# self expulsion in Arkansas



## Rifleman1776 (Oct 24, 2014)

Heard a new one recently. With the ongoing kerfluffle in Arkansas, the GM no longer allows demits. The Arkansaas GL has lost many-many members to other states to get away from the issue. But, someone came up with the idea of self-explusion. The GMs of other state, like Missouri, where my lodge now is, will accept a self-expelled Brother. Really, what a sad mess in Arkansas.


----------



## RyanC (Oct 25, 2014)

I don't see how a Grand Lodge could not let a member demit. If this is true this is a classic example of the Grand lodge over stepping it's due bounds, and if true it seems like it is always the same ones (GL) doing it too.


----------



## dfreybur (Oct 25, 2014)

Not allowing brothers to demit is a landmark violation.  No idea which written one but the landmarks are the unwritten foundation so for all I know this one never was written down.  It has to do with personal responsibility and choice of the brethren.

There is a difference between power and authority.  Power is what you can get away with.  Authority is what you're allowed to do.  Clearly the current grand line in Arkansas has no idea of this concept.

It is past deadline to submit legislation for 2014 in all 3 of my jurisdictions.  California returns are already in and I've read them.  Illinois returns are already in but I haven't read them yet.  Texas is at the start of December.

So the time to start marketing for support in legislation is January.  It's time to pull recognition from a grand line out of control just like UGLE did with GNLF a few years ago.  If anyone wants to submit in a state I have PM status I would like to sign.  In Texas I'm more interested in correcting PH relations issue so that's what I'll be pitching when I attend meetings here.  Pulling recognition from Arkansas is something I want at this point but it's not at the top of my priority list.


----------



## Pscyclepath (Oct 25, 2014)

Not true.  Dimits are handled by the local Lodge.  Under the Arkansas Digest ofLaws, all a brother has to do is to request a dimit in open lodge.  If the brother is square on the books, and no other brother objects, then the Master orders the dimit to be issued.  The only restriction is that neither the Master nor the wardens may dimit during their terms of office.

I've spent a good bit of time with the GM this past weekend, and other officers of the grand line, and there is no such edict from the Grand Lodge.  I'm not sure where the story came from, but it's bogus.

Self-expulsion from Masonry is provided for under Section 4.0.29 of the Digest.  It is used for several purposes,but is pertinent in this circumstance in that it is specified in a Grand Lodge letter dated August 6, 2013:  "If an Arkansas Mason wishes to join the Shrine and you are a Master Mason only in the grand Jurisdiction of Arkansas -- you will need to self-expel from Masonry in order to avoid violation of Masonic law and resulting trial for violation of your Masonic obligations."

Not sure about other jurisdictions, but self-expulsion is permanent and irreversible, and we all have a tie in our obligation concerning sitting in lodge with a suspended or expelled Mason.


----------



## Rifleman1776 (Oct 26, 2014)

Pscyclepath said:


> Not true.  Dimits are handled by the local Lodge.  Under the Arkansas Digest ofLaws, all a brother has to do is to request a dimit in open lodge.  If the brother is square on the books, and no other brother objects, then the Master orders the dimit to be issued.  The only restriction is that neither the Master nor the wardens may dimit during their terms of office.
> 
> I've spent a good bit of time with the GM this past weekend, and other officers of the grand line, and there is no such edict from the Grand Lodge.  I'm not sure where the story came from, but it's bogus.
> 
> ...


 
There is just too much in your post to respond to every point. I know many Brothers who were denied demits by GM. So many that the GM of Missouri (and reportedly other states) agreed to accept Brothers without the Arkansas GM signing off on them. I have seen several GL "letters", most filled with errors and misrepresentations. To the best of my knowledge it is not a violation of Arkansas Masonic for a Brother to also be a Shriner. It is no more a 'violation' than if a Brother were a member of the Methodist church or Elks or anything. Your description of the demit process is very unlike anything I have seen in my 30 years of membership in Arkansas Masonry. I have never seen a request for demit in open Lodge.


----------



## Companion Joe (Oct 26, 2014)

This is for Tennessee and my experiences only in Tennessee, so it has no bearing on the topic .. but

Here, if you desire a demit, you submit it in writing to the secretary. The letter is read in open lodge (the person does not have to be, and I have never seen them, there). If the member is in good standing, a demit has to be granted. The lodge has no choice but to give it.


----------



## Brother JC (Oct 26, 2014)

That's how I've seen it done in NM and CA, as well. In fact, one was read this month, requested by our JW, who was sitting in the South at the time. It was a sad moment, actually.


----------



## Bill Lins (Oct 26, 2014)

Same thing under GLoTX, except sitting officers may not demit during their term of office.


----------



## Pscyclepath (Oct 26, 2014)

Ir is indeed a violation of Masonic law for an Arkansas Mason, under the jurisdiction of the Grand Lodge of Arkansas, to be an active member of Shriners International, to petition the Shrine, to communicate Masonically with Shriners, or participate in any function sponsored by the Shrine or held in the Shrine Temple (Section 2.1.42 of the Arkansas Digest of Laws, and as explained in a series of letters of clarification).  This extends outside the state, for example if I go visit my sisters in Texas or Mississippi, I am still prohibited from visiting any Shrine facility or function.

For example, our lodge has a fundraising project in which we operate the concession stands at Baron Coliseum on the state fairgrounds for events at the Coliseum.  This weekend, the Shrine Circus leased the coliseum, ad we were needed for the concessions.  We had to get a dispensation from the Grand Master in order to fulfill our running contract with the coliseum, since a Shrine function would be going on there.  In fact, I just got back from working the last night there...   Shrine in Arkansas is no longer a Masonic organization; since last year they have been able to take just about anyone off the street and make them Shriners, without being Masons first.  Since they allow non-Masons to attend tyled meetings, the entire Shriners International is clandestine within the jurisdiction of Arkansas.

But dimits are still a function of the Secretary in the local lodge, and the Grand Master doesn't have anything to do with them under ordinary circumstances.


----------



## Bill Lins (Oct 27, 2014)

Pscyclepath said:


> Shrine in Arkansas is no longer a Masonic organization; since last year they have been able to take just about anyone off the street and make them Shriners, without being Masons first.  Since they allow non-Masons to attend tyled meetings, the entire Shriners International is clandestine within the jurisdiction of Arkansas.


Bro. Tom, I'm neither "trolling" nor arguing, just confused. How is it that the Arkansas Grand Master has the authority to forbid Arkansas Masons from joining or belonging to an organization which does not predicate membership upon Masonic membership? A former GM here in Texas tried the same thing some years back (not involving the Shrine) and got his head handed to him over it.


----------



## Morris (Oct 27, 2014)

Yeah. I'm a little confused too. I sit in lodge with Shriners but only because they are Masons. So does someone from Arky have to ask if someone is a Mason, to which he replies yes, and then follow up and ask if he is also a Shriner?  

I get that now all Shriners aren't Masons but all recognized Masons are Masons. I think I may be reading it wrong, sorry if that's the case. 

Maybe all Shriners are considered the same as PHA in Arky in terms of recognition?


----------



## Morris (Oct 27, 2014)

Pscyclepath said:


> since last year they have been able to take just about anyone off the street and make them Shriners, without being Masons first.  Since they allow non-Masons to attend tyled meetings.



I don't really know what goes on in Shriner meetings but I recognize the word "tyled" and is this a pretty big deal?  How much are these non-masons being privied too?


----------



## RyanC (Oct 27, 2014)

The question I have, other than Ark. every Shriner needs to be a MM, So how many members of the Shrine are not MM? It seems in Ark. most have left the state and joined GLs bordering states.


----------



## dfreybur (Oct 27, 2014)

Rifleman1776 said:


> I have never seen a request for demit in open Lodge.



To me that's very strange, but different jurisdiction different rules.

One of my jurisdictions the WM asks if there be any objection then orders the demit granted - I have no idea what happens if a brother objects.  Opening and searching the index of the California Masonic Code for the applicable rules.  The last time I read them completely was long ago.  Two of my jurisdictions the Sec reads the request, confirms the brother is in good standing and says copies of the form will be sent to the brother and the G Sec because there is no choice but to grant demit requests.

I've seen a brother not in good standing request a demit.  It's up to the generosity of the lodge members in attendance if they want to "remit" his dues to bring him current to allow the demit.  As the lodge pays per capita each year for remitted members it's not automatic, a form of voluntary contribution by the lodge to the grand lodge.  I've stood to make the motion.

I started out puzzled how the GM would even know that a brother was asking for a demit.  It looks like he's receiving reports from the G Sec and retroactively denying them.  As the brother in question is no longer a member it is questionable how much authority the GM holds over such a member.  Ex post facto acts are yet another point where power is what you can get away with compared to authority is what the rules say you can do.  There's no way the rules of any GL can grant even a GM ex post facto authority - Legislation needs to go through the committee on jurisprudence who would never grant such a decline form civilization into tyrannical barbarism.


----------



## Warrior1256 (Oct 27, 2014)

All of this information is very interesting to a new MM but at the same time somewhat confusing. Do not know about self expulsion or demitting here in Kentucky but am going to find out just for my own information.


----------



## RyanC (Oct 27, 2014)

Demitting would be to leave your lodge, if you move and want to join a new lodge and not pay dues to two lodges you would demit for one lodge.


----------



## Rifleman1776 (Oct 27, 2014)

Warrior, do not use Arkansas as an example.  The state Grand Line _seems_ to do what it wishes without regard to Masonic law or tradition.


----------



## Warrior1256 (Oct 27, 2014)

Rifleman1776 said:


> Warrior, do not use Arkansas as an example.  The state Grand Line _seems_ to do what it wishes without regard to Masonic law or tradition.


Thanks for the advise brother.


----------



## Companion Joe (Oct 27, 2014)

Bill_Lins77488 said:


> Bro. Tom, I'm neither "trolling" nor arguing, just confused. How is it that the Arkansas Grand Master has the authority to forbid Arkansas Masons from joining or belonging to an organization which does not predicate membership upon Masonic membership? A former GM here in Texas tried the same thing some years back (not involving the Shrine) and got his head handed to him over it.



This is something that I, too, am curious about. 

If this is the case, what is to say a rouge GM can't say members can't also belong to the Moose, of Kiwanis, or Sons of Confederate Veterans, or whatever?


----------



## Warrior1256 (Oct 28, 2014)

Companion Joe said:


> This is something that I, too, am curious about.
> 
> If this is the case, what is to say a rouge GM can't say members can't also belong to the Moose, of Kiwanis, or Sons of Confederate Veterans, or whatever?


Good question. I'd like to know the answer myself.


----------



## dfreybur (Oct 28, 2014)

Companion Joe said:


> If this is the case, what is to say a rouge GM can't say members can't also belong to the Moose, of Kiwanis, or Sons of Confederate Veterans, or whatever?



Authority is what the rules say you can do.  Our rules don't address completely separate orders.  Because the Shrine does require Masonry everywhere but Arkansas declaring the Shrine not recognized is within the authority of a GM.  Though not declaring the Shrine clandestine nor expelling brothers without local trial.

Power is what you can get away with.  As none of those orders have every been affiliated with Masonry the chances of some rogue GM getting away with it is low.

Denying the GM the ability to dictate expulsions isn't something easily legislated for an assortment of reasons.  That's why it's so important to have written codes for exactly how and when a GM should expel.  Like considering a criminal trial to have the same authority and a Masonic trial as so many jurisdictions do.


----------



## Warrior1256 (Oct 28, 2014)

dfreybur said:


> Authority is what the rules say you can do.  Our rules don't address completely separate orders.  Because the Shrine does require Masonry everywhere but Arkansas declaring the Shrine not recognized is within the authority of a GM.  Though not declaring the Shrine clandestine nor expelling brothers without local trial.
> 
> Power is what you can get away with.  As none of those orders have every been affiliated with Masonry the chances of some rogue GM getting away with it is low.
> 
> Denying the GM the ability to dictate expulsions isn't something easily legislated for an assortment of reasons.  That's why it's so important to have written codes for exactly how and when a GM should expel.  Like considering a criminal trial to have the same authority and a Masonic trial as so many jurisdictions do.


Thanks for clearing this up. I was curious as to the answer.


----------

