# Brother Pete Normand,JR on the Traditional Lodge Model



## jwhoff (Dec 28, 2011)

Fellow members of the Scottish Rite Research Society,

Received this very day the Volume 19, 2011 *Heredom* from the Society.  Among the papers presented is one by Brother Pierre G. "Pete" Normand, Jr. 33rd degree.  The paper actually starts on page 209 though it is listed as 207 in the Contents section.

Brother Normand sheds much light on the Traditional Observance (TO) lodge concept we are all discussing of late.  As usual Brother Normand's writing is impeccable and most informative.  He actually lists lodges across the country, including those here in Texas.  For the brothers in the Houston area who may not know, Doric Lodge No. 420 is on the list.  

He points out the void filled by such lodges for newer masons who, eager to learn more, become disillusioned with the lack of education provided in most of our blue lodges.  He too breaches the oft-discussed quality vs. numbers topic.  Again, it is an informative and thought provoking read for us all.

We are truly blessed to have Brother Normand among the learned brethren of the Houston Scottish Rite. 


Those of you who are not members of the Research Society are missing a blessing.


----------



## Ashton Lawson (Dec 28, 2011)

Just got my copy today, and I look forward to reading Bro. Pete's article. He once kept me on the phone for nearly 3 straight hours discussing PHA recognition, and I've liked him ever since. I've bumped into him a few times since at various events, and he is always the center of an engaged conversation where anyone listening can learn something. 

Can't wait!


----------



## tomasball (Jan 2, 2012)

I wish we had a category on this board devoted to discussing "Best Traditional Practices."  I realize that this movement isn't everyone's cup of tea, as evidenced by the number of brothers who post screams of agony when the subject of wearing neckties to lodge comes up, but perhaps there are a few of us here who could benefit from an ongoing comparison of notes on this subject.


----------



## tomasball (Jan 3, 2012)

Here are the fundamental precepts currently promoted by the Masonic Restoration Foundation, which can be found on their website, and which Bro. Normand quotes in his article:

It is a tradition of Freemasonry that the fraternity is, above all else, an initiatic order whose main purpose is to teach good men to subdue their passions, become masters over themselves, and grow in life to be better men.

It is a tradition of Freemasonry that only those who are duly and truly prepared are eligible to be admitted as members. In keeping with the Masonic statement “to make good men better,” a man should only be initiated into a lodge if he is already good and capable of being made better. Determining the qualifications of men in seeking admission is an essential aspect of upholding the integrity of our ancient institution. 

It is a tradition of Freemasonry that its ceremonies should be conducted with the utmost reverence and solemnity. Masonic ritual ceremonies should always be performed in a solemn and dignified manner. All efforts pertaining to the presentation of the degrees of Craft Freemasonry should be focused on the candidate, providing each with the most profound and transformative initiatic experience possible.

It is a tradition of Freemasonry that every Mason should be desirous to learn and apt to teach. Sufficient time between degrees should be given to each candidate so as to enhance his self transformation through personal intellectual study, reflection and contemplation. It is incumbent on every lodge to be aware of the progressive nature of its teaching curriculum, and to provide its candidates with a ritual coach and the mentorship of well informed brethren. 

It is a tradition of Freemasonry that each candidate should demonstrate his proficiency in learning at each individual stage or degree before he can be advanced to the next stage. Traditionally, Masonic learning includes a demonstration of the candidate’s understanding of the journey from darkness to light, ignorance to knowledge; and his insight into the uses and applications of Masonic symbols, allegories and myths introduced by the ritual ceremonies. The aspirant should be able to articulate to his lodge brethren some positive changes in his character and demeanor as he advances in his understanding and proficiency. Every newly raised Master Mason should feel that he has grown intellectually and spiritually by his Masonic experience. 

It is a tradition of Freemasonry that members of Masonic Lodges should be actively engaged in Freemasonry. Historically, attendance at Masonic meetings and functions was mandatory, with fines paid for absences not excused by the lodge. Active participation in the business and purposes of Masonry by a large majority of those who belong is essential to the growth and vitality of a lodge, and in carrying out its role in improving society. 

It is a tradition of Freemasonry that Masons come together to seek fellowship and fraternity in a common pursuit of virtue and moral improvement. This has historically best been accomplished in small and intimate gatherings of fraternal association. Lodges should be large enough to be efficient, but small enough for all the brethren of the lodge to closely know each other. Fraternal ties must always be stronger than social ties. Masonic relationships are expected to be forged between members in the same way a brother grows close to a sibling. 

It is a tradition of Freemasonry that, through the exercise of genuine brotherly love, men become better enabled to regard humankind as one family. Charity, being the chief of all social virtues, encumbers Masons to aid, support and protect each other, relieve the distress and misfortune of family members, and consciously contribute to the betterment of society at large. 

It is a tradition of Freemasonry that Lodges should make regular time for feasting, communal dining, and embracing the social enjoyment of their members. Holding an Agape or Festive Board after meetings has long been a traditional element of Masonic evenings. Table Lodges and Feasts of St. John offer opportunities to observe this important Masonic tradition with the larger Masonic community. The fellowship of men is best embraced in the convivial environs of sociability. 

It is a tradition of Freemasonry that its formal and tyled assemblies should be dedicated to the attainment of a deeper knowledge and understanding of Freemasonry by all members. To this end, the presentation of lectures, poetry, music; discussions of the arts, philosophy, and history; and the interpretation of symbols, allegories and myths of Masonic ritual all play an important role in furthering the aims and growth of a Masonic lodge and its members. Each tyled meeting should be devoted, at least in part, to the realization of this profound purpose. 

It is a tradition of Freemasonry that only the ablest among us should serve in an office of Masonry. Serving in a Masonic office is a privilege and not a right. Officers of Masonic lodges should be elected and appointed based solely on their merit. Officers who are invited to progress in the offices of Masonry should be able to demonstrate their qualifications to lead and execute the duties of their office.

It is a tradition of Freemasonry that the Master of a Masonic Lodge must be well versed in Masonic teachings and traditions; be a proven leader of men; possess a character worthy of respect; and be the kind of man who cultivates in all his undertakings the tenets of Brotherly Love, Relief and Truth. 

Above all, the most important tradition of a Freemason is self improvement. The improvement of the individual is the most fundamental aspect of improving society. Thus, the most important tradition of Freemasonry is societal improvement made manifest through the best efforts and examples of its members.


----------



## Ecossais (Feb 22, 2013)

Brother JWHOFF, in his post above, stated that Brother Pete Normand, in his article in Heredom Vol. 19, "sheds much light on the Traditional Observance (TO) Lodge concept," and goes on to say:  "He actually lists lodges across the country, including those here in Texas. For the brothers in the Houston area who may not know, Doric Lodge No. 420 is on the list."

HOWEVER, if you actually read Brother Normand's article in Heredom Vol. 19, you will find that the article, titled "A Return to the Traditional Lodge Model," is not just about "Traditional Observance lodges," but is about the entire traditional lodge movement, beginning with John Hilliard's Independent Royal Arch Lodge No. 2, in New York, and Normand's "Traditional Best Practices lodge," St. Alban's No. 1455, in College Station, created in 1992, long before the "TO" label was invented.

In that article, under the heading "The European Concept Model," there is a list of lodges who, although they may meet many of the standards of the Traditional Observance model, are not TO lodges. On THAT list is where you will find Doric Lodge No. 420 of Houston, and Robert Burns Lodge No. 127 of Round Rock. In other words, they are not on the TO lodge list, but on the other list.

However, after visiting both Doric Lodge and Robert Burns Lodge in Round Rock, I would challenge the idea that either of these lodges are Best Traditional Practices lodges OR European Concept lodges. The members of these lodges may wear tuxedos to lodge, and they may eat at a restaurant after meetings, but the similarities to the Best Traditional Practices model stop right there. They do not tile their lodges. The Tiler sits on the inside of the lodge room. 

There is little uniformity of dress at these lodges. At one meeting of Robert Burns Lodge, I saw the WM in a white dinner jacket, while the SW wore a long black frock coat and a string tie, while the JW was in a kilt with a BPC jacket. The Tiler always wears a polka-dot bowtie. At a recent meeting of Doric Lodge in Houston, the senior PM present wore a colored bow tie, instead of "black tie."

Decorum, one of the hallmarks of the Traditional Best Practices, European Concept, and Traditional Observance models is noticeably absent from the meetings of these two lodges, which take on the same "Committee of the Whole" discussions that most other lodges fall into.

In summary, none of this is to criticize these two lodges. They are who they choose to be, and they are what they are the most comfortable being. I am simply pointing out that Normand's inclusion of these two lodges in a list of "Traditional Best Practices" or European Concept lodges was probably more a case of wishful thinking on his part, than anything else.


----------



## jwhoff (Feb 22, 2013)

Thanks Brother Ecossais for the further clarifications.


----------



## SSG_Morrison (Feb 24, 2013)

tomasball said:


> I wish we had a category on this board devoted to discussing "Best Traditional Practices."  I realize that this movement isn't everyone's cup of tea, as evidenced by the number of brothers who post screams of agony when the subject of wearing neckties to lodge comes up, but perhaps there are a few of us here who could benefit from an ongoing comparison of notes on this subject.



There is another forum site started and ran by some brothers in Colorado that started a pure TO lodge. 
www.thesanctumsanctorum.com


----------



## Blake Bowden (Feb 24, 2013)

TSS is a great site as well, I'm actually the Co-Admin there


----------



## chrmc (Feb 25, 2013)

Ecossais said:


> Brother JWHOFF, in his post above, stated that Brother Pete Normand, in his article in Heredom Vol. 19, "sheds much light on the Traditional Observance (TO) Lodge concept," and goes on to say:  "He actually lists lodges across the country, including those here in Texas. For the brothers in the Houston area who may not know, Doric Lodge No. 420 is on the list."



Any chance there is an electronic copy of this article anywhere that could be shared?


----------



## Michael Hatley (Feb 25, 2013)

I was lucky enough to attend a lecture at St. Alban's this last weekend, where Brother Normand acted as master of ceremonies (perhaps unofficially, not sure of the officer structure), and afterwards he provided fellowship for us within his home.  I admire him.  He was one of the lecturers when I became 32nd, and among his other duties he is one of Texas Masonry's main diplomats to other GLs.  The genuine article this man.

The whole model is interesting to me for one reason - _gravitas_.  

And our lodge has a number of things going for it that put a conversion to TO on the possibility list.  Location, amenities within the building, a clean slate of sorts, and so forth.  And so I am investigating the concept closely.

The thing I want most is to plant a banner for younger masons in the Houston area. We are spread out to kingdom come.  In some lodges we are central.  In others we are on the periphery.  But we are dispersed.  I think that should we gather into one place, under one roof, that we could create the sort of energy that builds and grows, and can help arrest some of the challenging trends facing us all as Texas Masons.  I think many of us are searching for the same things which is why this model appeals to us.

But my fear is this "Traditional Observance" model may come at things from sub-optimal directions in some cases, and that there might be some better ways to approach things.

Let me give you fellas one example.  The tuxedos.

Now, I own a tuxedo, and I enjoy having an excuse to wear it.  I just feel comfortable in black tie, simple as that.  But many men do not either own a tuxedo nor do they care to.  And I worry that this is, in the end, not the best way to provide the gravitas we seek.

I think there may be others.  

What reduces gravitas in our ritual, in our stated meetings, and so forth?  Wrangling over the bills.  Debates about fund raisers.  Lack of stimulating content, and more things that I am sure come to mind.

But these things can be addressed by doing business every other stated meeting and that sort of thing.

I remain unconvinced that it is lack of _exclusivity_, brethren, which is at the root of the matter.

And no, I do not think that is the goal of TO necessarily - but lets return to the attire for a moment.

As I understand it (and I may be well mistaken), the white gloves worn by our brethren in other nations is worn in part to symbolize being _on the level_.  An attorney's well manicured hands cannot be distinguished from the calloused hands of the plumber, roofer, or other tradesmen.  I think that sort of symbolism has purpose, it rings deeply correct, to me.

So I can't help think, rather than tuxedos, why not do something simple, like have 50 simple robes available for every attendee of the lodge.  With one swift stroke we take a man's attire out of the equation.  We normalize everyone.  We put the (relatively small) investment onto the shoulders of the lodge, making it a group project rather than an individual one, which is tiring if not impossible logistically as there will always be holdouts.

And it immediately makes every meeting a "robed" meeting.  Every degree a "robed" degree.  Coupled with simple things like turning down the lights, use of candles, music, and worthwhile content, you've got a far more compelling experience than before without having to be troubled with the drawbacks of exclusivity.

Anyway, thats just one example of the things that come to mind where I'm not sure the TO model is perfect.  And the robes are really just a brainstorm, and I have several along those lines (perhaps equally poor!).  But I am keen to learn more about TO.  To learn how we can implement at least the spirit of the thing. 

I think about the only way you'll get a "perfect" TO lodge, in the sense that it meets with the approval of the Masonic Restoration Foundation and whatever body has the authority to anoint a lodge as "officially" TO, is to form a lodge from scratch.  Maybe there will be rare exceptions.  Memorial may wind up going that route, even.  But it would be, even with all of our advantages, a heavy lift.  And I think that more often than not, men will have to come together to form an entirely new lodge to have it conform to TO in all official ways.  It is just logistics, if you look at it from an implementation standpoint.  And that, in this time where many lodges ought really to be merging and joining forces rather than becoming even more dispersed troubles me.  

I think there is a better way.

I wish I could get some of you to come visit me at Memorial 1298.  Get a whiteboard out, and discuss ideas, both what is working, what could work, and what could be done.  Ideas, the energy to implement them, willingness to break the mold and a common passion to go deeper into this particular rabbit hole.  We would appreciate your input, and it would be very timely.


----------



## Bro. Stewart P.M. (Feb 25, 2013)

Blake Bowden said:


> TSS is a great site as well, I'm actually the Co-Admin there



Over achiever!


----------



## Brother JC (Feb 25, 2013)

My smaller Lodge, Cerrillos XIX, slowly made some changes over the last five years. One WM made jackets and ties the rule. It was met with some resistance, but when it became clear that ties were the majority, people stopped complaining and started wearing them. This rule stayed on through the next two WMs, with one raising the bar by wearing a dinner jacket and black tie, or a black suit and bow-tie. This set several other Brethren to wearing black suits regularly. During this time, our dues also went up by nearly 700%, and we continued having our educational presentations, something we were already known for.
 The present WM, who is on his second consecutive year, made black suits and a black necktie the law for Officers, and dark suits for the Craft. He also required white gloves for the Officers. Our Sister Lodge, who's building we get to use, has started wearing black suits and white gloves at our joint Installation in December. They are more relaxed for Communications, though.

Have these small changes affected the Lodge? Undeniably. There is a sense of pride that, while existing in the member's hearts, wasn't completely obvious. Brothers want to be involved these days. They are bringing in interesting speakers of topics both Masonic and mundane, and they are researching topics to present themselves. They are curious about new ideas, which is never a bad thing. They want to be respected for their Ritual Work, and not have to depend on assistance from another Lodge.

It took a few years of steady chiseling, and a half-dozen Freemasons who wanted something different, something more, but it's becoming a better, stronger Lodge.


----------



## jwhoff (Feb 25, 2013)

Interesting points brother. What week, evening and time are your stated meetings?


----------



## jwhoff (Feb 25, 2013)

Bro. Stewart said:


> Over achiever!




Agreed.  It tires me, so.  After all, they coined a term after me ... Slacker ... some years back.


----------



## Brother JC (Feb 26, 2013)

jwhoff said:


> Interesting points brother. What week, evening and time are your stated meetings?


Cerrillos meets the Second Wednesday, dinner at 6:30pm, Lodge opens at 7:30.
Montezuma meets on the First Monday, same times.
Both meet in the Montezuma building, next to the Big Pink Castle.


----------



## Michael Hatley (Feb 27, 2013)

The slow implementation, in an existing lodge, has to be about the only way I'd think.

The thing that concerns me is losing the good parts about the casual aspect.  Relax.  Stand around a BBQ pit in the run up.  That sort of thing doesn't lack value.

So for me, dark suits for stated (officers), dress up to black tie or something else interesting for degrees (members of the degree team) and perhaps four table lodges a year seems like a way to go and then see.

But there is a pool table in our building.  Practice nights and other such stuff I just feel like overdressing would get in the way of fellowship rather than increase it.  And turn off some members too.  Time and place sort of thing, and balancing both aspects maybe.  

Interested to hear other success stories.


----------



## Mac (Feb 27, 2013)

Tangentially related: What do you guys think about meeting, at most, ONCE a month for a stated meeting?  Does anyone else feel like hearing the minutes and paying the bills twice a month is too much?


----------



## Ecossais (Feb 27, 2013)

Brother Hatley: You spilled a lot of ink over your personal issue with tuxedos. However, the purpose of tuxedos is to have the members of the lodge meet "on the level." No one is showing off their $500 Ranger belt buckle, or their $750 lizard-skin cowboy boots. Tuxedos help to prevent the introduction of invidious distinctions within the lodge. Dressing for lodge is a very old and revered tradition in Freemasonry that has been embraced from coast to coast by the more traditional lodges. They may "dress" in a dark suit and tie, or they may dress in tuxedos and black tie, or in white tie and tails.

The fact that there are "many men" who "do not either own a tuxedo" nor care to, is not the concern of traditional lodges. Those who see the value in belonging, participating and contributing to traditional lodges will buy a tuxedo and wear it. Rest assured that there are many Masons who do not see the value of it, nor do they see the value of eating off anything better than a paper plate, or paying more that one dollar for dinner, or sitting through a 20-minute lecture on Masonic symbolism, much less driving 90 miles to hear an good Masonic speaker.

These same men will be content to wear blue jeans to lodge, eat a meager meal, listen to a half-hour reading of the minutes, argue at length over how many light bulbs the lodge should purchase, and then gather for a discussion of football in the lodge dining room. And, if that is what Freemasonry is to them, then God bless them. I'm glad that they are content.

But, for many young Masons today (and many older Masons, as well), that is NOT Freemasonry, and they want what Traditional Observance lodges, or Traditional Best Practices lodges, have to offer. 

One of John Mauk Hilliard's Seven Points of Traditional Freemasonry is "Commitment," a very real commitment to the success of the lodge by both officers and members. If a man is not willing to buy and wear a simple black polyester tuxedo when he goes to lodge, then he doesn't really want to commit himself. 

When I bought a tuxedo a few years ago, I paid $199 for jacket and pants, shirt, studs and cufflinks, cummerbund and bowtie. Heck, I have sport coats that cost more than that, and I've seen men wear cowboy boots that cost three times that much.

If you have a personal aversion to tuxedos, that's okay. There are plenty (plenty!) of lodges out there that will let you wear cargo pants and a t-shirt to lodge. Don't feel badly that there are a few lodges wearing tuxedos. That's their thing. 

If you can create a lodge with "gravitas" while still dressing in casual attire, then go for it. But, don't focus all your energy on those that choose to dress up a bit.


----------



## chrmc (Feb 27, 2013)

Ecossais. I do not presume to speak for brother Hatley, but I think you missed the point he was trying to make. 
As I read it the elegance of dress is to achieve two things. Firstly to show a certain reverence towards the craft and the work we are engaged in, and secondly to ensure brethren met on the level by having a uniform mode of dress. But who says that form has to be a tuxedo? In essence a black suit and tie, or a graduation robe would work just as well. 

My personal opinion on dresscode and the TO aspect is that I think we often put to much emphasis on that as well as the meals. 
If a lodge changes nothing else, but everyone wearing tuxedos and eating prime rib at every meeting, did they truly change anything?
I'd much rather start seeing the TO discussions center around how to give candidates additional light, building a good mentor program, ritual excellence and perpetuating more brotherhood. That's where the real money is in my book. 

It's been a time since "Laudable Pursuit" was written by the Knights of the North, but I think it would be great if we could start seeing some of the ideals in there spread further.


----------



## Brother JC (Feb 27, 2013)

Michael Hatley said:


> The thing that concerns me is losing the good parts about the casual aspect.  Relax.  Stand around a BBQ pit in the run up.  That sort of thing doesn't lack value.


Oh, we're casual at picnics and outings, not to worry. Some scary chicken-legs in shorts at the horseshoe pit...

And to be clear, neither of my Lodges is TO/EC. We just decided to raise the bar a bit.


----------



## Michael Hatley (Mar 1, 2013)

Oh, I understand the idea around formal attire, I reckon.  And again, personally speaking I own a tux and have for years - and enjoy the excuse to wear it.  But I'm looking at this from an implementation standpoint.  I actually intend to move on some of this stuff, in the present tense.  I'm not speaking in the abstract 

I just think robes would be a more practical way to get at the meat of what I at least see as important.  I see that as ritual first, table manners second.

A bunch of robes could be purchased by the lodge rather than the individual.  Have a fundraiser for it or the like.

Plus they could be used for practice nights easily even when the brethren are meeting in casual attire.

Tasteful robes, gloves, and jewels, coupled with the music, ritual, lighting and so forth of TO I think would be more - not less impactful than tuxedos.

When I think on our ancient brethren it is difficult to see them in tuxedos.  Easy to see them in robes.

It seems to me that the word "Traditional" may be being used here in a somewhat arbitrary way that is becoming a "brand".  A brand with a small group of folks who give the nod on which lodges are anointed officially "Traditional Observance" and which are not, with some of those folks selling books, traveling to lodges, creating Facebook pages and reinforcing the brand.

Maybe that is not a bad thing.  And as I said, I am impressed with Brother Normand, and keen to learn more.  I'm just putting out what is on my mind as honestly as I can, in the pursuit of making this experience better and finding the real crux of what the newer generations moving forward to will be attracted to while preserving the very best of our traditions.  Some of the casual aspects of Texas Masonry are worthwhile, in my opinion.  Some aren't, but where they converge is the ritual.  Again, to me robes seem like a decent compromise and why I am stuck on the idea.  For now anyway.  I'm open to being convinced.

--edit

Also - do lodges that are officially "Traditional Observance" branded by their Grand Lodge receive different latitude with regard to the ritual?  Chambers of reflection, that sort of thing.  Why is that, if so?  Does it amount to getting a pass for latitude with the CoW, but in exchange becoming at least tangentially subordinate to the Masonic Restoration Foundation?  These are the sorts of questions I have, and am keeping an open mind about.


----------



## jwhoff (Mar 1, 2013)

Tuxedos!  

Let me take another look at Mel Brooks' History of The World, Part I.  

If I see any, I'll get back with you.

Tuxedos ... hummm.


Might also look in Hanna-Barbara files over in the corner.


----------



## Bro. Stewart P.M. (Mar 1, 2013)

Michael Hatley said:


> Also - do lodges that are officially "Traditional Observance" branded by their Grand Lodge receive different latitude with regard to the ritual?  Chambers of reflection, that sort of thing.  Why is that, if so?  Does it amount to getting a pass for latitude with the CoW, but in exchange becoming at least tangentially subordinate to the Masonic Restoration Foundation?  These are the sorts of questions I have, and am keeping an open mind about.



There are a couple of other threads on this site that offer explanation of the Traditional Observance format...

http://www.masonsoftexas.com/showthread.php?13417-The-Traditonal-Observance-Lodge-Explained&highlight=traditional+observance


----------



## crono782 (Mar 4, 2013)

Blake Bowden said:


> TSS is a great site as well, I'm actually the Co-Admin there



Does it take a while for the moderator approval on that site? Registered a while back and got nuthin'. ;/


----------



## Benjamin Baxter (Mar 4, 2013)

crono782 said:
			
		

> Does it take a while for the moderator approval on that site? Registered a while back and got nuthin'. ;/



Me too.


----------



## Bro_Vick (Mar 5, 2013)

The glaring issue and incapability of European Concept Lodges in America is that they are suppose to be regulated to 50 or less members (some as small as 30).  In Europe it is typical if a lodge grows too big that lodge can grant dispensation to start another lodge to allow more potential candidates of the community to join.  The process is somewhat established and well known

In America dispensations are given to brothers that have deep masonic connections and are for the most part rare.  This causes European Concept Lodges to become full of Past Masters and breed cronyism, rather than more light.  These lodges also have closed events, invitational only meetings, and other aspects that make it so a brother off the street has to have an in somehow before they are allowed to attend.  This isn't new concept by any means in Freemasonry, but I don't believe that a blue lodge should be structured as such.

The beauty of these lodges and the prestige they bring back to the Craft is absolutely undeniable.  Sitting in these lodges and when they are performed properly show an aspect of Freemasonry that was washed away in the 1940s and 1950s to mass numbers, blank reciting of the Work, and loss of Masonic individualism.  Still, if this movement is to be successful in America, we as Masons need to give it equal opportunity to all Masons, not just Grand Officers, and politically connected brothers.  In Texas in particular there has been PGMs that were ardently against T.O. to the point of threatening to close one down here in San Antonio, deeming their practices as unmasonic.

My harsh criticisms of European Concept Lodges in the past have been due to its lack of availability to every Freemason.  The stringent rules established now and deep pockets required to establish a new charter makes it difficult.  Some brothers have taken over dying lodges, but this usually is wrought with drama, and again requires heavy connections within Grand Lodge.

As leaders of Freemasons it is our job and duty to recognize these challenges and work to overcome them.  I believe that we need to allow a lodge to be as individual as possible to meet the needs of their members and keep brothers active.  We can't force European Concept Lodges on people, and we can't expect that fish fry's, and BBQ cook offs are going to meet the intellectual needs of others. 

BLUF:  We need to allow more freedom in the individual lodges, we need to allow fair access to European Concept Lodges, but recognize that some men don't want to have anything to do with them.  Respect for this, and understanding proper implementation of this concept, I believe will cause the lodges to become widely popular in America and not enjoyed by a sparse few of our brothers.

S&F,

-Bro Vick


----------



## chrmc (Mar 5, 2013)

I agree a lot with Brother Vick above. One of the problem as I see it, is that the size of lodges we have also means that we will have members in them with many different interest. It's hard to accommodate everyone if half the lodge wants fish frys and the other half wants intellectual discussions about Voltaire. 
I think that smaller lodges that cater to their members exact needs would be beneficial. Especially if we could get past the need for every single lodge to have their own building. There is a lot of money to be saved and headaches to be shared by sharing lodge buildings.


----------



## JJones (Mar 5, 2013)

I agree with the points made above but a huge hurdle to creating newer and smaller lodges is the large amount of brethren needed to charter one.  I think it's something like 50 members?  Don't quote me on that, I can't find it in my law book for some reason even though I'm sure I've seen it before.

If you created a new lodge with 50 charter members then you already have more members than you probably should according to either concept (I'm sure there's room for flexibility though) and you don't have much room to grow either.  Reviving a lodge might be a possibility, I think they require less members initially but I've heard that the GL has had a pretty hard stance against doing so in the past...and there's a pretty finite number of demised lodges out there.

A group of brothers could take over a dying lodge as pointed out but that's almost certain to create a ton of drama.  Another problem is that a lot of these near-death lodges are pretty rural...there's a lot of them however, I could name two or three in or near my district alone.


----------



## Ecossais (Mar 8, 2013)

Brother CHRMC: You asked: "If a lodge changes nothing else, but everyone wearing tuxedos and eating prime rib at every meeting, did they truly change anything?"

Of course, I would have to say, "Yes, they changed their dress and the quality of their meals. But that is all." 

I was told that when St. Alban's Lodge at College Station was in the planning stage over 20 years ago, that one of its founding members said, "If all we are doing is trading up from blue jeans to tuxedos, and from spaghetti to prime rib, then count me out. It has to be about more than that. And every one of the founding members agreed."

They agreed that the most important principle had to be "Masonic Light" at each and every meeting of the lodge. They agreed that if all they did was streamline the business meetings, shorten them, and then go eat steaks at the country club in tuxedos, that they were wasting their time.

That discussion was had and finished well over 20 years ago, and EVERYONE agreed. Are you just now coming to the same conclusion???

Well, okay, better late than never, I guess.


----------



## Ecossais (Mar 8, 2013)

Brother Vick:

You wrote: "The glaring issue and incapability of European Concept Lodges in America is that they are suppose to be regulated to 50 or less members (some as small as 30)."

Who said they were to be "regulated" to 50 or less? Who is to do this "regulating?" Smaller lodges are better, I agree. But I don't know how "glaring" this issue is. And anyway, if a lodge is doing its dead level best to improve its meetings, dinners and educational program, then are we to throw our hands up and quit because we go over 50 members?

You also wrote: "In America dispensations are given to brothers that have deep masonic connections and are for the most part rare."

Hmm. That isn't my experience. And I've been a part of several lodges that received dispensations. They just filled in the paperwork, did what was required, and submitted it.

You wrote:  "This causes European Concept Lodges to become full of Past Masters and breed cronyism, rather than more light.  These lodges also have closed events, invitational only meetings, and other aspects that make it so a brother off the street has to have an in somehow before they are allowed to attend.  This isn't new concept by any means in Freemasonry, but I don't believe that a blue lodge should be structured as such."

You sound angry about something. Older Past Masters, who are retired, are generally the ones who have the time and money to join multiple lodges, including new lodges that are formed in their District. Every lodge has the right to have its own private, invitational event. Why don't you befriend some of their members? You'll be surprised how quick you get an invitation. But, you won't get one if you maintain a sour, defeatist attitude. That is WHY they have invitation only events. It's to keep out the sour-pusses. Its not a new concept in Freemasonry because it works!

You wrote: "Still, if this movement is to be successful in America, we as Masons need to give it equal opportunity to all Masons, not just Grand Officers, and politically connected brothers.  In Texas in particular there has been PGMs that were ardently against T.O. to the point of threatening to close one down here in San Antonio, deeming their practices as unmasonic."

First you state that these lodges need to be opened up to others, "not just Grand Officers." Then, in the next sentence, you state there have been PGMs who are ardently against T.O. lodges. Which is it? In my experience around Texas, lodges that tend toward the Traditional Observance model, are not embraced by Grand Lodge officers in Texas. There are only three lodges in Texas that come anywhere close to being "T.O." lodges, and none of them claim that title. Those three have few, if any, GL officers, but are made up of rank and file Masons.

By the way, there are no "T.O." lodges in San Antonio, and never have been. Merit Lodge is not a T.O. lodge. The only PGM in the San Antonio area that might be anti-T.O. is M.W. Gene Carnes. He has a peculiar outlook on Freemasonry as it was the vehicle by which he was reconciled to his father many years ago. Its a beautiful story. But, because of that M.W. Carnes would prefer that all lodges in Texas be just like his father's lodge, and he doesn't like variation from that. Most others who feel this way have simply not traveled extensively outside the boundaries of Texas and visited other lodges in other countries. If they would do that, they would see how provincial their attitudes about Freemasonry are.

You then wrote:  "My harsh criticisms of European Concept Lodges in the past have been due to its lack of availability to every Freemason."

Ah, so now we have it.

You then wrote:  "The stringent rules established now and deep pockets required to establish a new charter makes it difficult.  Some brothers have taken over dying lodges, but this usually is wrought with drama, and again requires heavy connections within Grand Lodge."

My Brother, now you are just whining. "Its too expensive. There are too many rules. Its too difficult. You have to be 'connected' or part of the 'in crowd'." Stop whining, get up off your duff and do what has to be done to have the lodge you want, or quit crying about it.

Then you wrote: "As leaders of Freemasons ...." Whoa. Wait a minute. You've been whining about not being with the "cronies" and connected with the Grand Lodge. And now you are saying that you are a "leader of Freemasons?" Leaders of Freemasons don't sit around whining about not being connected to Grand Lodge.

You continue:  "...it is our job and duty to recognize these challenges and work to overcome them.  I believe that we need to allow a lodge to be as individual as possible to meet the needs of their members and keep brothers active."

Amen. So .... what are YOU waiting for?

You wrote: "We can't force European Concept Lodges on people, and we can't expect that fish fry's, and BBQ cook offs are going to meet the intellectual needs of others."

Okay. So we agree on all of that. What's the problem?

You then said, "We need to allow more freedom in the individual lodges, we need to allow fair access to European Concept Lodges, but recognize that some men don't want to have anything to do with them.  Respect for this, and understanding proper implementation of this concept, I believe will cause the lodges to become widely popular in America and not enjoyed by a sparse few of our brothers."

Okay. So, we agree on all of that. It looks to me like YOU need to get to work. But, please, stop the whining.


----------



## jwhoff (Mar 8, 2013)

I was told that when St. Alban's Lodge at College Station was in the planning stage over 20 years ago, that one of its founding members said, "If all we are doing is trading up from blue jeans to tuxedos, and from spaghetti to prime rib, then count me out. It has to be about more than that. And every one of the founding members agreed."

They agreed that the most important principle had to be "Masonic Light" at each and every meeting of the lodge. They agreed that if all they did was streamline the business meetings, shorten them, and then go eat steaks at the country club in tuxedos, that they were wasting their time.
_*Ecossais*_


Agree with brother Ecossais.  

Many of us can only discuss this masonry in groups of two or three.  How many masons are we losing because of this.


----------



## jwhoff (Mar 8, 2013)

chrmc said:


> I agree a lot with Brother Vick above. One of the problem as I see it, is that the size of lodges we have also means that we will have members in them with many different interest. It's hard to accommodate everyone if half the lodge wants fish frys and the other half wants intellectual discussions about Voltaire.
> I think that smaller lodges that cater to their members exact needs would be beneficial. Especially if we could get past the need for every single lodge to have their own building. There is a lot of money to be saved and headaches to be shared by sharing lodge buildings.



I somewhat agree with you brother.  Lodges that appeal to the different tastes of various masons and are operated by the tenants of the craft with respect to their grand lodge jurisdiction would probably do better in the long run.

Still, I'm somewhat surprised that I may be the only one in Texas who is able to lick crab-boil from his fingers while discussing the virtues of Voltaire as articulated in _Candide_, _Zadig, or Fate_, the _Philosopical Letters _or even _Dialogues and Philosophic Criticisms_.

You must remember sir, that I hail from the swamp bottoms of South Louisiana!

:sneaky2:


----------



## chrmc (Mar 8, 2013)

Ecossais said:


> I was told that when St. Alban's Lodge at College Station was in the planning stage over 20 years ago, that one of its founding members said, "If all we are doing is trading up from blue jeans to tuxedos, and from spaghetti to prime rib, then count me out. It has to be about more than that. And every one of the founding members agreed."
> 
> They agreed that the most important principle had to be "Masonic Light" at each and every meeting of the lodge. They agreed that if all they did was streamline the business meetings, shorten them, and then go eat steaks at the country club in tuxedos, that they were wasting their time.
> 
> ...



Brother Ecossais. Let me start out with saying that I do not understand the need for the condescending tone in your two above posts. We're having a good debate, and you sound like a learned man that has much to offer, but if this comes with being scolded, I doubt many with listen. 

But let me clarify my earlier statement. First of all my comments were not directed at St. Alban's lodge, as I simply do not know it well enough to comment on any of it's operations. I've visited it a couple of times, and it seems like a fine place to me doing good work. 

The point that I was trying to make, is that I feel that the talk about "better masonry" in general and TO in particular far to often ends on the notions of better clothing and better food. Though everyone "agreed 20 years ago" that there should be more to it, I still feel we don't often enough hear about how to slow down the progression of the candidates, how to incorporate real masonic learning in the memory work, how to groom and select officers to build a brighter future and all the other points that was brought up in Laudable Pursuit and similar texts. 

Those discussions are the ones I'd rather see us focus on and try and tackle, as that is where I believe the real meat on the bone is when it comes to better masonry.


----------



## Bro_Vick (Mar 22, 2013)

Ecossais said:


> Brother Vick:



This is one of the few places you are actually civil towards me, and having unfortunate conversations with other members on this board in this tone before I promised myself I wouldn't engage again.

So here is the deal, if you can stop being condescending, rude and brow beating I would be happy to engage you again on this subject.

I appreciate and applaud your contributions to our fraternity, but I am not going to get into a fisking contest with you, in the future I ask that you meet me on the level and not try to put me in my place.

You can call me directly if you wish to discuss further.

S&F,
-Bro Vick


----------



## dfreybur (Apr 2, 2013)

Bro_Vick said:


> The glaring issue and incapability of European Concept Lodges in America is that they are suppose to be regulated to 50 or less members (some as small as 30).  In Europe it is typical if a lodge grows too big that lodge can grant dispensation to start another lodge to allow more potential candidates of the community to join.  The process is somewhat established and well known



Just to check - The brothers are aware that this principle of large lodges hiving into small lodges was standard across America until roughly WWI, right?  The trend towards large lodges and few new charters is new on the scale that Masonry works.  Only a century.  I'm sure there were good reasons for the switch but I'm not sure those reasons remain valid today.  "We've done it that way for a century" is why Stated meetings were held in the third degree but that didn't make the American divergence from the worldwide standard a good idea going forward.



> In America dispensations are given to brothers that have deep masonic connections and are for the most part rare.



Does anyone know of any instance when a group of brothers was turned down after they submitted the paperwork for a new lodge?  I don't.  I'd vote against any elected grand officer who opposed a new lodge.  Does anyone know of any instance when a group of brothers submitted the paperwork at all?  I know one such group and they are now the youngest lodge in their state and sure enough they follow a model very much like TO.  They also have a calendar filled with degrees, social and service events like any other successful lodge.

I suggest the notion that it takes "deep masonic connections" is false.  What it takes is deep Masonic *commitment*.  Which is what the TO movement is about.  Which is something the TO movement absolutely does not hold a monopoly on.



> This causes European Concept Lodges to become full of Past Masters and breed cronyism, rather than more light.



I've seen that in run of the mill American lodges as well so I'm missing something you're trying to communicate.  Sorry about that.



> These lodges also have closed events, invitational only meetings, and other aspects that make it so a brother off the street has to have an in somehow before they are allowed to attend.  This isn't new concept by any means in Freemasonry, but I don't believe that a blue lodge should be structured as such.



It's okay to agree and disagree but agreement isn't required.  At church I tend to say that I'm not there to agree with people I'm there to serve.  Some consider me a stirrer.  I'm okay with following that same principle at lodge.  I'm okay with closed events and such as long as the calendar includes open events.



> The beauty of these lodges and the prestige they bring back to the Craft is absolutely undeniable.  Sitting in these lodges and when they are performed properly show an aspect of Freemasonry that was washed away in the 1940s and 1950s to mass numbers, blank reciting of the Work, and loss of Masonic individualism.



The one I visited was an impressive experience to be sure.  Enough to make it worth the drive from San Antonio to somewhere to do so again.



> Still, if this movement is to be successful in America, we as Masons need to give it equal opportunity to all Masons, not just Grand Officers, and politically connected brothers.



I don't get why you think it takes connections.  Please note that many lodges are successful right now without joining the TO movement.  There is strength in unity.  There is strength in diversity.  Both truth.  It's one of the mysteries of the universe how that works.  Sort of like Masonry excluding atheists while at the same time being the leading force worldwide in support of freedom of religion.



> In Texas in particular there has been PGMs that were ardently against T.O. to the point of threatening to close one down here in San Antonio, deeming their practices as unmasonic.



We all try to resist uttering rude words when we encounter such situations, right?  The temptation to use "Navy technical terms" can be very hard at times.  Like if I ever heard a statement like that expressed.  Traditional Masonic practice being called unMasonic.  As appeared so often in the Nixon tapes "expletive deleted" is my reaction.



> Some brothers have taken over dying lodges, but this usually is wrought with drama, and again requires heavy connections within Grand Lodge.



I've seen small groups of brothers affiliate, fill the activity calendar and save a failing lodge.  No drama ensued.  Is this a case of my experience being different from yours or is this a case where I have failed to understand what you're trying to communicate?



> We can't force European Concept Lodges on people, and we can't expect that fish fry's, and BBQ cook offs are going to meet the intellectual needs of others.



So many in the new generation are coming in thirsty for something.  Discipline, philosophy, mysticism, you name it.  Masonry has all of these and more should you look for them.  Masonry has a completely different set of features if those aren't ones that interest you.  I was taught "you get out of Masonry what you put into it".  Every year I learn new ways that lesson is true.


----------

