# Grand Lodge of Arkansas dictates upon Shrinedom



## DWSCHULZ (Nov 6, 2012)

Did anyone else see this?
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?...88733403.85393.376535619078950&type=1&theater

Does the national jurisdiction of Shrinedom require other Grand Lodges to take the same stance as the Grand Lodge of Arkansas?
Some brothers in my jurisdiction feel I should leave this issue to Grand Lodge officers to decide how we should proceed, but I feel as though every Master Mason should make up his own mind.

Thoughts?

S&F,
Dan Schulz


----------



## chrmc (Nov 6, 2012)

I think this is a case that is going back quote a while. Chris Hodapp covered it on his freemasonry for dummies blog. 
Essentially as I remember it, the GL of Arkansas expelled a brother for something, but the Shrine disagreed with the reasoning and continued to allow him to stay a member, essentially telling the GL that they didn't care about the decision and that they were their own body and could do what they wanted. 
From there it has just escalated and this letter seems to be the latest part of it. 

All in all, not a good situation though.


----------



## widows son (Nov 6, 2012)

So the shrine of Arkansas which is a regular and recognized body is now considered clandestine?


----------



## cog41 (Nov 6, 2012)

Interesting indeed.  

Be more interesting to find out how the Arkansas brethren think about it.


----------



## Pscyclepath (Nov 6, 2012)

This has been coming for about the past two years, and I am not at all surprised to see this decision. Basically, a handful of nobles from Scimitar Temple in Little Rock placed their own egos above those of their brethren, and the folks down at Sahara thought they wouldn't get caught up in the backlash. The details are out there on Brother Hodapp's site.  At the Grand Lodge meeting last February, an edict was issued declaring the Shrine in Arkansas clandestine and prohibiting Arkansas masons from sitting in tyled Shrine meetings.  Several dozen folks left the GL meeting that same Friday evening and went straight over to the Shrine temple for their Friday evening party.  This group has carried on in the same manner since then, so now the edict that you need to decide if you want to be a Shriner or a Mason.   

Our Lodge is in the same neighborhood as the Scimitar Temple, and quite a few brothers are former Shriners who took heed of the Grand Master's order.  There have been a numer of meetings between Imperial Shrine and the GLoAR, none have come to any sort of amiable conclusion because of the Shrine's internal policy of not expeilling a noble until he has been through the Shrine's lengthy appeal process, regardless of what GL law says about expulsions.  Shrine membership in Arkansas over the past three years has declined from a little more than 6000 to around 800, most of those the rebels or perpetual members...  as al those who have been withholding their dues will be NPD with the Shrine come the first of January.

It's not a good thing, but then these peckerheads have not yet figured out that it's not nice to mess around with the local Grand Master.

On the other hand, we've seen a lot of these folks come back and spend their energies for the blue lodge, Scottish, and York rites.  And our local Grotto is doing very well, too.


----------



## tomasball (Nov 6, 2012)

There was a small sideshow to this, as I recall...the man in question had dual membership in Iowa, but the GL of Iowa didn't expell him.  Or do I have the story wrong?


----------



## CajunTinMan (Nov 7, 2012)

The Grand Master in completely right in his decision as far as I a concerned. We can’t have appendant bodies trying to ignore the sovereign jurisdiction of the Grand Lodges. And to expel a member from being able to have any Masonic communications with any of the bodies in Masonry is completely within the scope of the Grand Lodges. This is extremely bad for Masonry at this time.


----------



## CajunTinMan (Nov 7, 2012)

widows son said:


> So the shrine of Arkansas which is a regular and recognized body is now considered clandestine?



Regular, Irregular, it's all in the stroke of a pen.


----------



## widows son (Nov 7, 2012)

This is nuts. The appendant bodies need to remember that craft lodge is the basic unit of freemasonry, and without that, there would be no shrine, or YR, or AASR.


----------



## Brent Heilman (Nov 7, 2012)

I couldn't remember if this was the situation where the guy was going up on Masonic charges but had not yet been expelled and the Shrine didn't expel him. From the Shrines point of view was until such time as he was expelled he was still eligible. I don't recall if this is that same one or not. Since this happened somewhere else I could be confusing it with something else. Either way it is not a pretty situation. If he did hold membership in the GLoIowa then that makes this even murkier. Can an Arkansas Brother clarify if I am confused or not on this?


----------



## CajunTinMan (Nov 7, 2012)

I believe that your thinking of Michigan.


----------



## Brent Heilman (Nov 7, 2012)

I could certainly have been. Too much of this stuff going on to keep straight.


----------



## BryanMaloney (Nov 7, 2012)

widows son said:


> So the shrine of Arkansas which is a regular and recognized body is now considered clandestine?



It is considered clandestine within Arkansas. Since each Grand Lodge is sovereign, this applies only to masons under the Grand Lodge of Arkansas.


----------



## widows son (Nov 7, 2012)

Gotcha. So if they comply with the GL, then all is good and dandy?


----------



## CajunTinMan (Nov 7, 2012)

It should be all good then.


----------



## daddyrich (Nov 7, 2012)

Wow, that just paints us all with such a bad brush. You are so right, they all need to remember the Blue Lodge is/was, and will be the flundation upon which all appendant bodies are built.


----------



## Pscyclepath (Nov 7, 2012)

The potentate of Scimitar Shrine was suspended in 2011 for unmasonic conduct.  Under the Grand Lodge rules, that severs you from all rights and benefits of Masonry, right there and then.  Imperial Shrine implemented a rule several years ago which under the Shrine's jurisdiction, allows for a lengthy appeals process, and any discipinary action under the Shrine takes effect only after the end of the appeals.  So, Imperial Shrine let this fellow carry on as Potentate.  A similar issue arose in Michigan where a noble (again, a potentate, no less) pleaded guilty to felony charges and was expelled by the Michigan grand lodge.  Again Imperial Shrine said, in effect, "to us he's still a mason, and we'll let him serve until he finishes his appeals."  Both Michigan and Arkansas suspended relations with the Shrine.  Michigan resolved their issue with the one guy early this summer, but a group of about 30 or 40 of the Arkansas Shriners raised their hackles up, and decided to defy the Arkansas Grand Lodge.  The previous Grand Master in AR issued an edict in November 2011 declaring the Shrine clandestine in Arkansas, and this decision was approved at the 2012 Grand Lodge meeting and incorporated into the current Arkansas Masonic Digest.  Scimitar Shrine responded by introducing a resolution at the 2012 Imperial Shrine convention which would remove the requirement for Arkansas Shriners to be master masons.  That resolution was tabled and not voted on.  Several meetings between the Imperial Potentate and the GLoAR have occurred, with neither side budging from their position.  The GLoAR has a clause in the Masonic Digest which requires the Shrine, in order to be recognized as a Masonic organiztion, to abide by the rules of the Grand Lodge with respect to membership in the fraternity.  And we take a certain promise about hanging out with suspended or expelled Masons, as well as conforming to the rules of our Grand Lodge.  A couple dozen of the rebelling Shriners have been brought up on charges, found guilty, and received lengthy definite suspensions... 40 year in the case of the Scimitar potentate, who can apply for reinstatement when he's 107.  Some of the others can reapply in their 80s or 90s...  but then the Grand Lodge has a long memory ;-)*

**
From the 2012 Arkansas Masonic Digest:

"
2.1.42 .*This Grand Lodge acknowledges no degree of Masonry or Order of Knighthood to be legitimate and genuine except those conferred by or under authority of the following regularly constituted Masonic Bodies of the United States of America, and those of corresponding rank in foreign countries, with whom we have fraternal relations. It is improper for The Grand Lodge of Arkansas to grant recognition to another organization without said organization first asking for recognition, Pro. 2005, p. 71. 

... Ancient Arabic Order of the Nobles of the Mystic Shrine of North America (Shrine International) Repealed Pro. 2012, p. 50 

 As a result of writings from Imperial Shrine which allowed an expelled Master Mason to remain a Shriner and Potentate of his Temple, which is in direct violation of agreement that was provided in our Digest of Laws. On December 8, 2011, I accordingly ordered recognition of the Shrine within this Jurisdiction removed, therefore making all of Arkansas Shrine Clandestine and Illegitimate. Violations of any part of this order will be deemed punishable by a penalty of expulsion from the Fraternity. Such penalty will be administered without benefit of a trial. Pro. 2012 p. 50


----------



## widows son (Nov 7, 2012)

I wholly agree with the GLoAR in their decision, hopefully these guys swallow their pride and smarten up.


----------



## SeeKer.mm (Nov 7, 2012)

Harmony...May Brotherly love prevail.  May the spirit of Freemasonry soften the hearts of those who pride has become so sharp that it would cut them from ear to ear.


----------



## Pscyclepath (Nov 8, 2012)

Got my copy of the letter in the mail yesterday...  There's a second page attached with the proposed settlement between the GL and Imperial, which the Illustrious Potentate was apparently agreeable to, but the full Imperial line wouldn't let him sign.  So here we are...


----------



## sands67 (Nov 8, 2012)

Can you post a copy of the second page showing the agreement?


----------



## widows son (Nov 9, 2012)

I wonder what the rest of the Shrine in other jurisdictions think of this mess? Also i wonder what brothers who are in the said jurisdiction who did not participate in the actions that lead to it being deemed irregular think?


----------



## CajunTinMan (Nov 9, 2012)

I know the Brothers in my lodge who are Shinners that I have spoken with aren't happy.


----------



## widows son (Nov 9, 2012)

I bet, unmasonic behavior is a no no


----------



## relapse98 (Nov 14, 2012)

widows son said:


> I wholly agree with the GLoAR in their decision, hopefully these guys swallow their pride and smarten up.



I agree.

If you have to be a Master Mason in good standing to join an appendant body, you have to continue to be a Master Mason in good standing to stay a member. No longer good standing, no longer member of appendant body. Seems reasonable to me.


----------



## widows son (Nov 14, 2012)

So has any progress been made to bring these guys back in the fold?


----------



## Pscyclepath (Nov 14, 2012)

From the talk around various lodges and other gatherings, it's unlikely to happen any time soon.  The Shrine in Arkansas is effectively gone, and no one is sure if there's anyone who can really put it back together.  Over at Scimitar, the guys who started this in the first place are pretty much whistling in the wind and carrying on as before, but it's going to be a very small group in about a month or so.

Lots of Shrine members are really ticked off about it, but you've gotta make a choice... one or the other.  You can follow their end of the story here:  htt://www.scimitarshrine.com


----------



## widows son (Nov 15, 2012)

I read the potentates message, it doesn't look like he budging, nor does it look like he feel like hes in the wrong.


----------



## tomasball (Nov 15, 2012)

I have two thoughts on this.  First of all, I gathered when this first hit the fan, that the mason in question was also a member in Iowa, and that the Grand Lodge of Iowa had not revoked his membership in response to the action by the GLoA.  If that hasn't changed, then it really complicates the question.  Second, Imperial Shrine doesn't help its case by arguing that the proceedings in Arkansas against this man weren't fair.  It's not the Shrine's place to judge whether a Grand Lodge acted fairly or in a manner consistent with its own laws.


----------



## widows son (Nov 15, 2012)

Correct.


----------



## Pscyclepath (Nov 15, 2012)

The Iowa argument was moot. Mr. Buffington lives, works, and was attending lodge & the Shrine here in Arkansas, inside the jurisdiction of the GLoAR.  If I were to come down to Texas, I would still be obligated to abide by the laws of the GLoTX, no matter how we do things back hime in Arkansas.   And it's not that one guy, who is long gone...  it's a group of about 30 or 40 other Shriners who have continued to disregard the rules of the GL of AR with respect to attending tyled meetings of the Shrine here after the Shrine was declared clandestine way back in February.  They have pretty much screwed themselves, as well as the other 6000 or so Arkansas Masons who were Shrine members following the rules.


----------



## DWSCHULZ (Nov 25, 2012)

Brothers all,

  Nobody likes to see the Shrine split the sheets with any recognized Grand Lodge.  The world needs both Shriners and Freemasons (in light of recent events, it appears there is a difference).  My technical, rabble-rousing question is this:  If the GL of Arkansas refuses to recognize Shriners does that mean that ALL US Grand Lodges should in turn refuse to recognize Shriners as members of their Grand Lodge?  I'm truly not trying to cause trouble, but Shriners are national, nay, international.  If the Arkansas Shrine ignores the Grand Lodge of Arkansas and my Grand Lodge recognizes the Grand Lodge of Arkansas then musn't I, as a mainstream Freemason, must reject any member of the Shrine International as...I don't know...non-masons?  I thought I had stuff figured out then a past grand master in my state forgot his obligation, "removed" my lawfully elected Grand Master and now I don't know who to trust....strange days...

Sincerely and Fraternally....(Skip...just kidding)
Daniel William Schulz
Euclid Lodge #58, Great Falls, Montana
Valley of Great Falls, ASSR
Great Falls York Rite Bodies
Hassan Grotto, Great Falls, Montana
Sadir Khan Grotto, Spokane, WA
AMD Peace Council
etc...etc...
perceived past master (ppm)


----------



## widows son (Nov 25, 2012)

It's a tough call. Shriners are international, but this specific group of Shriners are at odds with the GL of Arkansas, and in my opinion are in the wrong. They need to realize that the Shriners wouldn't be Shriners without the GL and they set the bar. Unmasonic conduct should be dealt with through all appendant bodies upon the request of the GL without question.


----------



## Traveling Man (Nov 25, 2012)

DWSCHULZ said:


> Brothers all,
> 
> Nobody likes to see the Shrine split the sheets with any recognized Grand Lodge.  The world needs both Shriners and Freemasons (in light of recent events, it appears there is a difference).  My technical, rabble-rousing question is this:  If the GL of Arkansas refuses to recognize Shriners does that mean that ALL US Grand Lodges should in turn refuse to recognize Shriners as members of their Grand Lodge?  I'm truly not trying to cause trouble, but Shriners are national, nay, international.  If the Arkansas Shrine ignores the Grand Lodge of Arkansas and my Grand Lodge recognizes the Grand Lodge of Arkansas then musn't I, as a mainstream Freemason, must reject any member of the Shrine International as...I don't know...non-masons?  I thought I had stuff figured out then a past grand master in my state forgot his obligation, "removed" my lawfully elected Grand Master and now I don't know who to trust....strange days...
> 
> ...



Its jurisdiction ends within Arkansas and applies only to their Grand jurisdiction. I.e. only the Brethren that are also Shriners and Brothers that come under the jurisdiction of Arkansas. Did I confuse you?


----------



## BryanMaloney (Nov 25, 2012)

DWSCHULZ said:


> Nobody likes to see the Shrine split the sheets with any recognized Grand Lodge.  The world needs both Shriners and Freemasons (in light of recent events, it appears there is a difference).  My technical, rabble-rousing question is this:  If the GL of Arkansas refuses to recognize Shriners does that mean that ALL US Grand Lodges should in turn refuse to recognize Shriners as members of their Grand Lodge?



All Grand Lodges are sovereign. Thus, Arkansas only applies within Arkansas.


----------



## bjdeverell (Nov 26, 2012)

Jurisdictional grievances caused a lot of schisms in Masonry back in the old days. But every Mason has to remember that the Grand Master is the man with the final word in his Jurisdiction. Appendant bodies have to understand that they Operate at the pleasure of the Grand Lodge. I'm York and Scottish but if the Grand Lodge labeled them clandestine today I would leave the Rites without question until it was resolved. I hope this all ends soon before it spirals into something terrible.


----------



## widows son (Nov 26, 2012)

As do I. The shrine does a lot of good, and I'm sure just as much in AR, but these guys need to understand the GL has the final word. I hope they come back in the fold very soon.


----------



## fairbanks1363pm (Nov 28, 2012)

http://www.scimitarshrine.com/Blade/November12.pdf
if you have time worth the read.


----------



## BryanMaloney (Nov 28, 2012)

The letter contained within treads the border of the Shrine declaring itself a non-Masonic organization. It doesn't cross that border, but it does seem to appear to get close to it, especially when it makes the distinction that the Shrine may determine who is and isn't a Shriner independently of whether or not someone is or isn't a Master Mason.


----------



## Custer148 (Nov 28, 2012)

I don't want to see this --- I know that Imperial Shrine for a couple of years has been trying to do away with the requirement of a man having to be a Master Mason in order to become a Shriner, this may be the push that is necessary for them to be successful.  Still, if the Arkansas Grand Lodge still says that Arkansas MMs may not be Shriners, it would be a moot point at best.


----------



## widows son (Nov 28, 2012)

How could the Shriners be shriners without being masons? Hasn't the shrine always been a Masonic organization? And arent their rituals Masonic, which would make a non mason not eligible to receive them? I'm not a Shriner so im just inquiring.


----------



## sands67 (Nov 28, 2012)

This is a bad situation...period. i have read about the case and I can see where this is nothing more than a pissing contest. It does appear that this decision was more politically motivated than anything. It is my understanding that the potentate actually stepped down and took a demit from the Shrine and the GL of Arkansas still wont change its mind. At each Imperial things are voted on by Shriners who are Masons. I have read here several times that The Imperial has tried to get the Masonic requirement dropped, but have never been able to find anything in writing on that. Is this just a Shriner myth or can someone produce something?


----------



## DWSCHULZ (Nov 29, 2012)

BryanMaloney said:


> All Grand Lodges are sovereign. Thus, Arkansas only applies within Arkansas.



I guess I was thinking a few moves ahead...ie: some Grand Master somewhere might be a Shriner who thinks the Arkansas Shriner was right and try to force the GLoA's, through non-recognition, to allow the Shriner to stay a Mason.  I'm a Montana Mason but I live in Minnesota now.  I remember several years ago when the Grand Lodge of Minnesota recognized some questionable Grand Lodge in France and 5-10 other Grand Lodges in the US threatened the Grand Lodge of Minnesota with non-recognition if they didn't resend recognition of the French Grand Lodge.  The Grand Lodge of MN backed down but I think....I think the sitting Grand Master in MN that year was a Shriner and so on and so forth.  

I am biased against the Shrine or either of the Rites that attempts to wag the dog instead of following dictates of the Grand Master...or I was until my Grand Master was removed.  Past Grand's do make mistakes.

In a perfect world I would assume that the National Shrine body would impose their will upon the Shrine of Arkansas and require them to follow the dictates of the Grand Master of Arkansas.  If the national Shrine body can't do that, then what good are they?


----------



## MarkR (Nov 30, 2012)

DWSCHULZ said:


> I guess I was thinking a few moves ahead...ie: some Grand Master somewhere might be a Shriner who thinks the Arkansas Shriner was right and try to force the GLoA's, through non-recognition, to allow the Shriner to stay a Mason.  I'm a Montana Mason but I live in Minnesota now.  I remember several years ago when the Grand Lodge of Minnesota recognized some questionable Grand Lodge in France and 5-10 other Grand Lodges in the US threatened the Grand Lodge of Minnesota with non-recognition if they didn't resend recognition of the French Grand Lodge.  The Grand Lodge of MN backed down but I think....I think the sitting Grand Master in MN that year was a Shriner and so on and so forth.


You probably ought to get more information on this before posting.  It was not some "questionable" Grand Lodge, it was Grand Lodge of France, founded in 1728, which Minnesota voted to recognize simultaneously with the French National Grand Lodge, since it was the opinion of the Committee on External Relations that both were regular in their practices and that their fight with each other was not for Minnesota to decide.  The Grand Master who was sitting for the period 2000-2001, when this recognition occurred, is as good a man and Mason as you could ever want to meet, and I don't see what his status as being or not being a Shriner has to do with any of this. The way you worded that last sentence makes it sound like there was some sinister connection (in all honesty, although I know the Most Worshipful Brother well from Scottish Rite, I don't know if he's a Shriner or not) and that his actions were somehow less than honorable.

His intention, and that of the Committee on External Relations, was honorable.  The Grand Master who was sitting when Minnesota reversed itself has stated that they only did it because situations were arising where families were not allowed to attend lodge with each other when visiting other neighboring states due to suspended fraternal relations, and they simply wanted to end the strife.

You might want to note that now many Grand Lodges around the world have suspended fraternal relations with the French National Grand Lodge, and some are considering extending recognition to the older Grand Lodge of France now.  French Freemasonry has been somewhat of a mess for some time, with three large Grand Lodges existing simultaneously, and the one with the most members, the Grand Orient of France, is recognized by almost no one.


----------



## sands67 (Nov 30, 2012)

Exactly...what does being a Shriner have to do with it.  I have read time and time again remarks about Shriners from some on here and not always in a positive light. For those who seem to forget Shriners are Masons. Please remember your five points of fellowship before slighting them so quickly.


----------



## widows son (Nov 30, 2012)

The Shriners I knows are a great group of guys, I just hope this is all over soon.


----------



## Custer148 (Nov 30, 2012)

sands67 said:


> Exactly...what does being a Shriner have to do with it.  I have read time and time again remarks about Shriners from some on here and not always in a positive light. For those who seem to forget Shriners are Masons. Please remember your five points of fellowship before slighting them so quickly.



Custer148Re: Grand Lodge of Arkansas dictates upon Shrinedom
                        I don't want to see this --- I know that Imperial Shrine for a couple of years has been trying to do away with the requirement of a man having to be a Master Mason in order to become a Shriner, this may be the push that is necessary for them to be successful.  Still, if the Arkansas Grand Lodge still says that Arkansas MMs may not be Shriners, it would be a moot point at best.        ​
If my above post in this thread was included in this remark, I apologize, I am a Shriner and as such do not want to offend anyone who may or may not be one.  I have a really good friend who is a Past Potentate of Tehama Shrine, he and I have talked a lot and I really respect what it takes to be Potentate.

I second widows son and also hope this will be over soon.


----------



## widows son (Nov 30, 2012)

Do you guys really think they would do away with the requirement of being a master mason? To me I would make no sense if they did.


----------



## Traveling Man (Nov 30, 2012)

widows son said:


> Do you guys really think they would do away with the requirement of being a master mason? To me I would make no sense if they did.


 Yes, I think it's just a matter of time. They don't have the financial resources (endowments, etc.) that they used to have to support their charities, it's a shame too. If you think Freemasonry cannot replenish their membership rolls, look at the Shrine it's in worse shape. Why do you think they waivered the YR & SR requirements? It's sad but the reality of this modern society. I also think that's the underlying purpose of the "all the way in one day" phenomenon we see presently. The re-investments that were used to enhance the endowment funds no longer have the yields they used to have. These funds have reach the point of diminished returns, where else can they turn?


----------



## widows son (Nov 30, 2012)

I understand. But aret their ritual etc that only a MM would and should only know? I wouldn't know, I'm not in the shrine or familiar with its workings.


----------



## Traveling Man (Dec 1, 2012)

widows son said:


> I understand. But aret their ritual etc that only a MM would and should only know? I wouldn't know, I'm not in the shrine or familiar with its workings.



Yes you're quite right about the (Obligations) rituals but I could see "associate membership" a philanthropic type membership where there doesn't need the Masonic requirement. Like I said they have dropped the YR & SR prerequisite; one has to wonder, what next?


----------



## Brother JC (Dec 1, 2012)

The rituals aren't "masonic," any more than the rituals of the Eagles, Elks, Meese, et cetera ad nuaseum are. They could easily open membership to the general public.

If Freemasonry's numbers are dwindling, the Shrine is being hit harder. A smaller pool, and a number within that pool who aren't interested. I've even heard rumours of Shrine Clubs wanting to give free memberships to new MMs, hoping to boost next year's dues.


----------



## DWSCHULZ (Dec 3, 2012)

It was not my intent to slight anyone.  The French Grand Lodge in question was clearly "questionable" per the reaction the Grand Lodge of Minnesota received from several other American Grand Lodges.  Just because someone is a member of the governing body of an American Grand Lodge does not place their actions beyond question or comment.  My point in bringing up the event concerning the Grand Lodge of Minnesota was that governing members of Grand Lodges make mistakes regardless of how long ago their Grand Lodge was founded.  And that sometimes their mistakes seem to be rooted in their affiliation with other bodies such as the Shrine.  The notion is not at all as unbelievable as you make it out to be.  I've seen it happen several times and in several jurisdictions, including my own.


----------



## sands67 (Dec 3, 2012)

What I sometimes see is that Shriner's sometimes forget they are masons when in a Shrine meeting or other function.  If we brought it back so that people remember the basic ideals of being a Mason than the Shrine membership would take care of itself. I have worked hard in my lodge and hard as a Shriner as to me one is just part of the cause for the other. I do it not for recognition, but for the ideals of being a Mason and the cause of being a Mason who helps kids by being a Shriner. Freemasonry is supposed to make good men better men and to me being a Shriner is just a part of that experience. That is why I get bothered when I hear rumblings of Masons (Shriners ) at the Imperial forgetting their roots and politics getting between Masons on the lodge side. Where are the better men coming from if we cannot fix our own house? Why would anyone want to join with this stuff going on? Pressure must be brought to bear on the GLoA and Shriners to get this worked out ASAP. Since it cannot be done by Masons in Arkansas since the GM there has "outlawed" even discussing Shrinedom it seems that other Grand Lodges should be doing this while at the same time  telling the Shrine to get back to the table. This should not be allowed to carry on any further as it is easy to see the damage it is causing when even I am hearing talk of it in Eastern Canada.


----------



## MarkR (Dec 4, 2012)

DWSCHULZ said:


> It was not my intent to slight anyone.  The French Grand Lodge in question was clearly "questionable" per the reaction the Grand Lodge of Minnesota received from several other American Grand Lodges.  Just because someone is a member of the governing body of an American Grand Lodge does not place their actions beyond question or comment.  My point in bringing up the event concerning the Grand Lodge of Minnesota was that governing members of Grand Lodges make mistakes regardless of how long ago their Grand Lodge was founded.  And that sometimes their mistakes seem to be rooted in their affiliation with other bodies such as the Shrine.  The notion is not at all as unbelievable as you make it out to be.  I've seen it happen several times and in several jurisdictions, including my own.


Again, I suggest that you find out more about it before judging.  Most Minnesota brethren who pass around information about the incident know nothing more than rumors.  The reaction of the other U.S. Grand Lodges had a lot more to do with international Masonic politics than it did anything about the Grand Lodge of France being "questionable."

Also, you make a connection that somehow being a Shriner had something to do with it, yet you give no indication why you would think that.  As far as I know, the Shrine has no connection to France.  I'm not a Shriner, but I just don't get why you make some connection to this incident.  The PGM involved is a good friend, he was badly hurt by this incident, and for people to now try to cast some unsupported aspersion on him over a decade after the fact does anger me.

Give a look at this article about the politics involved in the three competing Grand Lodges in France, with a good explanation of what happened in Minnesota: http://www.freemasons-freemasonry.com/masonic_foreign_recognitions.html


----------



## DWSCHULZ (Dec 4, 2012)

MarkR said:


> Again, I suggest that you find out more about it before judging.  Most Minnesota brethren who pass around information about the incident know nothing more than rumors.  The reaction of the other U.S. Grand Lodges had a lot more to do with international Masonic politics than it did anything about the Grand Lodge of France being "questionable."
> 
> Also, you make a connection that somehow being a Shriner had something to do with it, yet you give no indication why you would think that.  As far as I know, the Shrine has no connection to France.  I'm not a Shriner, but I just don't get why you make some connection to this incident.  The PGM involved is a good friend, he was badly hurt by this incident, and for people to now try to cast some unsupported aspersion on him over a decade after the fact does anger me.
> 
> Give a look at this article about the politics involved in the three competing Grand Lodges in France, with a good explanation of what happened in Minnesota: http://www.freemasons-freemasonry.com/masonic_foreign_recognitions.html



Clearly I am being misunderstood with my analogy here.  I am not attempting to smear anyone's good name.  Let's forget the actions of Grand Lodge of Minnesota for a moment and I hope you can forgive me for bringing it up.  If one brother makes a error in judgement aren't we suppose to whisper good council in his ear towards his reformation?  I guess Shriners don't sit in positions of authority in Minnesota as they do elsewhere in the United States.  I have personally witnessed Shriners who have sat as state Grand Masters make errors in judgement based upon their putting the increase of members of Shrinedom over all else.  But you're right, that one does not have to be a member of Shrine to lose sight of the ancient landmarks, but it has been my experience that the two go hand in hand.

Personally, I agree with the Grand Master of Arkansas and I'm surprised the Shrine International doesn't apply pressure on the Shrine in Arkansas to get back in line.


----------



## sands67 (Dec 4, 2012)

It is my understanding, I do not know for certain, that the potentate which all of the issues are about did indeed step down from the Shrine.


----------



## DWSCHULZ (Dec 10, 2012)

I know what the Grand Master decides in Arkansas, only applies to Arkansas Masonry...that is, until the Grand Master of South Carolina wants to throw his "two-cents" into the discussion.  Know any other opinionated state Grand Masters?  I don't think South Carolina will be the last.


----------



## sands67 (Dec 13, 2012)

A sad turn of events when they dont look at the situation and just make it black and white like this. It will be to the detriment of both Organizations.


----------

