# GL of Louisiana withdraws recognition of GEKT



## texanmason (Aug 20, 2018)

Today in "which Grand Lodge goes nuclear this month," the GM of Louisiana withdrew recognition of the Grand Encampment of Knights Templar. KTs are only allowed to continue Templary if they are operating outside of the GEKT.

https://freemasonsfordummies.blogspot.com/2018/08/gl-of-louisiana-withdraws-recognition.html?m=1

TL;DR: a Past Grand Master of  ̶G̶E̶K̶T̶  _the GLoLA (and PGC of the GCKTLA)_ got expelled from the GLoLA, GEKT did not expel him and recognized him as a  ̶M̶E̶G̶M̶  _Departmental Commander_. GLoLA went nuclear.


----------



## chrmc (Aug 20, 2018)

I agree to a certain extent that LA had a very harsh reaction, but what were they supposed to do? We can all clearly see that GEKT is in the wrong here, so when they go out of they way to recognize the expelled member, let him keep all his titles etc. what's the next step for the Grand Master? 

To a certain extent when you get challenged that clearly in public you have to respond. Especially when it seems the expulsion was justified to begin with (from what I'm reading). 

But yeah, Masonic politics and all that...


----------



## Matt L (Aug 20, 2018)

It's a beautiful day in the neighborhood.  Does anyone know the reason the PGM got expelled?  The GE is going against their own Constitution.


----------



## Glen Cook (Aug 20, 2018)

texanmason said:


> Today in "which Grand Lodge goes nuclear this month," the GM of Louisiana withdrew recognition of the Grand Encampment of Knights Templar. KTs are only allowed to continue Templary if they are operating outside of the GEKT.
> 
> https://freemasonsfordummies.blogspot.com/2018/08/gl-of-louisiana-withdraws-recognition.html?m=1
> 
> ...


Umm, Past Grand Commander of LA Grand Commandery?


----------



## Warrior1256 (Aug 21, 2018)

Sad state of affairs.


----------



## texanmason (Aug 21, 2018)

chrmc said:


> I agree to a certain extent that LA had a very harsh reaction, but what were they supposed to do? We can all clearly see that GEKT is in the wrong here, so when they go out of they way to recognize the expelled member, let him keep all his titles etc. what's the next step for the Grand Master?
> 
> To a certain extent when you get challenged that clearly in public you have to respond. Especially when it seems the expulsion was justified to begin with (from what I'm reading).
> 
> But yeah, Masonic politics and all that...



Oh, I agree, the GLoLA is in the right. This is just kind of the nuclear option, IMO.



Matt L said:


> It's a beautiful day in the neighborhood.  Does anyone know the reason the PGM got expelled?  The GE is going against their own Constitution.



See page 170 of the 2016-2017 GLoLA proceedings for the reason behind his initial suspension. 

http://library.la-mason.com/PastProceedings/2017/2016-2017.pdf



Glen Cook said:


> Umm, Past Grand Commander of LA Grand Commandery?



My apologies, Bro. Glen. I misread the post. DuTreil is both a Past Grand Master of the Grand Lodge and a Past Grand Commander of the Grand Commandery. I somehow screwed that up in my head as a "Past Grand Master of the Grand Encampment." 

Error noted & appropriate edits made - thank you for pointing that out!


----------



## chrmc (Aug 21, 2018)

texanmason said:


> See page 170 of the 2016-2017 GLoLA proceedings for the reason behind his initial suspension.
> 
> http://library.la-mason.com/PastProceedings/2017/2016-2017.pdf



Thanks for this. I must admit the more I read about this, the more I think we need to applaud the GLoLA. Seems like they've had a crappy situation with a PGM that they've handled as professional, Masonic and transparent as possible. Not often we see that in Masonic politics. 

Seems like they are clearly in the right here and some harsh criticism  needs to be aimed at the Grand Encampment.


----------



## Keith C (Aug 21, 2018)

Matt L said:


> It's a beautiful day in the neighborhood.  Does anyone know the reason the PGM got expelled?  The GE is going against their own Constitution.





> •APPEALS AND GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT
> (Cont)• Case #39-2017, Grand Lodge v. Frank N. DuTreil, Jr.
> FACTS: On June 7, 2017, Grand Master Will P. Gray issued a letter suspending Frank N. DuTreil, Jr., Past Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of the State of Louisiana, from Freemasonry for Unmasonic Conduct pursuant to the Handbook of Masonic Law, General Regulations, art. IV, § 1 (a), p. 24; the Handbook of Masonic Law, Digest of Edicts, Edict on “Suspension and Suspended Masons,”¶ 11, p. 109; and the Handbook of Masonic Law, Digest of Edicts, Edict on “Masonic Offences and Unmasonic Conduct, “ ¶ 4, p. 96. On June 30, 2017, said letter was personally served upon Frank N. DuTreil, Jr.
> 
> ...


----------



## Glen Cook (Aug 21, 2018)

chrmc said:


> Thanks for this. I must admit the more I read about this, the more I think we need to applaud the GLoLA. Seems like they've had a crappy situation with a PGM that they've handled as professional, Masonic and transparent as possible. Not often we see that in Masonic politics.
> 
> Seems like they are clearly in the right here and some harsh criticism  needs to be aimed at the Grand Encampment.


PGMs are such a bother.


----------



## Bro. Stewart P.M. (Aug 21, 2018)

The irony, both Brethren Du Treil & WB Bilyeu were both a pleasure individuality and together, in person. In fact, if my memory serves correctly, they both are charter members of O.K. Allen Lodge #33 with me. 

Sadly I had to demit a few years back... I simply couldn’t get over to any of the meetings.


----------



## Warrior1256 (Aug 21, 2018)

chrmc said:


> Seems like they are clearly in the right here and some harsh criticism needs to be aimed at the Grand Encampment.


Seems like it to me.


----------



## LK600 (Aug 21, 2018)

Interesting.  From what I read, his expulsion is the VERY LEAST of what should or could have happened.  I think I have to be on the side of the GLoLA on this.


----------



## Warrior1256 (Aug 22, 2018)

LK600 said:


> Interesting. From what I read, his expulsion is the VERY LEAST of what should or could have happened. I think I have to be on the side of the GLoLA on this.


Same here.


----------



## Bloke (Aug 22, 2018)

I dont think I have read a single comment on this which has not been supportive of GLofL - that doesn't happen very often.

While we are only reading one side of this expulsion, the reality is even if it was unjust, the excluded looses the right to sit in an appendant Masonic Body.... and the only place to fix that is within the Body of the GL where the expulsion took place, not by welcoming the expelled into your Chapter, Encampment, Shrine, Conclave etc etc


----------



## Bloke (Aug 22, 2018)

Glen Cook said:


> PGMs are such a bother.


I'd take 50 painful PMGs over a painful GM anyday


----------



## chrmc (Aug 22, 2018)

Another interesting thing, which I think brother Cook brought up on another site, is the fact that my having an expelled brother sit in on the sessions, the Grand Encampment most likely made a lot of members break their obligation, as they sat in lodge with a suspended Mason. 

Of course depends on the exact wording of the obligation, whether the session can be considered "a lodge" etc. but still makes you think. 

Must also say that I'm very surprised about the lack of comment in the thread from some of our very regular York Rite guys. Would have thought they would have had some comments...


----------



## Companion Joe (Aug 22, 2018)

I'm obviously a regular YR poster, and I have read this thread, but I honestly really don't have a major opinion or feeling on it. 
I don't disagree with the GM having the right to do what he did because YR bodies are Masonic. I also don't like Blue Lodge GMs getting heavy on heads of sovereign bodies. It's all just a peeing contest the fraternity could do without.


----------



## Glen Cook (Aug 22, 2018)

Bloke said:


> I'd take 50 painful PMGs over a painful GM anyday


Truth


----------



## LK600 (Aug 23, 2018)

Companion Joe said:


> I also don't like Blue Lodge GMs getting heavy on heads of sovereign bodies.



Let me first state I know very little about the appendant bodies beyond the basics, so this is more of a question that an argument.  It is my (limited) understanding there is no such thing as a Sovereign body in Masonry outside of the blue lodge(s).  All appendant bodies exist at the permission and the pleasure of Blue Lodge, and are to serve the sames needs.  Is this incorrect?  I have no disagreement with anything specifically that you wrote.


----------



## Warrior1256 (Aug 23, 2018)

Bloke said:


> I'd take 50 painful PMGs over a painful GM anyday


LOL!!!!


----------



## Keith C (Aug 23, 2018)

LK600 said:


> Let me first state I know very little about the appendant bodies beyond the basics, so this is more of a question that an argument.  It is my (limited) understanding there is no such thing as a Sovereign body in Masonry outside of the blue lodge(s).  All appendant bodies exist at the permission and the pleasure of Blue Lodge, and are to serve the sames needs.  Is this incorrect?  I have no disagreement with anything specifically that you wrote.



My understanding is "Sort of."

Except in PA, where the York Rite bodies are under direct control of the GM, Appendant Bodies are indeed independent.  However, the GM of the jurisdiction has the authority to allow or prevent MMs under their jurisdiction from joining and attending Appendant Bodies. So, except in PA, the Grand Chapter, Grand Council and Grand Commandry do not need any "approvals" from any Grand Lodge, they can be devoided of membership by decision of the GM.


----------



## Glen Cook (Aug 23, 2018)

Keith C said:


> My understanding is "Sort of."
> 
> Except in PA, where the York Rite bodies are under direct control of the GM, Appendant Bodies are indeed independent.  However, the GM of the jurisdiction has the authority to allow or prevent MMs under their jurisdiction from joining and attending Appendant Bodies. So, except in PA, the Grand Chapter, Grand Council and Grand Commandry do not need any "approvals" from any Grand Lodge, they can be devoided of membership by decision of the GM.


In some GLs, appendant bodies do need specific GM approval, and even GM approval of the bylaws.


----------



## Keith C (Aug 23, 2018)

Glen Cook said:


> In some GLs, appendant bodies do need specific GM approval, and even GM approval of the bylaws.



Thanks for the clarification!


----------



## texanmason (Aug 23, 2018)

LK600 said:


> Let me first state I know very little about the appendant bodies beyond the basics, so this is more of a question that an argument. It is my (limited) understanding there is no such thing as a Sovereign body in Masonry outside of the blue lodge(s). All appendant bodies exist at the permission and the pleasure of Blue Lodge, and are to serve the sames needs. Is this incorrect? I have no disagreement with anything specifically that you wrote.



Many appendant bodies are sovereign - however, there's the issue of regularity & stepping on toes. The Scottish Rite and CBCS, for example, have their own Craft degrees, but have agreed to not confer them in favor of being recognized by the various State & National grand lodges.


----------



## LK600 (Aug 23, 2018)

texanmason said:


> Many appendant bodies are sovereign - however, there's the issue of regularity & stepping on toes. The Scottish Rite and CBCS, for example, have their own Craft degrees, but have agreed to not confer them in favor of being recognized by the various State & National grand lodges.



Maybe it's the terminology I'm getting hung up on.  So, (depending on place) an appendant body is sovereign, but only if the GL in that area allows it to be (via allowing it's members to join or not)?  Seems confusing.


----------



## Companion Joe (Aug 23, 2018)

I used the term sovereign to mean not subservient to GLs. In my state, our Grand Chapter and Grand Council are actually chartered by our GL because we pulled out of the General Grand. Those charters could be yanked by the GM, but those bodies have their own duly elected grand heads, conduct their own business, control their own finances, etc. As long as the bodies aren't doing something in violation of the state Masonic code, they are independent. 

The big problem with situations like La. and Ark. is that a lot of people suffer because a few people can't get along and do what they are supposed to do.


----------



## Warrior1256 (Aug 23, 2018)

Keith C said:


> So, except in PA, the Grand Chapter, Grand Council and Grand Commandry do not need any "approvals" from any Grand Lodge, they can be devoided of membership by decision of the GM.


That is indeed the way it is here in Kentucky and, I assume, all states in the U.S.


LK600 said:


> Maybe it's the terminology I'm getting hung up on. So, (depending on place) an appendant body is sovereign, but only if the GL in that area allows it to be (via allowing it's members to join or not)? Seems confusing.


Yep, but that is the way that it is.


----------



## Warrior1256 (Aug 23, 2018)

Companion Joe said:


> The big problem with situations like La. and Ark. is that a lot of people suffer because a few people can't get along and do what they are supposed to do.


Agreed!


----------



## Bloke (Aug 23, 2018)

LK600 said:


> Let me first state I know very little about the appendant bodies beyond the basics, so this is more of a question that an argument.  It is my (limited) understanding there is no such thing as a Sovereign body in Masonry outside of the blue lodge(s).  All appendant bodies exist at the permission and the pleasure of Blue Lodge, and are to serve the sames needs.  Is this incorrect?  I have no disagreement with anything specifically that you wrote.


Appendant Bodies will vary, some being under control of or linked to a Craft GL others being Sovereign, but being appendant, they all have one thing in common - you need to be a Freemason to be a member, and if you cease to be a Freemason, you no longer qualify for the appendant body. That's part of the reason they are "appendant" bodies, even if Sovereign, the qualifications to join are ultimately controlled by the Craft. If not, they sit outside Freemasonry and are not appendant.


----------



## Warrior1256 (Aug 24, 2018)

Bloke said:


> hey all have one thing in common - you need to be a Freemason to be a member, and if you cease to be a Freemason, you no longer qualify for the appendant body.


Right. Here even if you are a life member of an appendant body if you are suspended or expelled from your Blue Lodge you are suspended from the appendant body for non-affiliation.


----------



## Glen Cook (Aug 24, 2018)

Warrior1256 said:


> Right. Here even if you are a life member of an appendant body if you are suspended or expelled from your Blue Lodge you are suspended from the appendant body for non-affiliation.


Shrine reserves the right to determine if the loss of the prerequisite was for a Shrine offense.


----------



## Warrior1256 (Aug 24, 2018)

Glen Cook said:


> Shrine reserves the right to determine if the loss of the prerequisite was for a Shrine offense.


I'm not quite sure what this means Brother Glen. Could you give me a brief explanation?


----------



## Glen Cook (Aug 24, 2018)

Glen Cook said:


> Shrine reserves the right to determine if the loss of the prerequisite was for a Shrine offense.


Example: loss of membership in GL AR for purportedly owning a liquor store. Owning a liquor store  is not a Shrine offense.  The Shriner was allowed to keep his Shrine membership.


----------



## Warrior1256 (Aug 24, 2018)

Glen Cook said:


> Example: loss of membership in GL AR for purportedly owning a liquor store. Owning a liquor store is not a Shrine offense. The Shriner was allowed to keep his Shrine membership.


Got it. I assume that the Shrine in AR does not require Blue Lodge membership in order to join.


----------



## Bloke (Aug 24, 2018)

Glen Cook said:


> Example: loss of membership in GL AR for purportedly owning a liquor store. Owning a liquor store  is not a Shrine offense.  The Shriner was allowed to keep his Shrine membership.


And how is that working out for the Shrine in AR ? Not well methinks


----------



## Warrior1256 (Aug 24, 2018)

Bloke said:


> And how is that working out for the Shrine in AR ? Not well methinks


That's why I assume that the Shrine in AR already does not require Blue Lodge affiliation to join.


----------



## Glen Cook (Aug 24, 2018)

Warrior1256 said:


> That's why I assume that the Shrine in AR already does not require Blue Lodge affiliation to join.


Not exactly. Rather, it was because of an attempt to suppress the order by GL AR in forbidding Shrine to its members.


----------



## Glen Cook (Aug 24, 2018)

Bloke said:


> And how is that working out for the Shrine in AR ? Not well methinks


I don’t have numbers. I will defer to our AR resident on the list, who is now a MO Mason, I understand. 
Masonry itself is in a difficult position in AR because of disruption in the GL. KS has withdrawn recognition. Members have joined other GLs.


----------



## Warrior1256 (Aug 24, 2018)

Glen Cook said:


> Masonry itself is in a difficult position in AR because of disruption in the GL. KS has withdrawn recognition. Members have joined other GLs.


From what I have heard it is kind of a mess Masonically in Arkansas.


----------



## Companion Joe (Aug 24, 2018)

I'm not a member of the Shrine, but the whole deal in Ark. has always been a bit of puzzlement to me and certainly a black eye for Masonry. The Shrine has never been directly Masonic. A requirement for membership is being a Master Mason. Fair enough, but it doesn't operate under the umbrella of Freemasonry the same way York Rite and Scottish Rite bodies do. When the GL of Ark. declared its MMs could not be a member of the Shrine, I honestly don't see it any difference than the GL saying its membership couldn't belong to the Moose, Elks, Rotary, Lions, or Kiwanis.


----------



## Warrior1256 (Aug 25, 2018)

Companion Joe said:


> I'm not a member of the Shrine


Same here.


Companion Joe said:


> it doesn't operate under the umbrella of Freemasonry the same way York Rite and Scottish Rite bodies do. When the GL of Ark. declared its MMs could not be a member of the Shrine, I honestly don't see it any difference than the GL saying its membership couldn't belong to the Moose, Elks, Rotary, Lions, or Kiwanis.


Interesting observation. I hadn't looked at it this way before. Thinking on it I believe that I have to agree.


----------



## Bill Lins (Aug 25, 2018)

Companion Joe said:


> The Shrine has never been directly Masonic. A requirement for membership is being a Master Mason. Fair enough, but it doesn't operate under the umbrella of Freemasonry the same way York Rite and Scottish Rite bodies do. When the GL of Ark. declared its MMs could not be a member of the Shrine, I honestly don't see it any difference than the GL saying its membership couldn't belong to the Moose, Elks, Rotary, Lions, or Kiwanis.


It's a major difference in Texas. GL reserves the right to approve or deny Texas Masons' belonging to organizations which require their members to be Master Masons. It has NO authority to approve or deny membership in any organization which does NOT have such a requirement.


----------



## Glen Cook (Aug 25, 2018)

Response from PGM GEKT
http://freemasonsfordummies.blogspot.com/


----------



## Glen Cook (Aug 25, 2018)

Bill Lins said:


> It's a major difference in Texas. GL reserves the right to approve or deny Texas Masons' belonging to organizations which require their members to be Master Masons. It has NO authority to approve or deny membership in any organization which does NOT have such a requirement.


I’m unaware of any US GL which does not reserve the right to regulate their Masons’ membership in organizations with a Masonic requisite.


----------



## Bloke (Aug 26, 2018)

Glen Cook said:


> Response from PGM GEKT
> http://freemasonsfordummies.blogspot.com/


Thanks Bro Glen.


----------



## Companion Joe (Aug 26, 2018)

Bill Lins said:


> It's a major difference in Texas. GL reserves the right to approve or deny Texas Masons' belonging to organizations which require their members to be Master Masons. It has NO authority to approve or deny membership in any organization which does NOT have such a requirement.



That may very well be the case here, too, and I'm sure it probably is, but to me, it's a pretty weak argument to claim that authority. I'm not in the Shrine and don't have any interest in joining, so it's really academic on my part.

I sort of see it like this: Let's say someone opened a private restaurant that limited its members to only Master Masons and their families simply as a way to know who you were letting in. There were no Masonic signs or imagery anywhere in the place. There were no tiled Masonic meetings. If two people wanted to discuss Masonic business or degree work, that would be a simple conversation between two people, not official policy of the restaurant. The restaurant doesn't pay any kind of affiliation fee to the state GL. ..... To me you'd have a tough time trying to say a GL could tell people they can't eat there.

Again, none of it really affects me. I just like stirring the pot when it comes to authoritarian overreach .


----------



## Companion Joe (Aug 26, 2018)

From reading PGM Vaught's response, this whole deal seems to me to be just like I said ... I peeing contest that negatively impacts a bunch of people who have nothing to do with it, and it resulted in the Grand Commander of Louisiana getting removed. It looks to me like La.'s GM sent out the word to coincide with the Triennial, a time which the Grand Encampment had bigger things on its mind than petty matters and checking email. Vaught said the man in question would be expelled, but the Grand Encampment has rules, and those rules will be followed.

That's what happens when you have one organization that abides by the rule of law and another person who wants to be a dictator. There is collateral damage.


----------



## chrmc (Aug 26, 2018)

Companion Joe said:


> From reading PGM Vaught's response, this whole deal seems to me to be just like I said ... I peeing contest that negatively impacts a bunch of people who have nothing to do with it, and it resulted in the Grand Commander of Louisiana getting removed. It looks to me like La.'s GM sent out the word to coincide with the Triennial, a time which the Grand Encampment had bigger things on its mind than petty matters and checking email. Vaught said the man in question would be expelled, but the Grand Encampment has rules, and those rules will be followed.
> 
> That's what happens when you have one organization that abides by the rule of law and another person who wants to be a dictator. There is collateral damage.



How can an organization have a rule that if a man is no longer a Mason, he can still be a Templar? Even for the time it takes to do the internal paperwork. If membership relies on being a Mason, once that stops, so should the membership?

And as for PGM's response, it to me seems like a classic example of pointing the blame anywhere else than at himself. He should know that as a top of the order, he is ALWAYS responsabile ultimately. This does not seem like great leadership to me, and probably speaks to why this situation started initially.


----------



## Bro. Stewart P.M. (Aug 26, 2018)

Bill Lins said:


> It's a major difference in Texas. GL reserves the right to approve or deny Texas Masons' belonging to organizations which require their members to be Master Masons. It has NO authority to approve or deny membership in any organization which does NOT have such a requirement.



Considering that the MWGLoTX chartered out of Louisiana, there is much we have in common with them.

In this case it’s a singular issue within the larger organizations. Unfortunately at this point I’ve heard more details than what is shown in the public documentation. 

Sadly, because the GEKT is refusing to expel a now “non Mason”, the MWGLoLA felt no other option than to pull their own recognition of the GEKT.

Hopefully a bit of peer pressure will help expedite the removal of the individual and the repair of the whole.


----------



## Glen Cook (Aug 26, 2018)

Companion Joe said:


> That may very well be the case here, too, and I'm sure it probably is, but to me, it's a pretty weak argument to claim that authority. I'm not in the Shrine and don't have any interest in joining, so it's really academic on my part.
> 
> I sort of see it like this: Let's say someone opened a private restaurant that limited its members to only Master Masons and their families simply as a way to know who you were letting in. There were no Masonic signs or imagery anywhere in the place. There were no tiled Masonic meetings. If two people wanted to discuss Masonic business or degree work, that would be a simple conversation between two people, not official policy of the restaurant. The restaurant doesn't pay any kind of affiliation fee to the state GL. ..... To me you'd have a tough time trying to say a GL could tell people they can't eat there.
> 
> Again, none of it really affects me. I just like stirring the pot when it comes to authoritarian overreach .


A weak authority to claim to regulate whether a Mason can join a body with a Masonic prerequisite? I assure you, Masonic jurisprudence indicates otherwise. Multiple GLs, including UGLE, have exercised that authority.


----------



## Companion Joe (Aug 26, 2018)

Glen Cook said:


> A weak authority to claim to regulate whether a Mason can join a body with a Masonic prerequisite? I assure you, Masonic jurisprudence indicates otherwise. Multiple GLs, including UGLE, have exercised that authority.



One of my favorite quotes: "...I have sworn upon the altar of god eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man." - Thomas Jefferson.

Sometimes, jurisprudence and popular sovereignty - government only by consent of the governed - bump heads. 

Again, I just like being contrarian and a sea lawyer. You would have had a time with me as a young sailor 30 years ago!


----------



## Companion Joe (Aug 26, 2018)

chrmc said:


> How can an organization have a rule that if a man is no longer a Mason, he can still be a Templar? Even for the time it takes to do the internal paperwork. If membership relies on being a Mason, once that stops, so should the membership?
> 
> And as for PGM's response, it to me seems like a classic example of pointing the blame anywhere else than at himself. He should know that as a top of the order, he is ALWAYS responsabile ultimately. This does not seem like great leadership to me, and probably speaks to why this situation started initially.



The way I read it was they don't have a rule that you can be a Templar and no longer be a Mason. They have a rule that someone doesn't get kicked out without due process (that whole 5th amendment thing). Vaught said it required a trial, and the trial would be quick, cut and dry, but there has to be a trial conducted by his local Commandery. 

Maybe the Grand Encampment prefers to follow the rule of law and due process rather than govern by arbitrary whim and edict.


----------



## Glen Cook (Aug 26, 2018)

Companion Joe said:


> One of my favorite quotes: "...I have sworn upon the altar of god eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man." - Thomas Jefferson.
> 
> Sometimes, jurisprudence and popular sovereignty - government only by consent of the governed - bump heads.
> 
> Again, I just like being contrarian and a sea lawyer. You would have had a time with me as a young sailor 30 years ago!


I see no conflict between jurisprudence and “popular sovereignty “, as it is the populace (in this case the Craft), who develop the jurisprudence.

In 25 years as a Naval officer, I only had difficulty with one subordinate for about three minutes, that much time being the limit of my patience.


----------



## Warrior1256 (Aug 26, 2018)

I can see points scored on both sides of this argument. It will be interesting to see how things work out.


----------



## texanmason (Aug 26, 2018)

Glen Cook said:


> Response from PGM GEKT
> http://freemasonsfordummies.blogspot.com/



Brother Glen, what's your take on MEPGM Vaught's response? To me it seems like he is very much just shifting the blame to the (former) GC of the GCKTLA.


----------



## Glen Cook (Aug 26, 2018)

If you look at his finding regarding the CBCS and the requirement for a KT trial—that people did not forfeit membership without such—it is a consistent theme in requiring the process to occur. I fully accept his recitation of GEKT law and that the individual attended no Tyled meetings. 

I did not clearly understand whether he was aware the particular individual was an expelled Mason. That isn’t really a legal requirement, but surely this kerfufel could have been headed off as an informal matter.


----------



## Warrior1256 (Aug 27, 2018)

Glen Cook said:


> If you look at his finding regarding the CBCS and the requirement for a KT trial—that people did not forfeit membership without such—it is a consistent theme in requiring the process to occur. I fully accept his recitation of GEKT law and that the individual attended no Tyled meetings.


Agreed.


Glen Cook said:


> surely this kerfufel could have been headed off as an informal matter.


Also agree.


----------



## chrmc (Aug 27, 2018)

texanmason said:


> Brother Glen, what's your take on MEPGM Vaught's response? To me it seems like he is very much just shifting the blame to the (former) GC of the GCKTLA.



The response is terrible, and clearly not an apology in any sense. Firstly there is no way that he didn't know what was going on. It's a PGM that is one of his District officers, and it's a trial that's been going on for a while. And if he didn't know he surely should have. 

As I see it, he wanted to flip the middle finger to the GLoLA for some reason, but now that it has backfired, he's backtracking by blaming the local Commander, and attacking Chris Hodapp's reporting. Not very Masonic. If he want's to be the big boss and pick a fight, it would respect it more if he didn't throw others under the bus later. Not really think that is what the Templars used to do...


----------



## texanmason (Aug 27, 2018)

So, I've been mulling this over in my head, and it's been bothering me. There is something to be said for due process, yes, but I feel like in this case, it's got some troubling implications.

It's absolutely needed to have Templar trials and whatnot - but only for conduct related within the Commandery system. GEKT's requirement for KTs to be expelled by KT trial after being expelled from Masonry says two things:

1) The Grand Encampment of Knights Templar sees the authority of sovereign Grand Lodges to be insufficient, requiring decisions to have GEKT's "last say."

2) Under the Grand Encampment, one is not required to be a Mason to be a Templar.

Expulsion from appendant bodies when one has been expelled from Masonry should be automatic and without question if we want to uphold the standard that Grand Lodges are sovereign. There is no need for a trial if loss of membership is a result of judgement.

Example: a gun store owner (or employee) commits a felony outside of work and is convicted. He loses his business/job, and all his firearms, as convicted felons cannot own firearms or hold a Federal Firearms License. There's no need for an individual trial for him to lose his business/job/guns, as it is a direct result of him being convicted of a felony.

Likewise, while Grand Encampment Law may say otherwise, there is no justification to require a Templar trial for expelled Masons. Loss of Templar membership is part of the cascading results of expulsion, not a separate punishment.


----------



## Glen Cook (Aug 27, 2018)

texanmason said:


> So, I've been mulling this over in my head, and it's been bothering me. There is something to be said for due process, yes, but I feel like in this case, it's got some troubling implications.
> 
> It's absolutely needed to have Templar trials and whatnot - but only for conduct related within the Commandery system. GEKT's requirement for KTs to be expelled by KT trial after being expelled from Masonry says two things:
> 
> ...


But as I understand the PGMGEKT statement, the only issue at a KT trial is if there was an expulsion. There is no other defense. Thus, KT does recognise the GL sovereignty. It is simply a matter of proving the GL action occurred. I view it akin to the civil process of registering a foreign judgement in some civil jurisdictions: the issue is the validity of the foreign judgment, not the underlying facts. 
If my understanding of KT law is correct (noting I’m a Past Chair of G&A of a grand commandery), then I’m not really troubled by the GEKT position.


----------



## Warrior1256 (Aug 27, 2018)

Glen Cook said:


> If my understanding of KT law is correct (noting I’m a Past Chair of G&A of a grand commandery), then I’m not really troubled by the GEKT position.


Agreed!


----------



## dfreybur (Aug 28, 2018)

Glen Cook said:


> But as I understand the PGMGEKT statement, the only issue at a KT trial is if there was an expulsion. There is no other defense. Thus, KT does recognise the GL sovereignty. It is simply a matter of proving the GL action occurred. I view it akin to the civil process of registering a foreign judgement in some civil jurisdictions: the issue is the validity of the foreign judgment, not the underlying facts.
> If my understanding of KT law is correct (noting I’m a Past Chair of G&A of a grand commandery), then I’m not really troubled by the GEKT position.



What I expected to happen -

GL announces expulsion.  KT announces suspension until the copy of the paperwork arrives.  Certified copy of paperwork arrives.  KT announces expulsion.

I am puzzled why the suspension step did not happen.  I think (hope?) pulling recognition was a direct result of this expected step being skipped.

I am also puzzled why the current MW GM was so impatient.  Patience is the first lesson taught to us before we ever set foot in lodge.

I am further puzzled why a man so heavily vetted by our fraternity would engage in a personal feud of this sort.  While there must be more to that story, I have gratitude that I am not aware of the rest of that story.  It must be the sort of story that once I hear it I would want to undergo several types of ritual cleansing to try to get away from its stink.


----------



## Glen Cook (Aug 28, 2018)

dfreybur said:


> What I expected to happen -
> 
> GL announces expulsion.  KT announces suspension until the copy of the paperwork arrives.  Certified copy of paperwork arrives.  KT announces expulsion.
> 
> ...


To borrow from Pogo: We have met the enemy, and he is us.


----------



## Keith C (Aug 28, 2018)

dfreybur said:


> I am further puzzled why a man so heavily vetted by our fraternity would engage in a personal feud of this sort.  While there must be more to that story, I have gratitude that I am not aware of the rest of that story.  It must be the sort of story that once I hear it I would want to undergo several types of ritual cleansing to try to get away from its stink.



If you read the document linked near the beginning of the thread it shows a big mess in the GL of Louisiana. The subject of this series of events was not the only PGM expelled and many revisions were made to the by-laws of the GL, specifying things a GM can't do alone as they require a vote of the GL.

I am also "in the dark" so to speak, of what the actions were that caused these reactions, and wish to remain so.


----------



## Companion Joe (Aug 28, 2018)

This is the problem we have created, or at least inherited, with our system. Everyone wants to be sovereign, but everyone wants to stick their thumb in the other guy's pie. 

I know of a situation where a man had plural memberships in two different states; he did something that was completely legal but against the Masonic code in State 1; he got expelled; State 2 said that's ignorant and didn't expel him because it was perfectly legal and not against their state code; a big peeing contest ensued. When the heads of bodies want to measure whose is bigger, it's the membership that suffers because the rank and file doesn't know what to do.


----------



## Warrior1256 (Aug 29, 2018)

dfreybur said:


> What I expected to happen -
> 
> GL announces expulsion. KT announces suspension until the copy of the paperwork arrives. Certified copy of paperwork arrives. KT announces expulsion.


Hopefully.


dfreybur said:


> While there must be more to that story, I have gratitude that I am not aware of the rest of that story. It must be the sort of story that once I hear it I would want to undergo several types of ritual cleansing to try to get away from its stink.





Glen Cook said:


> To borrow from Pogo: We have met the enemy, and he is us.


Lol!


Companion Joe said:


> I know of a situation where a man had plural memberships in two different states; he did something that was completely legal but against the Masonic code in State 1; he got expelled; State 2 said that's ignorant and didn't expel him because it was perfectly legal and not against their state code; a big peeing contest ensued.


I believe that this, or a similar situation, occurred between the Grand Lodge of my home state, WV, and the Grand Lodge of Ohio.


----------



## Keith C (Aug 29, 2018)

Companion Joe said:


> This is the problem we have created, or at least inherited, with our system. Everyone wants to be sovereign, but everyone wants to stick their thumb in the other guy's pie.
> 
> I know of a situation where a man had plural memberships in two different states; he did something that was completely legal but against the Masonic code in State 1; he got expelled; State 2 said that's ignorant and didn't expel him because it was perfectly legal and not against their state code; a big peeing contest ensued. When the heads of bodies want to measure whose is bigger, it's the membership that suffers because the rank and file doesn't know what to do.



Not sure about other jurisdictions but in PA we are bound to not only follow the Constitution, rules, edicts and by-laws of our GL and Lodge, but those of any Masonic Jurisdiction we find ourselves working under.

In the above case if a PA MM did something against the rules of his "secondary" GL, he automatically violated the rules of the GLof PA, regardless if that action would not have resulted in discipline in PA.


----------



## dfreybur (Aug 29, 2018)

Companion Joe said:


> I know of a situation where a man had plural memberships in two different states; he did something that was completely legal but against the Masonic code in State 1; he got expelled; State 2 said that's ignorant and didn't expel him because it was perfectly legal and not against their state code; a big peeing contest ensued. When the heads of bodies want to measure whose is bigger, it's the membership that suffers because the rank and file doesn't know what to do.



I could do that through visiting PHA lodges.

I'm an Illinois member and Illinois recognizes all PHA jurisdictions that have local recognition.  It's called blanket recognition.  I have no idea which PHA states return that recognition but presenting myself with my Illinois dues card I would find out.

I'm a California member and California invites mutual recognition to PHA jurisdictions that have local recognition.  But California is not careful about inviting them all.  The last time I read the list two were missing, Delaware and New Hampshire.  Now that Florida recognized maybe the ones that fell through the cracks will be remembered.  I've bugged the Grand Sec office  CC some grand line officers about Delaware and New Hampshire each year.

I'm a Texas member and I can't even find a Texas recognition list.  All I know for sure is we have local visitation, no longer with extra paperwork.  Technically if I visit PHA somewhere I may well violate Texas rules and not even be able to figure that fact out.  To be blunt, the fact that Texas does not publish a list tells me I should not care any more than they do.

I could travel to Delaware and visit a PHA lodge there presenting only my Illinois dues card.  Doing so would violate the California list.  Maybe also the obscured Texas list.


----------



## Warrior1256 (Aug 29, 2018)

Keith C said:


> In the above case if a PA MM did something against the rules of his "secondary" GL, he automatically violated the rules of the GLof PA, regardless if that action would not have resulted in discipline in PA.


Interesting!


----------



## texanmason (Aug 30, 2018)

Update from the Grand Commander of Louisiana:

https://m.facebook.com/photo.php?fb....542999452821984&source=48&refid=13&__tn__=+>


----------



## chrmc (Aug 30, 2018)

texanmason said:


> Update from the Grand Commander of Louisiana:
> 
> https://m.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=542999436155319&id=420217708433493&set=pcb.542999452821984&source=48&refid=13&__tn__=+>



Not impressed. Now it's just turning into a pissing match between 3-4 guys that are fighting via letters in public...


----------



## texanmason (Aug 30, 2018)

For anyone who needs the text, but can't access Facebook, here you go. Please forgive any OCR-related errors.


_TO: GRAND OFFICERS, PAST GRAND COMMANDERS, CONSTITUENT COMMANDERY COMMANDERS AND RECORDERS

My brothers and fraters:

In light of our Most Worshipful Grand Master's Edict 2018-2, I wanted to bring you up to speed on what has transpired recently between the Grand Lodge of Louisiana and the Grand Encampment of Knights Templar of the USA and what it means for the Grand Commandery of Knights Templar of Louisiana.

As you know, a prominent Sir Knight holding office in the Grand Encampment was suspended in 2017 but subsequently reinstated by the Grand Lodge delegates with a reprimand. He was again suspended in 2018 and was subsequently expelled by the Grand Lodge delegates earlier this summer. Despite the Grand Lodge's action, the Grand Encampment refused to recognize that the Sir Knight in question was expelled, to remove his status as a knight Templar, or to remove him from Grand Encampment office.

Since that Grand Lodge session, I have worked with others to mediate the issue of that expelled knight's status as a Knight Templar. Shortly after the Grand Lodge session, our Grand Lodge sent a letter to the Grand Encampment informing them of the Sir Knight's expulsion. The Grand Encampment did not reply. Several weeks ago, I spoke by telephone to the then Grand Master of the Grand Encampment, Duane Vaught, explaining the situation with the expelled Sir Knight and suggesting that he respond to the Grand Lodge's correspondence. Again, no reply was received by our Grand Lodge. Before the Grand Encampment's triennial conclave, the Grand Lodge sent yet another letter to the Grand Encampment explaining the seriousness of this situation and that our Grand Master Martin Reinschmidt was contemplating withdrawing recognition of the Grand Encampment. No reply was received. The Triennial Conclave of Grand Encampment went forward, where the knight in question was recognized as a Sir Knight and an officer of the Grand Encampment and given full honors as said officer and even seated as the Right Eminent Grand Warder of the Grand Encampment.

Against this backdrop, Grand Master Reinschmidt issued his edict derecognizing the Grand Encampment.

Finally, several days AFTER leaving office, former Grand Master of the Grand Encampment Vaught responded to the Grand Lodge, claiming he was too busy to respond earlier, purporting to remove me from office as Grand Commander, and claiming to have recognized the expulsion of the Sir Knight in question, despite having seated him as an officer in the Grand Encampment Triennial.

Needless to say his letter was too little, too late.

First, in my judgment our Grand Master Reinschmidt was perfectly justified in taking this action. Templary, just like all appendant bodies, operates in Louisiana at the pleasure of the Grand Lodge of Louisiana. We must always remember that the Grand Lodge is supreme in all things Masonic and we owe Masonic allegiance to it first and foremost If the Grand Lodge determines that a brother should no longer be a brother, then that decision applies to all of masonry, whether it be blue lodge or appendant body.

Second, as to Sir Knight Vaught's accusations and letter, I am saddened at the vindictiveness of Sir Knight Vuaght. He had a chance to sooth troubled waters but instead chose to pour gasoline onto a fire.

Sir Knight Vaught claimed that he was entirely too busy to respond to Grand Master Reinschmidt's letter of AUgust, 15, 2018. Yet, he failed to mention that the Grand Lodge sent a letter on July 11, 2018 to the Grand Encampment, informing the Grand Encampment that the knight in question had been expelled. Neither Sir Knight Vaught nor anyone acting on his behalf responded until the latter part of August.

Sir Knight Vaught took issue with the fact that I did not order a trial to commence against the Sir Knight in question in his local COmmandery. First of all, Grand Encampment law provides that, "If a Commander within whose jurisdiction an offense is committed shall refuse or neglect for thirty (30) days to proceed against the offender, and the offender is a member of such Commandery, the Grand Commander *may* order such Commandery to proceed." (Emphasis supplied. See Section 8 of Disciplinary Rules) There was simply no requirement that I mandate such a trial to proceed.

Further, a careful reading of Section 83 and Section 97(c) of the Grand Encampment Disciplinary Rules reveals that it is indeed the province of the Grand Encampment to arraign and try elective or appointive officers of the Grand Encampment for unknightly offenses, as is the case here. In other words, since the Sir Knight in question was an officer of the Grand Encampment at the time of the conduct, the Grand Encampment has exclusive jurisdiction to try the Sir Knight in question, not his local Commander and not the Grand Commandery. To that end, the Grand Lodge of Louisiana notified the Grand Encampment by letter dated July 11, 2018 that their officer had been expelled. Yet the Grand Encampment took no action.

Sir Knight Vaught also vaguely accused me of somehow being untruthful to him and to our Grand Master. Such accusations are baseless and, considering that Sir Knight Vaught failed to make any specific accusations, merit no answer. I can assure you that I and all Louisiana officials involved in this matter have been forthright and truthful in all of our dealings with the Grand Encampment.

I find it ironic that Sir Knight Vaught would not remove from office one of his own officers who had been expelled by his Grand Lodge without a constituent Commandery trial, but would purport to remove me from office on such unstable grounds with no trial whatsoever.

In summary, according to Sir Knight Vaught, the current division is all the fault of the Grand Commandery of Louisiana. Sir Knight Vaught's letter to Grand Master Reinschmidt attempted to shift blame to anyone but himself and was truly a regrettable display of leadership.

Finally, no matter our relationship with the Grand Encampment, we will continue to knight our brothers, continue to enjoy each other's knightly fellowship, and continue to spread the virtues of knighthood throughout Louisiana. As you know, in just a few short months we have developed a website, social media presence, created an award to reimburse Commanderies for expenses made for patriotic activities, and created an endowment to fund pilgrimages to the Holy Land along with an accompany jewel. Our relationship with the Grand Encampment will not impede the progress we are making.

As to whom the officers of this Grand Commandery are, I have been informed by our Grand Master Reinschmidt that, since Louisiana does not recognize the authority of the Grand Encampment at this time, Sir Knight Vaught's attempted removal of me from office is null and without effect. Thus, your officers continue to be the ones elected to serve you at our most recent Grand Conclave.

As the youngest Grand Commander in the nation, I am proud to serve and represent the valiant Sir Knights of Louisiana. I look forward to seeing each of you at your inspections and to working with you to grow Templary in the Great State of Louisiana. Faithfully, I am

Your obedient servant,

J. KEITH GATES

Grand Commander_


----------



## texanmason (Aug 30, 2018)

chrmc said:


> Not impressed. Now it's just turning into a pissing match between 3-4 guys that are fighting via letters in public...



Perhaps, but I'd say he's got just as much of a right as anyone to defend himself, and it seems like there's even more light being shed on this issue.

Obviously, we have to take a grain of salt with everything, but between MEPGM Vaught trying to throw people under the bus, his refusal to remove an expelled Mason from office (regardless of expelling him from KT or not), this additional letter, and from talking to folks that were present at the Triennial, I can't say that GEKT looks particularly good right now.


----------



## chrmc (Aug 30, 2018)

texanmason said:


> Perhaps, but I'd say he's got just as much of a right as anyone to defend himself, and it seems like there's even more light being shed on this issue.
> 
> Obviously, we have to take a grain of salt with everything, but between MEPGM Vaught trying to throw people under the bus, his refusal to remove an expelled Mason from office (regardless of expelling him from KT or not), this additional letter, and from talking to folks that were present at the Triennial, I can't say that GEKT looks particularly good right now.



I fully agree with his right to defend himself. But at some point someone has to be the bigger man, and stop fighting via correspondence. I think this continuations makes them both look stupid and unmasonic, no matter who started it. The case seems to no longer be about what or who is right, but instead just pointing fingers and assigning blame.


----------



## texanmason (Aug 30, 2018)

chrmc said:


> I fully agree with his right to defend himself. But at some point someone has to be the bigger man, and stop fighting via correspondence. I think this continuations makes them both look stupid and unmasonic, no matter who started it. The case seems to no longer be about what or who is right, but instead just pointing fingers and assigning blame.



To be fair, he's jumping in fresh, not continuing. Maybe that's just as bad, but now that we have a statement from the MWGM, the MEPGM, and the REGC, the story is becoming more and more clear. To me, it seems increasingly more likely that the MEPGM is in the wrong here.


----------



## Warrior1256 (Aug 30, 2018)

.....and so it continues.


----------



## texanmason (Aug 31, 2018)

Warrior1256 said:


> .....and so it continues.



At this point, I'm wondering who else will jump in. Maybe even du Treil himself?


----------



## dfreybur (Aug 31, 2018)

texanmason said:


> To be fair, he's jumping in fresh, not continuing. Maybe that's just as bad, but now that we have a statement from the MWGM, the MEPGM, and the REGC, the story is becoming more and more clear. To me, it seems increasingly more likely that the MEPGM is in the wrong here.



That doesn't stop others involved from being also wrong to various degrees.  At vary best all involved are setting poor examples.


----------



## Warrior1256 (Aug 31, 2018)

dfreybur said:


> That doesn't stop others involved from being also wrong to various degrees. At vary best all involved are setting poor examples.


Agreed!!!


----------



## Rifleman1776 (Sep 1, 2018)

texanmason said:


> Today in "which Grand Lodge goes nuclear this month," the GM of Louisiana withdrew recognition of the Grand Encampment of Knights Templar. KTs are only allowed to continue Templary if they are operating outside of the GEKT.
> 
> https://freemasonsfordummies.blogspot.com/2018/08/gl-of-louisiana-withdraws-recognition.html?m=1
> 
> TL;DR: a Past Grand Master of  ̶G̶E̶K̶T̶  _the GLoLA (and PGC of the GCKTLA)_ got expelled from the GLoLA, GEKT did not expel him and recognized him as a  ̶M̶E̶G̶M̶  _Departmental Commander_. GLoLA went nuclear.



The following is from the Dummies link and is not completely accurate. That casts credibility on the entire explanation. Personally, I am confused as to what this is all about._ "A similar impasse occurred many years ago in Arkansas when the Shrine failed to honor an Arkansas Mason's expulsion in that jurisdiction. The result of that action was that the Shrine to this day is no longer affiliated with or recognized by the Grand Lodge of Arkansas, and Masons in that state are not permitted to be Shriners."_
The example of Shrines is inaccurate because Shrine has never been an appendant body of Masonry. It is an independant organization based on Masonic principals that (formerly in Arkansas) operated "in amity" with Freemasonry. The original case in question, Shrine did expel the individual in question even though he had been cleared of all charges by both Grand Lodge and Shrine.  Another error, Masons living in Arkansas can belong to the Shrine but they cannot be members of an Arkansas Lodge. I live in Arkansas, my Lodge is in Missouri and my Shrine center is in Arkansas.


----------



## Warrior1256 (Sep 1, 2018)

Rifleman1776 said:


> Masons living in Arkansas can belong to the Shrine but they cannot be members of an Arkansas Lodge. I live in Arkansas, my Lodge is in Missouri and my Shrine center is in Arkansas.


Interesting and smart move Brother.


----------



## Glen Cook (Sep 1, 2018)

No. Shrine didn’t expel the individual as he was still a Mason in Iowa. This lead to the GL of AR action against Shrine. I sat on the Imperial G&A Committee.


----------



## texanmason (Sep 1, 2018)

Brother Glen, can you shed some light on this statement by Bro. Rifleman?

"Shrine has never been an appendant body of Masonry. It is an independant organization based on Masonic principals that (formerly in Arkansas) operated 'in amity' with Freemasonry. "

I was under the impression that any body that requires Masonic membership is, by definition, an appendant body. Is this not the case?


----------



## Glen Cook (Sep 1, 2018)

I would avoid the label. Shrine is a body with a masonic prerequisite. Every grand lodge in North America reserves the right to authorise Masonic membership in bodies with a Masonic prerequisite. If you wanna call it an appendant body (as most GLs do) or if you wanna call it a rutabaga, it is still subject to the control, even caprice, of a GL.


----------



## Warrior1256 (Sep 1, 2018)

Glen Cook said:


> Every grand lodge in North America reserves the right to authorise Masonic membership in bodies with a Masonic prerequisite. If you wanna call it an appendant body (as most GLs do) or if you wanna call it a rutabaga, it is still subject to the control, even caprice, of a GL.


Lol...Funny but still good info.


----------



## Rifleman1776 (Sep 2, 2018)

Of course not. "appendant" means attached and in a subordinate capacity. You could start a bowling league requiring Masonic membership but that would not make it an appendant body.


----------



## Rifleman1776 (Sep 2, 2018)

Warrior1256 said:


> Interesting and smart move Brother.


Arkansas GL has lost many members who demitted to surrounding states. e.g. Missouri, Oklahoma, Kentucky, Louisiana, etc.


----------



## Glen Cook (Sep 2, 2018)

Rifleman1776 said:


> Arkansas GL has lost many members who demitted to surrounding states. e.g. Missouri, Oklahoma, Kentucky, Louisiana, etc.


And Utah


----------



## okielabrat (Sep 3, 2018)

https://www.rockymountainmason.com/...on-of-the-Grand-Encampment-of-Knights-Templar

Interesting article in the blogsite from our brothers in Colorado on this subject.


----------



## Warrior1256 (Sep 3, 2018)

Informative article. Will be interesting to see how this all turns out.


----------



## texanmason (Sep 3, 2018)

okielabrat said:


> https://www.rockymountainmason.com/...on-of-the-Grand-Encampment-of-Knights-Templar
> 
> Interesting article in the blogsite from our brothers in Colorado on this subject.


I feel like it is far too early to write op-eds on this.


----------



## Warrior1256 (Sep 3, 2018)

texanmason said:


> I feel like it is far too early to write op-eds on this.


I really can't agree with this Brother. We are just having discussions on this subject and the article that you refer to added some detail that had not yet come out on this particular forum.


----------



## Bro. Stewart P.M. (Sep 3, 2018)

Warrior1256 said:


> I really can't agree with this Brother. We are just having discussions on this subject and the article that you refer to added some detail that had not yet come out on this particular forum.



It is very likely that none of the details will ever come forth. 

Knowing several of the individuals involved personally, none of which are easily forthcoming with information. There are so many hurt feelings over the whole situation, it has caused a very painful rift among many friends and Brethren. The two directly involved were both very influential members.

The reality is, this will sort itself out. The question is when. The best that we all can do is our best to not continue to “feed the fire”.

I no longer have a dog in this fight as a plural member, having demit from the MWGLoLA & O.K. Allen #33 for financial/attendance issues. I am however disturbed, hurt, and disappointed by the events.


----------



## Warrior1256 (Sep 3, 2018)

Bro. Stewart P.M. said:


> The reality is, this will sort itself out. The question is when.


I am sure that this is correct.


----------



## Companion Joe (Sep 3, 2018)

Much of what has been said in the last few posts affirms what I was talking about earlier. Yes, GMs have the final say in their state, and GLs hold sway over appendant bodies in their state, but when those authorities are used in broad strokes that affect a bunch of people who have nothing to do with the original problem, bigger issues arise, and people have choices to make. If you live in a state where everyone lives no more than about an hour and a half from another state and members choose to move their membership somewhere else, you might not have much of a GL left.


----------



## Warrior1256 (Sep 4, 2018)

Companion Joe said:


> If you live in a state where everyone lives no more than about an hour and a half from another state and members choose to move their membership somewhere else, you might not have much of a GL left.


Excellent point as one member on this forum has done exactly that.


----------



## LK600 (Sep 4, 2018)

Warrior1256 said:


> Excellent point as one member on this forum has done exactly that.



Maybe because I'm so new, but I find it difficult to understand.  Are there that many people who would leave their Blue Lodge(s) so they can continue to be in Shrine?  Seems... sad I guess.


----------



## texanmason (Sep 4, 2018)

LK600 said:


> Maybe because I'm so new, but I find it difficult to understand.  Are there that many people who would leave their Blue Lodge(s) so they can continue to be in Shrine?  Seems... sad I guess.



Ordinarily, I would agree, but there's other issues going on in Arkansas right now - it's kind of a scary Grand Lodge to hold membership in right now. I can't really fault folks for finding their Masonry somewhere else right now.


----------



## Rifleman1776 (Sep 4, 2018)

Warrior said: " I find it difficult to understand. Are there that many people who would leave their Blue Lodge(s) so they can continue to be in Shrine? "

As much as I love Masonry and being an MM, at one point I had to make the choice. Shrine or Masonry. I choose Shrine. But before I left the Craft I was able to demit and join a Missouri Lodge where I remain. But, the reason I would have chosen Shrine over Masonry was simple. Masonry, for the most part, does nothing except eat, meet and go home. Shrine supports the Children's Hospitals. My local club provides transportation for up to 70 children. Shrine has a very worthwhile goal of helping those children and Shriners are very proud of our hospitals and what we do for children. Hopefully I will never again be faced with that decision, but if I am it would be Shrine, hands down.


----------



## LK600 (Sep 4, 2018)

Rifleman1776 said:


> Warrior said: " I find it difficult to understand. Are there that many people who would leave their Blue Lodge(s) so they can continue to be in Shrine? "
> 
> As much as I love Masonry and being an MM, at one point I had to make the choice. Shrine or Masonry. I choose Shrine. But before I left the Craft I was able to demit and join a Missouri Lodge where I remain. But, the reason I would have chosen Shrine over Masonry was simple. Masonry, for the most part, does nothing except eat, meet and go home. Shrine supports the Children's Hospitals. My local club provides transportation for up to 70 children. Shrine has a very worthwhile goal of helping those children and Shriners are very proud of our hospitals and what we do for children. Hopefully I will never again be faced with that decision, but if I am it would be Shrine, hands down.



Warrior was just quoting my post, so that was me.  I can totally understand upon reading your post.  You were looking for a charity, which Freemasonry is not.  Makes perfect sense.  The Shrine appears to fit that need quite nicely (though I still am gray on the particulars on roles and rules lol).  Thanks for your explanation sir!


----------



## Warrior1256 (Sep 4, 2018)

Rifleman1776 said:


> Warrior said: " I find it difficult to understand. Are there that many people who would leave their Blue Lodge(s) so they can continue to be in Shrine? "


No, I didn't say this. I was quoting another post.


----------



## MarkR (Sep 5, 2018)

I had read that Arkansas was not approving demits to allow their members to join in another state while still living in Arkansas.  Is that not so?


----------



## Glen Cook (Sep 5, 2018)

That is my understanding. Utah accepts evidence of good standing to affiliate.


----------



## Companion Joe (Sep 5, 2018)

Get the plural membership first, then demit. I can't speak for every state, but here, as long as your dues are paid up and there are no charges pending against you, you can't be denied a demit.


----------



## CLewey44 (Sep 5, 2018)

Rifleman1776 said:


> ...Masonry, for the most part, does nothing except eat, meet and go home..



Unfortunately, that is the case in many lodges, hence the mass closings over the last 30-40 years. The need for men (or women; this all applies to OES as well) to just go somewhere for the heckuvit has been put on the back-burner. It's important Masonry develops some substance, or at least finds that in and of itself.


----------



## CLewey44 (Sep 5, 2018)

Companion Joe said:


> Get the plural membership first, then demit. I can't speak for every state, but here, as long as your dues are paid up and there are no charges pending against you, you can't be denied a demit.



From personal experience, you are on the money. Get affiliated first. Then worry about demitting.


----------



## Warrior1256 (Sep 5, 2018)

Companion Joe said:


> Get the plural membership first, then demit. I can't speak for every state, but here, as long as your dues are paid up and there are no charges pending against you, you can't be denied a demit.


Same here in Kentucky. As long as dues are current and no charges are pending a demit MUST be issued upon request.


CLewey44 said:


> It's important Masonry develops some substance, or at least finds that in and of itself.


Agreed.


CLewey44 said:


> Get affiliated first. Then worry about demitting.


Also agreed.


----------



## Warrior1256 (Sep 5, 2018)

LK600 said:


> Are there that many people who would leave their Blue Lodge(s) so they can continue to be in Shrine?


Different people have different opinions on this. Mine is that the Blue Lodge always comes first, before the appendant bodies no matter how much I love the AASR and York Rite.


----------



## Companion Joe (Sep 5, 2018)

Let's do a hypothetical (mainly because I like to be contrary ), and I'll put myself in a situation as the example:
In addition to being a Mason, I belong to the Moose. Let's say sometime in the future, we get a GM who has a beef with the Moose because his brother-in-law got kicked out. He issues an edict that Tennessee Masons can't be members of the Moose. That leaves me with choices to make. Here's a problem that directly affects me that has nothing to do with me. I don't want to give up my Moose membership because that's where my wife and I like to go eat, and I don't take too well to ultimatums. Where I live, I could geographically transfer membership to five different states. I could keep my Masonic membership and still attend my local lodge as a visitor every time the doors open. What I lose: a vote in my local lodge. What my lodge loses: the voice of an experienced PM, a proficiency card holder which hurts the lodge in its annual grade, a member of numerous committees, someone capable of doing any part in the first section of all three degrees (if I was feeling spiteful and not willing to do it).

Where is the most harm done? When a peeing contest begins, the trickle down ripples do the most damage.


----------



## CLewey44 (Sep 6, 2018)

Never cared for trickled-down anything haha ;P


----------



## Warrior1256 (Sep 6, 2018)

CLewey44 said:


> Never cared for trickled-down anything haha ;P


Lol!


----------



## LK600 (Sep 6, 2018)

Warrior1256 said:


> Different people have different opinions on this.



And that is the part I do not understand.  But, my understanding is irrelevant; people need to do what they think is best.


----------



## dfreybur (Sep 6, 2018)

Companion Joe said:


> Let's do a hypothetical (mainly because I like to be contrary ), and I'll put myself in a situation as the example:
> In addition to being a Mason, I belong to the Moose. Let's say sometime in the future, we get a GM who has a beef with the Moose because his brother-in-law got kicked out. He issues an edict that Tennessee Masons can't be members of the Moose. That leaves me with choices to make. Here's a problem that directly affects me that has nothing to do with me. I don't want to give up my Moose membership because that's where my wife and I like to go eat, and I don't take too well to ultimatums. Where I live, I could geographically transfer membership to five different states. I could keep my Masonic membership and still attend my local lodge as a visitor every time the doors open. What I lose: a vote in my local lodge. What my lodge loses: the voice of an experienced PM, a proficiency card holder which hurts the lodge in its annual grade, a member of numerous committees, someone capable of doing any part in the first section of all three degrees (if I was feeling spiteful and not willing to do it).
> 
> Where is the most harm done? When a peeing contest begins, the trickle down ripples do the most damage.



My first reaction is that's outside of the authority of any Mason as the Moose are not a Masonic group.  Authority is what the rules say you can do.  Power is what you can actually get away with.  Since this would be a flagrant violation of authority I would not grant such an errant GM the power to dictate to me on the topic.  I would ignore the order.  I have no idea how vocal I would be about doing so.

The Shrine and York Rite are Masonic.  Except in Arkansas they both require all of their members to be Masons.  Thus it is within the authority for a GM to his Masons to not be members or at least to not attend meetings until the issue gets sorted out.

Any Masonic body that has an organization that spans more than one state is going to be exposed to this type of event.  I figure that's why the Scottish Rite works so hard to keep PGMs in SR positions and involved in SR activities.   To stay close to the grand lines everywhere.

The Shrine in general could stop requiring their members to be Masons.  At that point they would be in the situation you describe with the Moose.  But how many members would they lose if they did that?  Arkansas suggests that the answer is far too many for them to consider the move.


----------



## Warrior1256 (Sep 6, 2018)

dfreybur said:


> The Shrine in general could stop requiring their members to be Masons. At that point they would be in the situation you describe with the Moose. But how many members would they lose if they did that? Arkansas suggests that the answer is far too many for them to consider the move.


I have to agree.


----------

