# Back (ward?) to the Future



## My Freemasonry (Nov 6, 2014)

Several contentious years of Grand Lodge politics have culminated in an unprecedented (in Connecticut, anyway) upheaval in which the progressive Grand Line officers were voted out and replaced by a new line of elected officers. The hotly contested elections (reportedly needing four votings to arrive at a majority) ended with the election of two Past […]
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





Continue reading...


----------



## dfreybur (Nov 6, 2014)

This has been widely discussed on one of the mailing lists I am on.  The list is run by a CT brother.  Until now it was the only place I've seen it discussed.  I find it fascinating that this has been happening for many months and it's only been discussed in so few places.  Internal issue, internal resolution; that's educational in and of itself.  I'd like to know more of what it was about but I don't have a "need to know" so if they chose to not discuss the events in greater detail I'm okay with that part being educational as well.

Last year's sitting GM ejected the DGM and some other members of the elected and appointed grand line.  I don't know if he we expelled or not so I use the word "ejected" here in spite of its less exact meaning.  Then for lack of a successor continued on as GM for the next term.  This did not sit well with the representatives, who ended up forcing an emergency election and electing the previous DGM in spite of his having been ejected.

I write about the difference between power and authority.  Authority is what the rules say you can do.  I've never seen in the rule books of my 3 jurisdictions whether the GM has the authority to expel members of the elected grand line.  Then again I've never seen a GM expel an elected member of the grand line to test that lack of mention.  Power is what you can get away with.  It looks like he got away with it for 6 months.  If I were a delegate at GL I'd vote for the DGM against a GM trying to stay in office, no matter the DGM's official membership status.  I have no desire to grant any GM enough power to keep himself in office.

Was this an example of a grand line gone power mad?  I don't know.  When France went off the rails the UGLE pulled recognition and so did many other jurisdictions.  That did not happen in this case.  There don't seem to have been any extreme changes in policy other than grand line membership.  At least not changes that have been visible outside of CT.

Was this a movement towards Traditional Observance as mentioned in the responses to the post?  I don't know that either.  I know that I sympathize with most of the points of the TO movement but when it comes to the progressive line  in individual lodges I think they miss the benefits of many brothers moving up through the chairs has on our membership.  And I think if some TO group were to try to break the progression of grand line chairs I would stand in their way and vote against them.

A hilarious bumper sticker I saw last night - Knowledge is power.  Power corrupts.  Read lots of books.  Be evil.


----------



## Tom Accuosti (Nov 8, 2014)

Hi Doug - 

This was *not* a case of the current GM trying to retain power. Conn traditionally has had a one year term, with a progressive Grand Line; nine officers, one from each district in a rotating basis. Over the last few years, the population differences in the districts compelled the GL to take a closer look at the district structure and they spent several years trying to get ideas from the Craft on how to better arrange things. The recent attempt to split the districts up more equitably was one of the touchy issues for a lot of the members. 

The DGM was suspended while an investigation and trial commission could be planned. The reasons I won't make public, but unfortunately it was seen as improper by a lot of the Craft. Conn is a small state, and he was fairly well liked. Things could probably have been handled better, but there really wasn't much precedent for this. Knowing the little bit that I have been told, I don't see that he (the GM) had much of a choice, but no matter what, this wasn't going to end well. Even at the Semi-Annual Communication, what happened was wrong, but there was not any way to respolve thigns that the majority of people would have agreed would have been right. 

My own _opinion _is that some of the brothers who were ticked off at his suspension used it as a means to stir up some bad feeling at the Grand Master, and from there, to rally some members to vote the other officers out. I stress that this is my opinion because I'm not close enough to either side to know what actually was going on. 

The comment about TO was out of the blue, and I'm now wondering about the rumors I've been hearing that there is an underground TO movement that has been influencing GL politics around the US and Canada.


----------



## JJones (Nov 8, 2014)

> The comment about TO was out of the blue, and I'm now wondering about the rumors I've been hearing that there is an underground TO movement that has been influencing GL politics around the US and Canada.



With the popularity of TO among some states and members here in the US then I'd like to think such rumors are true or will be in the near future.


----------



## RyanC (Nov 8, 2014)

The GM of NY is very in favor of TO lodges. I think we are past the point where most GM think TO lodges are out to destroy the Fraternity. In a TO lodge they have the best man/men in key positions, wow now their is a concept.


----------



## dfreybur (Nov 10, 2014)

RyanC said:


> In a TO lodge they have the best man/men in key positions, wow now their is a concept.



In Masonry we make good men better.  One of the strategies to that end is putting men through the progressive line so they get a full program of leadership and administration mentorship, training and education.  The progressive line builds leaders.  It's one of the core values in Masonry.

In most of the US any lodge that stops having a progressive line is a lodge that can no longer draw enough membership from the community to continue functioning.  It's the death knell of a lodge.  For a lodge to voluntarily move away from the plan to build leaders is to voluntarily abandon one of the least hidden of our methods to build leaders.

There's a parallel at the grand line level.  The progressive line in lodge helps to build leadership at least at the neighborhood level.   The progressive line in grand lodge helps to build leadership at least at the state level.  Platonics held Marcus Antonius Aurelius as their ideal for building kings into philosophers for a better society.  US Masons hold Washington, Truman and other Masonic Presidents as our ideals for building Presidents into world leaders through Masonry for a better society.  In the UK the goal to have a GM of the royal blood can be seen as much a long term strategy to improve the royal family as it is a strategy to have  leadership trained from birth in leadership and administration.


----------



## NY.Light (Nov 10, 2014)

dfreybur said:


> In Masonry we make good men better.  One of the strategies to that end is putting men through the progressive line so they get a full program of leadership and administration mentorship, training and education.  The progressive line builds leaders.  It's one of the core values in Masonry.
> 
> In most of the US any lodge that stops having a progressive line is a lodge that can no longer draw enough membership from the community to continue functioning.  It's the death knell of a lodge.  For a lodge to voluntarily move away from the plan to build leaders is to voluntarily abandon one of the least hidden of our methods to build leaders.
> 
> There's a parallel at the grand line level.  The progressive line in lodge helps to build leadership at least at the neighborhood level.   The progressive line in grand lodge helps to build leadership at least at the state level.  Platonics held Marcus Antonius Aurelius as their ideal for building kings into philosophers for a better society.  US Masons hold Washington, Truman and other Masonic Presidents as our ideals for building Presidents into world leaders through Masonry for a better society.  In the UK the goal to have a GM of the royal blood can be seen as much a long term strategy to improve the royal family as it is a strategy to have  leadership trained from birth in leadership and administration.


 
Not quite sure about the last bit of analysis, considering the GM of UGLE isn't in the immediate succession for the crown.  

While I think many points are valid, I would offer that the progressive line can also pose a threat, in the sense that it is expected.  Essentially, if things are given to an individual freely, by nature the individual will not only come to expect it, but also feel less of a need to work towards it as a goal.  This is true within masonry, as well as in the broader "real"/profane world.  To illustrate, if I a man starts in working the progressive line, he can reasonably calculate, depending On the norms of his lodge and his jurisdiction, how long it will be until he will sit as Worshipful.  This mentality engenders a sense of entitlement.  This is obviously not the case everywhere, but the risk is present that life may become stagnant by having a number of members who simply "do their time" in the lower chairs until the reach WM.  To put it more rhetorically, a lodge may have a number of men who have sat as WM, but may not have many men who have been true Worshipful Masters.  This is the danger posed to any organization that is institutionalized.

"Building leaders" can be either a very apt description of a manifestation of Masonry, but it can also be a meaningless element of a broader, bureaucratic-like system.  Ultimately, this is not the result of whether a lodge utilizes the progressive line or not, but of the individual members in the lodge.  IMHO, from my limited POV, not yet being a brother,  TO lodges seem to form men in a more complete way. Either form, TO or otherwise, can accomplish this.  We should focus on meaningful instruction of individual members first, then concern ourselves over lodge organization and practice.


----------



## dfreybur (Nov 10, 2014)

NY.Light said:


> Essentially, if things are given to an individual freely, by nature the individual will not only come to expect it, but also feel less of a need to work towards it as a goal.



Going through the progressive line is a vast amount of work.  The details vary jurisdiction to jurisdiction but it it at least required to learn much of the ritual (in most jurisdictions all of opening/closing, degrees, in many also the lectures) plus GL sponsored leadership programs and formal business education.

What you have described is the danger of a lodge dying and no longer being able to put its officers through the process for lack of choice, not of men growing complacent in lodges able to keep their line functioning.  Being so new you apparently have not yet learned that having to jump chairs or having PMs in chairs is a sign that a lodge is in danger of losing its charter.  There exist lodges that are standardly in this state but it is not in the founding design.  The founding design is that lodges are born, live, grow old and die.  US jurisdictions in recent decades resist this natural process but that's a blip on the radar lastly only a trivial few decades.


----------



## JJones (Nov 10, 2014)

The progressive line does have it's place when done correctly and I do feel a brother should move through the majority, if not all, of the line before sitting in the East.  That being said, one of the biggest disservices we can do to our lodges and our fraternity as a whole is to advance someone through the line who either won't/can't learn the work, doesn't attend meetings, causes disharmony in the lodge, or simply isn't leadership material.

I also don't agree with advancing the line on a yearly basis.  If the WM is doing a great job  then let him stay in the East and let the majority of the officers maintain their positions if they're willing.  If something works why mess with it?  When the siting WM is ready to pass the hat then you'll (ideally) have a much more qualified line ready to advance.



> having PMs in chairs is a sign that a lodge is in danger of losing its charter.



Not to disagree (and I'm not fond of this fact either) but probably every lodge in my area has the majority of it's offices filled by PMs.  Another reason why, at least IMO, there's no point in rushing the line.


----------



## crono782 (Nov 10, 2014)

I've usually said that I don't like the progressive line, but that's not quite right. The progressive line has merits, in that it lets you work up to the East and experience all the duties along the way. What I do NOT like is the de facto one-year term limits. If a set of officers is really killing it, why oust them?


----------



## Warrior1256 (Nov 10, 2014)

Excuse my ignorance brothers but what does TO refer to and how is this different?


----------



## JJones (Nov 10, 2014)

Warrior1256 said:


> Excuse my ignorance brothers but what does TO refer to and how is this different?



This link will explain it far better than I ever can.  

http://masonicrestorationfoundation.org/


----------



## Warrior1256 (Nov 11, 2014)

JJones said:


> This link will explain it far better than I ever can.
> 
> http://masonicrestorationfoundation.org/


Excellent information, thank you brother.


----------



## millennialfreemason (Nov 12, 2014)

Sadly, TO is seen as this magic panacea for Masonry. It's not. It's simply another style of Masonry that does not necessarily provide more in the way of substance. 
I agree with you, @dfreybur. The progressive line is important. I view its importance as less about building leaders (I'm from the school of thought that believes you've either got leadership potential or you don't. It's not a learned behavior) and more a way for a brother to learn everyone's job.


----------

