In Washington, we can change the Ritual. Let us say, as was suggested by our immediate Past Grand Master, it is thought that three words from the Ritual should be removed. We can do that by voting for the change at the Annual Communication.
The thing is, it takes a 90% vote in favor of the change in order for it to pass.
(Things get more complicated over a second Annual Communication, with a lowered percentage if it receives a majority vote and becomes a ‘carry over’ Resolution for the next Annual Communication, but for purposes of simplicity, let’s just say that it takes an overwhelming majority vote in order for a change to the ritual to be made.)
I am curious, as there was very brief mention made about it by a couple Brothers at our just concluded Annual Communication, what should the percentage vote be in order to make a change to our ritual?
Is something truly overwhelming like 90% appropriate, or should it be a much easier super majority, perhaps something like 75%?
Should a simple majority be able to make a change to the ritual?
If percentage requirements were ever lowered from the current 90%, should we then do away with ‘carry over’ Resolutions with their lower vote requirements?
One last question seems in order, should there be provision to make these changes at all?
Let’s chat about it…
I’d like to say Thank You to those who joined the Rummers and Grapes zoom gathering last night, for your patience with my immediate departure. I am sorry that I wasn’t able to stay and talk. Unfortunately, everything in Wenatchee and on the trip home took much longer than anticipated, and I wasn’t able to make it home in time for our regular gathering. Thank you for going on without me, I greatly appreciate your understanding and kindness. Normally we don’t hold Masonic events on Sunday’s, so I don’t anticipate this becoming an issue in the future, even with my new duties.
I would like to think that every man at the grand lodge communication is versed in every aspect of the ritual and its multifaceted meaning. Every line is important and conveys moral physical and spiritual truths. The extreme gravity behind changing anything requires careful consideration. I'm curious what three words are being considered and why. If it were too easy to change, the ritual would lose all meaning quickly and become nothing but an empty husk subject to the whims of the latest popular politically correct fad. I've seen it happen with grange ritual. All the beauty mystery and esoteric meaning in grange ritual has been lost to political correctness in a vain attempt to attract easily offended people. It didn't work and granges around the state are failing worse than lodges.
Bro. Jack, you make a very good point. I can think of at least one change, in the first degree that I'd like to see, but the question; Does the benifit of that change outweigh the risk of such a practice evolving into a fad and our ritual lost. I have to say that the risk outweighs the benifit.
If memory serves, there were three proposed changes to our ritual in Washington this year. The three words mentioned, the addition of a 'codified' ceremony for the disposition of orphaned aprons at the Apron Memorial, and the replacement of our current funeral services.
All three failed. I think it was good, for as you say, we can't get in the habit of changing our ritual. Once in a great while, when a change is truly needed, but we shouldn't be messing around with it willy nilly.
In the Installation ritual, the Master is reminded that he is to pay attention to all the duties of Masonry on convenient occasions.
'On Convenient Occasions' were the words proposed to be removed.
The resolution to do so failed, I believe primarily because of the reasons you mention.
Certainly in the world of today, our ritual is outdated, and contains some things that could offend the sensibilities of some, the type of people who look to be offended. I think you are correct though, we must never water down our ritual in order to appease. Even if we somehow thought it was a good idea, it would never work, for those who look to be offended will always find something to be offended about.
I agree that changing the ritual should be difficult. But the constant reasoning, usually fronted by GL of opposing change is cost, not the ritual itself. This attitude needs to change, especially when fixing the ritual for the sake of consistency across the three degrees.
But going back to any old monitor, you can see the changes that have been done over the past 100 years. It’s not like significant changes haven’t happened before. My main consideration is that when I am speaking or hearing the work, that its the same as our forefathers recited.
I think that any costs associated with ritual changes, at least here in Washington, would be quite insignificant. It would require re-printing the small number of copies of plain text that are held by the Grand Lodge is all.
People buy their own cyphers from the Grand Lodge, so that would be a personal and not organizational expense, and again would be insignificant.
You are correct of course, there have been extremely significant ritual changes in the past. Of course the adoption of our Preston/Webb work as a whole would have been a massive change from whatever work was performed before it.
That begs the question, I think, if the time ever does come to make significant change, is it better to consider a comprehensive change as was done by Br. Webb, instead of tiny piecemeal changes over time?
Like you, I appreciate knowing that what I am hearing is the same as has been heard for generations before me.
I enjoy the footing of this question. The essence is "how do we change ritual". The essence is NOT what's more typical where I am which is "How do we keep the ritual pure and inviolate". I'm in a mouth-to-ear jurisdiction and it seems to me, partially as a student of history -- that the ritual does inevitably change. Jurisdictions drift, language usage changes, the whole 9 yards. As a result, it is a 100% certainty that ritual will change. (Keeping it the same is like trying to resist earthquakes, erosion, and other natural processes). So let's be intentional and thoughtful about that change.
I don't know what the right % of the vote is, but I have some thoughts about deliberative design. First: we read petitions and then require they lay over. If initiating a man is a good idea it'll still be a good idea next month. Time in the process acts as a buffer against rash decisions and time (by itself) tends not to stop good ideas that have popular support.
Second, there may be classes of reasons why something can't be brought to a vote at all, but it's useful to require a high evidentiary bar for those. In terms of ritual change, an excellent reason to never bring it to a vote in the first place would be things like, (a) causes mutual recognition issues with other jurisdictions, (b) impinges on one of the ancient landmarks and maybe others too. Enlightenment era thinking, you have a "constitution" there to *prohibit* a narrow set of changes that would undermine the constitutions, this is almost "outside of democracy". You don't get to vote to undermine the 1st amendment for example. If you had to change that, you must change the constitutions first. So too with ritual.
So we start to have certain "guard rails":
- Which parts of ritual can change? Definitely some, but perhaps not all, depending.
- How can the language change? Requires a lot of discretion, but there are guardrails, i.e. "Not in any way which would undermine the constitutions"
- When can they change? This is a question of layover, grand annual communication, etc.
I think that your point about the Landmarks is vitally important, and unfortunately often misunderstood by seemingly a good number of Masons in my Jurisdiction.
This is, I think, because Washington has never adopted a written set of Landmarks. We do of course recognize the Landmarks of Masonry, and follow them, but they aren't written down. The fact that we've not written them seems to make at least some of our Brothers forget that they exist, and that of course requires explanation and education.
Often, I encounter Masons who view the Washington Masonic Code (Our Constitution, bylaws, rules, & regulations) as the only and highest form of Masonic Law in our Jurisdiction.
This is of course not true. Our highest Law (as it is everywhere) are the Landmarks. This is followed by our Ritual. No provision of the Code can conflict with either the Landmarks or our Ritual and be valid.
Our Code itself actually makes that point, but far too many seem to skip over that part, and start thinking about innovations that are not permitted due to the Ritual or the Landmarks.
I'm not sure if this is as large of problem in Jurisdictions that have adopted written versions of the Landmarks or not.
When it comes to changing the ritual, it should take a super (90%) vote. For all the reasons previously mentioned, changing the ritual should be the most difficult thing to achieve. If, for example, the ritual was changed by a mere 3 words every 5-10 years, the meaning of the ritual would quickly be changed into something that means nothing. The real issue, as I see it, is the diminishing amount of votes over a couple years that it takes to change something like the ritual. A super majority (90%) should always be required to make changes to certain landmarks within the fraternity.
I too don't like the lowered vote requirements for Carry Over Resolutions in our Jurisdiction. I think that if 90% is required for passage in 2021, then 90% should be required in 2022 as well.
It seems to me that the easiest way to effect this change would be to simply do away with Carry Over Resolutions. If something does not reach the required percentage, then let it die, no matter how close it got. The Lodge that proposed the change could re-propose it if they felt they could get it across the line the next year, and have another year to convince the Craft of the wisdom of the change.
I do understand that Washington has had Carry Over Resolutions since the very beginning, but I don't know why.
My thought: when it comes to making changes to ritual or the WMC, any resolution which requires a 75% approval on the first ballot, but gets carried over to the next annual communication, should require the same 75% when the carryover comes to the second vote. Changes to the ritual should require a 90% approval. Changes to the WMC should require 75% approval. Just my thought...
I agree that a carry over should stay with the same required approval requirements. If it's not good enough the first time, how did it improve with age?
I feel we were intrusted with the ritual by the men who came before us, and should move slowly and deliberately in any adaptation, reinterpretation or even simple changes. I agree there needs to be a way to making changes, but it should be difficult. Our ritual is not just the words, but the meanings behind the words, the centuries of esoteric, philosophical and spiritual considerations are embedded in our rituals, and before anyone monkeys with it they should be adepts of its meaning. I think 90% should be required on every vote of a change to the rituals, and i think there should be a lot of dialogue before it happens, and opportunity to explore the impacts. Simple words can have great meaning. If it was up to me, 2/3 of the Lodges would have to approve a change to the ritual before it goes to GL for approval at 90%. Remember that GL is usually 400 or so of our Masons, and while many vote their Lodges will, many do not. GL represents about 3 or 4% of Masons in this state (assuming about 10,000 members) We should make every effort to include everyone's opinion, so we maximize the scrutiny of any change. I guarantee that somewhere, in some little Lodge, is a man who's depth of knowledge on the meanings of our rituals, and his quiet imput, could have massive impact.
Our Jurisprudence Committee has the ability to deem a Resolution out of order if it is somehow contrary to Masonry. Contrary to the Landmarks, Ritual, Customs, or Traditions.
But that is all they can do.
They don't have a mandate to deeply explore in the manner you suggest, nor do they have the ability to reject a terrible idea just because it is a terrible idea.
I think that is one of the reasons why it is so important that everyone who is eligible to attend the Annual Communication actually do so, or figure out some other way to ensure that their voice is heard. Even outside of the pandemic restrictions, a great many who are eligible voters do not attend each year.
We also have Lodges that go effectively unrepresented each year.
While every Lodge in Washington is required to attend, I believe that each year we have Lodges that show up in the morning, register, and then immediately sneak back home. I know for a fact that at least one Lodge did just that this year, and it was a year in which hugely important issues were being decided.
Any Lodge that has a Master and Wardens who would do such a thing as intentionally leave the Lodge unrepresented and without a vote, through the trick of registering and then leaving thinking that no one will notice is being led by frauds.
I would like to think that every man at the grand lodge communication is versed in every aspect of the ritual and its multifaceted meaning. Every line is important and conveys moral physical and spiritual truths. The extreme gravity behind changing anything requires careful consideration. I'm curious what three words are being considered and why. If it were too easy to change, the ritual would lose all meaning quickly and become nothing but an empty husk subject to the whims of the latest popular politically correct fad. I've seen it happen with grange ritual. All the beauty mystery and esoteric meaning in grange ritual has been lost to political correctness in a vain attempt to attract easily offended people. It didn't work and granges around the state are failing worse than lodges.
Bro. Jack, you make a very good point. I can think of at least one change, in the first degree that I'd like to see, but the question; Does the benifit of that change outweigh the risk of such a practice evolving into a fad and our ritual lost. I have to say that the risk outweighs the benifit.
If memory serves, there were three proposed changes to our ritual in Washington this year. The three words mentioned, the addition of a 'codified' ceremony for the disposition of orphaned aprons at the Apron Memorial, and the replacement of our current funeral services.
All three failed. I think it was good, for as you say, we can't get in the habit of changing our ritual. Once in a great while, when a change is truly needed, but we shouldn't be messing around with it willy nilly.
In the Installation ritual, the Master is reminded that he is to pay attention to all the duties of Masonry on convenient occasions.
'On Convenient Occasions' were the words proposed to be removed.
The resolution to do so failed, I believe primarily because of the reasons you mention.
Certainly in the world of today, our ritual is outdated, and contains some things that could offend the sensibilities of some, the type of people who look to be offended. I think you are correct though, we must never water down our ritual in order to appease. Even if we somehow thought it was a good idea, it would never work, for those who look to be offended will always find something to be offended about.
I agree that changing the ritual should be difficult. But the constant reasoning, usually fronted by GL of opposing change is cost, not the ritual itself. This attitude needs to change, especially when fixing the ritual for the sake of consistency across the three degrees.
But going back to any old monitor, you can see the changes that have been done over the past 100 years. It’s not like significant changes haven’t happened before. My main consideration is that when I am speaking or hearing the work, that its the same as our forefathers recited.
I think that any costs associated with ritual changes, at least here in Washington, would be quite insignificant. It would require re-printing the small number of copies of plain text that are held by the Grand Lodge is all.
People buy their own cyphers from the Grand Lodge, so that would be a personal and not organizational expense, and again would be insignificant.
You are correct of course, there have been extremely significant ritual changes in the past. Of course the adoption of our Preston/Webb work as a whole would have been a massive change from whatever work was performed before it.
That begs the question, I think, if the time ever does come to make significant change, is it better to consider a comprehensive change as was done by Br. Webb, instead of tiny piecemeal changes over time?
Like you, I appreciate knowing that what I am hearing is the same as has been heard for generations before me.
I enjoy the footing of this question. The essence is "how do we change ritual". The essence is NOT what's more typical where I am which is "How do we keep the ritual pure and inviolate". I'm in a mouth-to-ear jurisdiction and it seems to me, partially as a student of history -- that the ritual does inevitably change. Jurisdictions drift, language usage changes, the whole 9 yards. As a result, it is a 100% certainty that ritual will change. (Keeping it the same is like trying to resist earthquakes, erosion, and other natural processes). So let's be intentional and thoughtful about that change.
I don't know what the right % of the vote is, but I have some thoughts about deliberative design. First: we read petitions and then require they lay over. If initiating a man is a good idea it'll still be a good idea next month. Time in the process acts as a buffer against rash decisions and time (by itself) tends not to stop good ideas that have popular support.
Second, there may be classes of reasons why something can't be brought to a vote at all, but it's useful to require a high evidentiary bar for those. In terms of ritual change, an excellent reason to never bring it to a vote in the first place would be things like, (a) causes mutual recognition issues with other jurisdictions, (b) impinges on one of the ancient landmarks and maybe others too. Enlightenment era thinking, you have a "constitution" there to *prohibit* a narrow set of changes that would undermine the constitutions, this is almost "outside of democracy". You don't get to vote to undermine the 1st amendment for example. If you had to change that, you must change the constitutions first. So too with ritual.
So we start to have certain "guard rails":
- Which parts of ritual can change? Definitely some, but perhaps not all, depending.
- How can the language change? Requires a lot of discretion, but there are guardrails, i.e. "Not in any way which would undermine the constitutions"
- When can they change? This is a question of layover, grand annual communication, etc.
Then % vote is just one question on process.
I think that your point about the Landmarks is vitally important, and unfortunately often misunderstood by seemingly a good number of Masons in my Jurisdiction.
This is, I think, because Washington has never adopted a written set of Landmarks. We do of course recognize the Landmarks of Masonry, and follow them, but they aren't written down. The fact that we've not written them seems to make at least some of our Brothers forget that they exist, and that of course requires explanation and education.
Often, I encounter Masons who view the Washington Masonic Code (Our Constitution, bylaws, rules, & regulations) as the only and highest form of Masonic Law in our Jurisdiction.
This is of course not true. Our highest Law (as it is everywhere) are the Landmarks. This is followed by our Ritual. No provision of the Code can conflict with either the Landmarks or our Ritual and be valid.
Our Code itself actually makes that point, but far too many seem to skip over that part, and start thinking about innovations that are not permitted due to the Ritual or the Landmarks.
I'm not sure if this is as large of problem in Jurisdictions that have adopted written versions of the Landmarks or not.
When it comes to changing the ritual, it should take a super (90%) vote. For all the reasons previously mentioned, changing the ritual should be the most difficult thing to achieve. If, for example, the ritual was changed by a mere 3 words every 5-10 years, the meaning of the ritual would quickly be changed into something that means nothing. The real issue, as I see it, is the diminishing amount of votes over a couple years that it takes to change something like the ritual. A super majority (90%) should always be required to make changes to certain landmarks within the fraternity.
I too don't like the lowered vote requirements for Carry Over Resolutions in our Jurisdiction. I think that if 90% is required for passage in 2021, then 90% should be required in 2022 as well.
It seems to me that the easiest way to effect this change would be to simply do away with Carry Over Resolutions. If something does not reach the required percentage, then let it die, no matter how close it got. The Lodge that proposed the change could re-propose it if they felt they could get it across the line the next year, and have another year to convince the Craft of the wisdom of the change.
I do understand that Washington has had Carry Over Resolutions since the very beginning, but I don't know why.
My thought: when it comes to making changes to ritual or the WMC, any resolution which requires a 75% approval on the first ballot, but gets carried over to the next annual communication, should require the same 75% when the carryover comes to the second vote. Changes to the ritual should require a 90% approval. Changes to the WMC should require 75% approval. Just my thought...
I agree that a carry over should stay with the same required approval requirements. If it's not good enough the first time, how did it improve with age?
I think your point is extremely valid.
If a change truly is positive, then the Lodge that proposed it can take another year to sell the idea to the Brothers.
That is much better than just lowering the requirements so that it can pass a little easier.
I agree. 100%.
Great comments, everyone. Seems like a good excuse for one of my favorite quotes.
Tradition is not the worship of ashes but the preservation of fire.
— Gustav Mahler
That is an excellent quote! Thank you for sharing it here!
I feel we were intrusted with the ritual by the men who came before us, and should move slowly and deliberately in any adaptation, reinterpretation or even simple changes. I agree there needs to be a way to making changes, but it should be difficult. Our ritual is not just the words, but the meanings behind the words, the centuries of esoteric, philosophical and spiritual considerations are embedded in our rituals, and before anyone monkeys with it they should be adepts of its meaning. I think 90% should be required on every vote of a change to the rituals, and i think there should be a lot of dialogue before it happens, and opportunity to explore the impacts. Simple words can have great meaning. If it was up to me, 2/3 of the Lodges would have to approve a change to the ritual before it goes to GL for approval at 90%. Remember that GL is usually 400 or so of our Masons, and while many vote their Lodges will, many do not. GL represents about 3 or 4% of Masons in this state (assuming about 10,000 members) We should make every effort to include everyone's opinion, so we maximize the scrutiny of any change. I guarantee that somewhere, in some little Lodge, is a man who's depth of knowledge on the meanings of our rituals, and his quiet imput, could have massive impact.
Our Jurisprudence Committee has the ability to deem a Resolution out of order if it is somehow contrary to Masonry. Contrary to the Landmarks, Ritual, Customs, or Traditions.
But that is all they can do.
They don't have a mandate to deeply explore in the manner you suggest, nor do they have the ability to reject a terrible idea just because it is a terrible idea.
I think that is one of the reasons why it is so important that everyone who is eligible to attend the Annual Communication actually do so, or figure out some other way to ensure that their voice is heard. Even outside of the pandemic restrictions, a great many who are eligible voters do not attend each year.
We also have Lodges that go effectively unrepresented each year.
While every Lodge in Washington is required to attend, I believe that each year we have Lodges that show up in the morning, register, and then immediately sneak back home. I know for a fact that at least one Lodge did just that this year, and it was a year in which hugely important issues were being decided.
Any Lodge that has a Master and Wardens who would do such a thing as intentionally leave the Lodge unrepresented and without a vote, through the trick of registering and then leaving thinking that no one will notice is being led by frauds.