would be important to have as well.
I'm all in favor of having traditions, but I agree that there are some parts of the code that just don't serve any functional purpose. I like the reference of a man with a vasectomy; I think there's far more to being a man and a vasectomy is an elective surgery made by the individual and his medical team and should concern nobody else.
There are also unwritten rules or customs; take ice hockey for example. If a guy on one team makes a clean. solid hit on the star player of the opposing team, that player will likely be physically confronted immediately and will likely be challenged to a fight later on by one of the "enforcers" (see "Answering the bell"). Once the fight takes place, each player acknowledges the other and that tends to be the end of it. The parallel here is that lodges and even districts have their own distinctive nuances on how things are done, based on tradition or practice and those are not necessarily in the WMC or "The Code".
I do see value in codifying how lodges should be run and memorializing it in written form. It adds an element of transparency, which is available to any member in the craft. It also allows for consistency in how the code is applied. It' the members and GL team who decide if/how the code is applied. That in and of itself permits the "Good Ole' Boy" aspect of high school politics.
We do need to have mechanisms for a fair amount of the Code, but there's definitely room to trim the unnecessary fat.
You bring up an interesting point about Lodge traditions and customs. I've encountered many of these that lend a good distinctiveness to a Lodge and are certainly of benefit to it. But I've encountered even more that are counterproductive and harmful to a Lodge. We probably need to keep a careful review of those as well from time to time.
I think this holds true in much more than masonry. A body of law should be simple. What tool is used to commit a murder doesn't make a damn bit of difference to the victims. So why bother making different rules depending on the tool used. Treat all murders equally. Same with masonry.
The Handbook of Masonic Law for the Grand Lodge of Louisiana has three components to it, the Constitution, General Regulations, and Edicts. Each section governs different things and has different thresholds for modification. The edicts section in particular was an interesting mess as it generally consisted of decisions/edicts issued by Grand Masters that were adopted by the Grand Lodge delegates. These would often contradict each other, but all were in “the code”. In 1978 the situation had gotten so bad a committee was appointed to fix it, and they did a massive clean up, and submitted to Grand Lodge various resolutions for things that should be added on top of the resolution of their revisions. The HOML has only been touched since by resolutions at GL and is badly in need of another ground up revision.
I see in the cover of the WMC that you’ve had multiple code committees in since 1978 scour the WMC and attempt to correct language, confusion, conflicts, etc. But it seems that much like the GLoLA 1978 committee, the mandate did not include a bias toward suggestions for what needed to go away.
Idaho has an “interesting” state rule wherein the state’s administrative rules expire every year. In 2019 the legislature let them all expire, requiring a review of the rules, this resulted in a 19% in volume of the rules. What if a Grand Lodge had to reauthorize its Code every year? Or at least had to reauthorize sections of it on a rolling calendar? If the default is most of it goes away and you have to make a case to reauthorize it, does that change the way people look at modifying the code? Looking to positively reaffirm things we want instead of simply letting inertia carry rules into the future in an ever expanding book?
I can see where carried over edicts could certainly cause problems. In Washington all of a Grand Master's edicts lose effect upon the Installation of his successor. If it is desired for them to continue, the new GM has to re-issue them.
The Idaho legislative model seems like a good one. We could certainly require reauthorization of code sections on a rolling basis. If nothing else, it would get a lot of eyes on specific sections to find problems.
There is one item I would guess nearly every grand jurisdiction still has on the books from centuries past. I think it universally is termed “penal jurisdiction,” meaning a man seeking initiation must go to the lodge nearest his legal residence, and if he, as a Mason, later relocates, he must seek membership in his new locale.
I can’t say that is enforced where I am. I don’t know how many recent Past Grand Masters of my Grand Lodge of New York are actually citizens of New Jersey. 🤫
I didn't know about this. It isn't something that we have in my Jurisdiction. Since the Lodge I'm currently Senior Warden of is an hour and a half each way from my home, I guess that wouldn't work in some other places.
I presume that this was thought of in times of old as a way of Guarding the West Gate? Assuming that the people in a man's town would know him?
This was VERY common in the 1800s, men had to join whichever lodge was closest to his residence, and Grand Lodge proceedings are filled with rulings on which of two Lodges a man had to petition. I think it was less about guarding the west gate and more about Lodge’s guarding “their territory”. Many Lodges were chartered predicated on there being a sufficient population of men in the area to make them viable, especially when transportation was by horse or rail. (Louisiana had an exemption only within the city of New Orleans for a man being able to choose among Lodges).
Most jurisdictions had dropped these requirements by the 1920s, but some went longer.
This history is very good to know. Thank you!
Wow! I, having a better grip on the way in which I should demean on the chat, hope to proceed with a clearer correspondence recognizing Brother Camerons' scholarly endeavor hosting the chat in the first premise; I think that the question is very legitimate- I greet the brother who raises the question in all fairness to the Masonry in all its' cognition being qualified for a broad scale of questioning obviously all leading in to the common gavel. I believe moreover that the variety of questions which Masons cannot foresee coming are just and of innocence on behalf of the inquirer; on the one hand I should hope that on the yet other hand can come a bit of humiliation admitting that the scale of educated brothers united in that quest for knowledge composes much of what we have to reason over, majoring in many fields together in the band. This entails that on an exclusive panel with the brotherhood I would not be surprised to learn that the Masonry is too large in roster to append a change to Masonic Code for the intellectual association that it appends to us within the public mass population. For a subtle discussion it is legitimate, and for a presentation of it I seem more or less to imagine it might very well more likely than not be understood for something under which it represents that might be more well within our masonic grip, as in a simplistic version of it that is not as broad as the 24- inch gauge.
Thank you for joining our discussions here. I appreciate it, and hope that you find value in the posts.
First, coming clean I'm not a WA mason (I'm east coast) so take this with a grain of salt.
In principle, codes are very important. If you accept they're important, then you should absolutely enforce what's there and do any spring cleaning necessary to get rid of stuff that you are not comfortable enforcing. I would argue that if you do not do these two steps, then the value of the code itself is questionable. Any document of rules & policies that's more than 2 decades old is bound to have some of those "you're not allowed to walk a donkey down the street on a Tuesday" kind of bizarre, outdated rules. Here's a good example: I'm aware of an east coast jurisdiction that has special rules for guys with vasectomies. Apparently the old rules were overly concerned with who had been sterilized and what this means about being a man, I guess, I'm not sure. Anyway, 2023 will look at some of those things and laugh.
But I have to admit I'm becoming disillusioned with the very concept of Masonic codes. The documents are fine, but the GL practices around them are often not (again, non WA perspective here, I'm not calling anybody in WA out)
The issue is with the "we've always done it this way" perspective. Lodges have found that there are 'rules' which aren't in the code, and that other code rules have seen remarkable flexibility when the GL decided to look the other way. This has the tendency to make the code look pointless. If the code doesn't disallow something, you still can't do it unless the GM is OK with it (lodges have remarkably narrow or nonexistent discretion). If the code *does* disallow something, you might still be able to do it. "We're all friends here, exceptions can be made, that's old, etc. etc. etc."
The code, like the constitution, like the law, derives its legitimacy from its equitable, even application. If attention is not given to that even application then in very real ways, it doesn't matter what the code says.
I agree with the principles as you have laid them out. If the code is important, then all of its provisions must either be enforced or removed. Leaving provisions that are not enforced degrades the very idea of law. Likewise, law that is not equally enforced is unjust. But as Freemasons, we are to hold justice in very high regard indeed.
Thanks so much for putting the issue out there, MW.
Our code is necessary to preserve our ritual, standardize and protect our elections, and to ensure compliance with tax and other regulations that are essential to our not for profit status. I can't think of why we need anything more. But of course, we have much more.
In its application the Code prohibits judgements that a good man should be able to make, or should be taught how to make. Instead, those judgements are off the table and are already made for everybody in the Code. Your example of aprons is excellent. There are customs that should probably be respected, but how is our mission to help good men become better impaired if a Brother wears an apron that departs from custom? Beyond aprons, the code presumes that our Worshipful Masters, those guys we make a big fuss over when we install them by telling them how worthy they are, can't make judgments. No, they have to ask permission from the Grand Master for numerous exceptions from the Code. And the Grand Master often can't respond until he checks with the Jurisprudence Committee, even though we made a big fuss over his worthiness too.
Then there are the numerous instances when the flow of our meetings is destroyed when somebody is compelled to ask if what we're about to do is in compliance with the Code. This gives a "knowledgeable" Brother the opportunity to display his immense understanding of the Code by declaring what he knows (read: thinks) is in the Code. (What a shame. Instead of spending all that time pouring over the code he could have spent at least some of it challenging himself to be a better man). And we've all seen Brothers, often a Secretary or a visiting District Deputy, who take it upon themselves to exert their presumed authority by contradicting a Worshipful Master because "the Code says you can't do that". (So much for reminding a Brother of his faults in the most friendly manner.)
Last and not least, Brothers across our Jurisdiction use their vacation time and spend their or their Lodge's money on gas, hotel rooms and over priced meals to spend up to two days in a conference room bickering over Code minutiae. I've been to a few of these gatherings, our biggest of the year, and not once did I feel like I walked out a better man. But the Code said my Lodge had to be represented and I drew the short straw those years.
If our Code was stripped down to its essentials I could have spent the last 10 minutes, 10 minutes I'll never get back, considering what actions I'll take today to continue to be a better man. I'll see if I can make up the time.
The Code usually grows because someone does something stupid. Then someone decides that we need to legislate against it so that it doesn't happen again. But, of course, it was something stupid, so probably wouldn't have happened again anyway. Sometimes, it passes, and now it is in the Code, there to remain until the next guy does something stupid, so more changes are made, more things are added.
What needs to happen, in my view, is we need to spend as much energy looking at what should be removed from the code as we spend looking at what can be added to the code. That is of course all of our shared responsibility, as every Lodge has the ability to recommend such changes.
Where I must disagree with you however is our Annual Communications. You and I are completely opposite, as I love them. One of the highlights of my year in all honesty.
Allow me to explain...
I don't disagree with you at all, the sessions are dull as dirt. They can be no other way given the nature of the beast, debating and voting and such.
But that isn't what is great about our Annual Communications. What is great is all that we do around them. Staying with friends in a great condo or vacation property somewhere wonderful for a couple of days before or after the event, on our way there or home. Making reservations for 30 at a great Steakhouse or other wonderful restaurant and going out as a District delegation. Renting a large room in the hotel and creating our own hospitality suite for our own Lodge to enjoy. Seeing Brothers from across the State, friends we haven't seen for awhile, but are close enough that it seems like we can pick up exactly where we last left off. All of those wonderful things that can come from having so many friends, all just down the hall.
In recent years I haven't been able to do much of that, as I've needed to stick close to all of the Grand Lodge events and happenings, but I look forward to getting back to it at our very next AC.
So, I find it to be a truly wonderful event each year, but that is because those of us from my Lodges expand it well beyond the business into truly superb social times.
MW, you and I actually agree. The off session fellowship gatherings are great but as you say, the sessions themselves are as dull as dirt. Maybe we should limit the code bickering to a very small allocation of the schedule (no more than 20%) and dedicate the rest to Masonic education. If we had a right-sized streamlined code that would be pretty easy to accomplish.
Next time you attend, we should sneak out for a drink. I believe that we've been talking about that for some time now!
When I purchased my PM ring, I made absolutely sure it was the correct one and not one with a square in it. I also just ran downstairs (well, sauntered) and checked my PM apron to make sure it was the correct one as well (it is). I think the confusion is that the wrong symbol is on a blue (not purple) apron, and so folks may just assume as long as it's not purple it's ok.
As for the broader question, the WMC contains a lot of conflicting rules scattered throughout its pages. Another example is the issue of begging letters. One one hand, we're not allowed to read a petition for money in lodge, yet elsewhere we're told the lodge has its own discretion on how it gives out charity or spends its money. For quite a long time I was objecting to any mention of spending money in lodge, under the false impression they were all under the umbrella of a begging letter.
But, as MW Cameron mentioned, brothers routinely violate the code, most without realizing it. There are several reasons for that.
1. Ignorance. They simply don't know the code.
2. Misinterpret the rule. Some folks read a rule, and depending on how it's written, don't interpret the rule as intended.
3. Create rules that don't even exist. My well worn example is what color hat must the WM wear in lodge? When I first joined, I was told it could ONLY be a black hat.
When I am told by someone something that is a rule within masonry, 9 times out of 10 I will look it up and find out for myself. And most of the time, what I was told was wrong.
I have honestly never understood our prohibition against 'begging letters.' If a Lodge gets a letter and doesn't want to donate to whatever it is about, why not just throw it in the trash? I've always wondered why on earth the members of the Grand Lodge, so long ago, decided that Lodge's shouldn't even receive such letters.
But yeah, your last two sentences are something I've often experienced as well.
I think it's important that we revisit our regulations every few years and add or subtract that which helps or hurts. For example, I find it absurd that we have Master Masons armed with a sword guarding our doors when providing them with a nuclear-armed missile will do the job. easily. Plus it reduces the number of accidental paper cuts.
Coming from my rural area, I'm always surprised when I visit a more urban Lodge and see that there are actually enough men to have that man with a sword! As often as not here we have Mr. Casper guarding the door.
We often had Bro. Folgers or Bro. Kurieg guarding the door at some rural lodges I’ve been to. :-)
Much of this surrounds the secretary's position as he is often asked to clarify code questions. Keeping up with code helps to make the secretary's position the least desirable in lodge. The never ending code keeps the job of secretary also never ending. We are supposed to be enjoying lodge not struggling to keep up with code requirements. Grand Lodge needs to take this on and review our entire with endless reporting required and come back to some basic Masonry. Yes, this would probably take a number of years to clean up the code or we can just continue on as always with a code that makes a lot of sense in some areas and not so much in others.
I don't disagree with you Brother.
But I do wonder, is simplifying the code the responsibility of the Grand Lodge? Or should the Lodges that compose the Grand Lodge be making recommendations, putting up resolutions, that would simplify it?
What I'm getting at is I remember when I was a Lodge Secretary, some things that I thought were unneeded and that we could do better without. But I didn't suggest to my Lodge that we draft a resolution to change them. I probably should have done so. I say that I probably should have, because when I was no longer involved with that position, I no longer noticed those things that needed to be changed. I figure I had a very good picture of potential problems when I was the Secretary, that I didn't have before or after.
I've also assumed that the code grows year after year simply because people keep turning to GL and WMC to decide things that should be left to the local lodges. They also simply assume something is in the code because "that's the way we've always done it". I'll give another example. In the WMC under elections, it says it must be a majority vote by all members present via secret paper ballot. That's it. Nothing else. Nothing about someone else not a member of the lodge handling ballots, or using a hat. There is also nothing about writing down multiple names on one piece of paper as votes for two or more offices to speed things up, much like how we ballot in civil elections. Simply hand out a paper ballot with write in sections for each elected position. But I was told that we couldn't do that. I didn't argue with the brother at the time, as it wasn't a hill I was willing to die on, but as I said, there is nothing specific in the code that forbids it, and I'm of the mind that if it's not strictly prohibited, it's allowed and it should be up to the lodge how they handle it.
But, if someone wanted to make a big deal out of it, they would submit a resolution to amend the code forbidding it. And that's how we get the WMC we have today.
We need to have a special committee maybe of past Grand Master's and review our codes and make recommendations on how to revise them to todays standards
Brother Clay, a committee is a good idea and perhaps a PGM or two should be on it. However, unless the perspective of the Blue Lodge guides the process we'd be at risk of the committee suggesting an even more bloated code. I mean no disrespect to PGMs. And the committee has to have a charter and a deadline. My recommendation for a charter is in the first paragraph of my post above. And the deadline should be delivery of a recommended revised code before the next annual Grand Lodge communication
I could get on board with this idea. But I think it would be best if it were broader based. I think WM's perspective and Lodge Secretaries perspectives would be important to have as well.
I'm all in favor of having traditions, but I agree that there are some parts of the code that just don't serve any functional purpose. I like the reference of a man with a vasectomy; I think there's far more to being a man and a vasectomy is an elective surgery made by the individual and his medical team and should concern nobody else.
There are also unwritten rules or customs; take ice hockey for example. If a guy on one team makes a clean. solid hit on the star player of the opposing team, that player will likely be physically confronted immediately and will likely be challenged to a fight later on by one of the "enforcers" (see "Answering the bell"). Once the fight takes place, each player acknowledges the other and that tends to be the end of it. The parallel here is that lodges and even districts have their own distinctive nuances on how things are done, based on tradition or practice and those are not necessarily in the WMC or "The Code".
I do see value in codifying how lodges should be run and memorializing it in written form. It adds an element of transparency, which is available to any member in the craft. It also allows for consistency in how the code is applied. It' the members and GL team who decide if/how the code is applied. That in and of itself permits the "Good Ole' Boy" aspect of high school politics.
We do need to have mechanisms for a fair amount of the Code, but there's definitely room to trim the unnecessary fat.
You bring up an interesting point about Lodge traditions and customs. I've encountered many of these that lend a good distinctiveness to a Lodge and are certainly of benefit to it. But I've encountered even more that are counterproductive and harmful to a Lodge. We probably need to keep a careful review of those as well from time to time.
I think this holds true in much more than masonry. A body of law should be simple. What tool is used to commit a murder doesn't make a damn bit of difference to the victims. So why bother making different rules depending on the tool used. Treat all murders equally. Same with masonry.
Agreed, law needs to be simple and understandable to be just. If a code grows so complex that a Mason can't understand it, it should be changed.
I always wondered why when I opened the door, no one was there. The scary thing was when I spoke my lines, I got an answer. Weird.
Lots of guys say Centralia Masonic Temple is haunted, and by a lot more than our ghost tyler!
Me, I don't believe it. I'm sure that the screaming I hear is all in my head.
The Handbook of Masonic Law for the Grand Lodge of Louisiana has three components to it, the Constitution, General Regulations, and Edicts. Each section governs different things and has different thresholds for modification. The edicts section in particular was an interesting mess as it generally consisted of decisions/edicts issued by Grand Masters that were adopted by the Grand Lodge delegates. These would often contradict each other, but all were in “the code”. In 1978 the situation had gotten so bad a committee was appointed to fix it, and they did a massive clean up, and submitted to Grand Lodge various resolutions for things that should be added on top of the resolution of their revisions. The HOML has only been touched since by resolutions at GL and is badly in need of another ground up revision.
I see in the cover of the WMC that you’ve had multiple code committees in since 1978 scour the WMC and attempt to correct language, confusion, conflicts, etc. But it seems that much like the GLoLA 1978 committee, the mandate did not include a bias toward suggestions for what needed to go away.
Idaho has an “interesting” state rule wherein the state’s administrative rules expire every year. In 2019 the legislature let them all expire, requiring a review of the rules, this resulted in a 19% in volume of the rules. What if a Grand Lodge had to reauthorize its Code every year? Or at least had to reauthorize sections of it on a rolling calendar? If the default is most of it goes away and you have to make a case to reauthorize it, does that change the way people look at modifying the code? Looking to positively reaffirm things we want instead of simply letting inertia carry rules into the future in an ever expanding book?
I can see where carried over edicts could certainly cause problems. In Washington all of a Grand Master's edicts lose effect upon the Installation of his successor. If it is desired for them to continue, the new GM has to re-issue them.
The Idaho legislative model seems like a good one. We could certainly require reauthorization of code sections on a rolling basis. If nothing else, it would get a lot of eyes on specific sections to find problems.