In the Jurisdiction of Washington, a petitioner for the Degrees of Masonry must be unanimously elected by the Lodge he petitions. A single black cube in the ballot box will reject him.
Also in Washington, that same standard holds true for those seeking to join another Lodge via petitioning for plural membership. A single black cube will reject this petitioner as well. This petitioner is however already a Mason in Good Standing, in a Washington Lodge.
Given that, should the requirement be, as it is, a unanimous vote for acceptance of this Mason?
Or, should the requirement be relaxed, should it perhaps take two or three black cubes to reject a petitioner for plural membership?
Let’s discuss it…
Emeth received a very short, but most excellent compliment yesterday from Most Worshipful Robert G. Davis 33 GC, Grand Master of Oklahoma.
In my opinion, in an ideal world, maybe it would be OK to drop the unanimous approval requirement, but I think that the harmony of the Lodge, which is intimate and personal, is paramount. I just feel that Lodges can be contentious enough, and brethren joining a Lodge without unanimous acceptance is asking for trouble.
I think that I agree with you. I think that we need to maintain the unanimous vote.
While it may certainly be true that the black cube is the result of personal animosity, not allowing that black cube would ensure that the animosity would then be within the Lodge membership itself.
Why should a Brother, who is in good standing with the Grand Jurisdiction and his home lodge, who petitions a lodge for plural membership be subjected to the same “standards” as a man petitioning for the Degrees of Masonry. At a minimum it should take more than a single black cube to disqualify him. I think a background investigation and a vote by the sign of a Mason should be enough. We had a Brother in my district, who is in good standing, who was appointed to be a DDGM, twice petition a lodge for plural membership and twice was rejected. A single brother who had an unresolved conflict with the petitioning brother kept him from gaining membership. Of course this created a lot of hard feelings that were unnecessary.
I understand what you are saying, but I wonder if that unresolved conflict and hard feelings wouldn't be made even worse if the men were both made members of the same Lodge.
I look at this issue from another angle (of course I did).
Grand Lodge charges an assessment for every member of a lodge. This cost, of course, generally gets passed down to the members themselves, even brothers who had purchased life memberships, thinking that no matter what, they would die a mason in good standing. This assessment is bad enough. What is worse is that GL keeps trying to raise this tax every single AC.
But if a brother belongs to two or more lodges, he's assessed each time. This is just flat out wrong. GL needs money? Cut costs. Live within your means. Sell that huge building you spent (how many?) millions on, and lease a property somewhere.
But, back to the topic, I agree with Bob. Brothers need to act like adults, even if you don't like someone. Going through life, you're not going to like (or be liked) by everyone, so either grow a thicker skin, or go live in a van down by the river.
I think I must say that I'm OK with the assessment being placed on each membership.
I think, I hope anyway, that it discourages excessive plural memberships, at least a little bit. I think that, as we have discussed before, there are certainly good reasons to seek plural memberships, there are bad reasons as well, and there can be excesses. It is OK, in my view, to 'pump the breaks' just a bit, and I think that this extra cost might serve as one of those 'pumps.'
If this isn't something that could easily go both ways......
Unanimous is what you would think should be the only outcome for a Brother already inside our Jurisdiction. Already vetted and obligated to the Craft. But he might not be a good fit to the Lodge and it's uniqueness. And it might take that one Brother to see that. This has nothing to do with a personal disagreement between anyone. I wouldn't fit in right now with a Lodge that dives down deep into Esoteric meaning. Maybe later when I'm better read.
But I can see where a disagreement between Brothers could lead to a single negative vote. Shouldn't be an issue. Some other Brother in that Lodge should remind a Brother of faults and aid in his reformation. For it often takes two or more for a disagreement that spans any lengthy amount of time. So maybe this could get them to talk it out.
I am unsure how many plural petitions actually get rejected, so don't know if this is an extremely isolated occurrence.
I'd certainly hope that in the vast majority of cases, Masons in good standing are able to easily slide into plural memberships. But in those cases where it doesn't happen, conflict between two men in a Lodge can do a heck of a lot of damage.
I agree with Bob Brockman. I also note that the petition for plural membership has the same questions and requirements as does the Petition for the Degrees. Why? The Mason has already passed through the West Gate, been vetted, been through the Degrees, and is a Member in Good Standing. OK, so one member of the petitioned Lodge has a beef with the petitioner. So what? I believe the phrase is, "...vote for the good of Masonry." Not for the good of the grumpy member, but for the good of Masonry. I think the ballot box should be put away for this activity, and member vote "by the usual sign of a Mason." A simple majority welcomes the new plural member.
>>"I also note that the petition for plural membership has the same questions and >>requirements as does the Petition for the Degrees. Why? The Mason has already passed >>through the West Gate, been vetted, been through the Degrees, and is a Member in Good >>Standing."
This was pointed out on Facebook today as well, on my post announcing this discussion. Based on this feedback, VW Lavigne will be looking to revise this petition after our Annual Communication.
If you have ideas about what should be changed, added, removed &c. please get those ideas to him.
Foremost, we ask why he wants to join our lodge. Usually it’s because they want to be part of a lodge that focuses on education, discussion of each degree and our ritual work.
We still want to get to know him and put him through the six steps and normal petition process.
Why?
We have crafted a lodge culture that we like and places emphasis on certain aspects of the Craft. Education and Brotherhood at the top. Brothers that want to join our lodge need to understand and appreciate that. If not, we love to see them at lodge as visitors anytime!
I think that this is correct, and important. I know Masons, men who I like, and who are good Masons, but who would not fit in at all in my Lodge. My Lodge has a culture, and some Masons would clash, fairly badly with that culture.
I imagine though that the men I'm thinking of would recognize that as well, and wouldn't be interested in petitioning.
In my opinion, in an ideal world, maybe it would be OK to drop the unanimous approval requirement, but I think that the harmony of the Lodge, which is intimate and personal, is paramount. I just feel that Lodges can be contentious enough, and brethren joining a Lodge without unanimous acceptance is asking for trouble.
I think that I agree with you. I think that we need to maintain the unanimous vote.
While it may certainly be true that the black cube is the result of personal animosity, not allowing that black cube would ensure that the animosity would then be within the Lodge membership itself.
Why should a Brother, who is in good standing with the Grand Jurisdiction and his home lodge, who petitions a lodge for plural membership be subjected to the same “standards” as a man petitioning for the Degrees of Masonry. At a minimum it should take more than a single black cube to disqualify him. I think a background investigation and a vote by the sign of a Mason should be enough. We had a Brother in my district, who is in good standing, who was appointed to be a DDGM, twice petition a lodge for plural membership and twice was rejected. A single brother who had an unresolved conflict with the petitioning brother kept him from gaining membership. Of course this created a lot of hard feelings that were unnecessary.
I understand what you are saying, but I wonder if that unresolved conflict and hard feelings wouldn't be made even worse if the men were both made members of the same Lodge.
I look at this issue from another angle (of course I did).
Grand Lodge charges an assessment for every member of a lodge. This cost, of course, generally gets passed down to the members themselves, even brothers who had purchased life memberships, thinking that no matter what, they would die a mason in good standing. This assessment is bad enough. What is worse is that GL keeps trying to raise this tax every single AC.
But if a brother belongs to two or more lodges, he's assessed each time. This is just flat out wrong. GL needs money? Cut costs. Live within your means. Sell that huge building you spent (how many?) millions on, and lease a property somewhere.
But, back to the topic, I agree with Bob. Brothers need to act like adults, even if you don't like someone. Going through life, you're not going to like (or be liked) by everyone, so either grow a thicker skin, or go live in a van down by the river.
I think I must say that I'm OK with the assessment being placed on each membership.
I think, I hope anyway, that it discourages excessive plural memberships, at least a little bit. I think that, as we have discussed before, there are certainly good reasons to seek plural memberships, there are bad reasons as well, and there can be excesses. It is OK, in my view, to 'pump the breaks' just a bit, and I think that this extra cost might serve as one of those 'pumps.'
If this isn't something that could easily go both ways......
Unanimous is what you would think should be the only outcome for a Brother already inside our Jurisdiction. Already vetted and obligated to the Craft. But he might not be a good fit to the Lodge and it's uniqueness. And it might take that one Brother to see that. This has nothing to do with a personal disagreement between anyone. I wouldn't fit in right now with a Lodge that dives down deep into Esoteric meaning. Maybe later when I'm better read.
But I can see where a disagreement between Brothers could lead to a single negative vote. Shouldn't be an issue. Some other Brother in that Lodge should remind a Brother of faults and aid in his reformation. For it often takes two or more for a disagreement that spans any lengthy amount of time. So maybe this could get them to talk it out.
I am unsure how many plural petitions actually get rejected, so don't know if this is an extremely isolated occurrence.
I'd certainly hope that in the vast majority of cases, Masons in good standing are able to easily slide into plural memberships. But in those cases where it doesn't happen, conflict between two men in a Lodge can do a heck of a lot of damage.
I agree with Bob Brockman. I also note that the petition for plural membership has the same questions and requirements as does the Petition for the Degrees. Why? The Mason has already passed through the West Gate, been vetted, been through the Degrees, and is a Member in Good Standing. OK, so one member of the petitioned Lodge has a beef with the petitioner. So what? I believe the phrase is, "...vote for the good of Masonry." Not for the good of the grumpy member, but for the good of Masonry. I think the ballot box should be put away for this activity, and member vote "by the usual sign of a Mason." A simple majority welcomes the new plural member.
>>"I also note that the petition for plural membership has the same questions and >>requirements as does the Petition for the Degrees. Why? The Mason has already passed >>through the West Gate, been vetted, been through the Degrees, and is a Member in Good >>Standing."
This was pointed out on Facebook today as well, on my post announcing this discussion. Based on this feedback, VW Lavigne will be looking to revise this petition after our Annual Communication.
If you have ideas about what should be changed, added, removed &c. please get those ideas to him.
Foremost, we ask why he wants to join our lodge. Usually it’s because they want to be part of a lodge that focuses on education, discussion of each degree and our ritual work.
We still want to get to know him and put him through the six steps and normal petition process.
Why?
We have crafted a lodge culture that we like and places emphasis on certain aspects of the Craft. Education and Brotherhood at the top. Brothers that want to join our lodge need to understand and appreciate that. If not, we love to see them at lodge as visitors anytime!
I think that this is correct, and important. I know Masons, men who I like, and who are good Masons, but who would not fit in at all in my Lodge. My Lodge has a culture, and some Masons would clash, fairly badly with that culture.
I imagine though that the men I'm thinking of would recognize that as well, and wouldn't be interested in petitioning.