Male and Female Grand Lodges Counter Misinformation With New 'Council for Freemasonry in England and Wales'

[Brother JStoffo]

I am saying that the Obligation is dictated by the Grand Lodge. If the rules change, outdating our Obligation, are we not REQUIRED to change with the Governing body that presented us with that initial Obligation to begin with? There has to be someone on this communication that knows the answer to this. This cannot be the first time that this has come up in the history of Masonry. Brother Cook stated that Price Hall Lodges are in Amity with Florida Grand Lodge Masons. Yet, I took my Obligation in Florida and at that time, PH was considered clandestine, and I was not allowed Masonic communication. Now Florida Lodges are in Amity therefore, our Obligation has been modified, or we have been granted a waiver to our obligation. Same should women be allowed in Lodges I would think. But again, we are all on this site for Light in these matters.

 

[K4DL]

I am saying that the Obligation is dictated by the Grand Lodge. If the rules change, outdating our Obligation, are we not REQUIRED to change with the Governing body that presented us with that initial Obligation to begin with? There has to be someone on this communication that knows the answer to this. This cannot be the first time that this has come up in the history of Masonry. Brother Cook stated that Price Hall Lodges are in Amity with Florida Grand Lodge Masons. Yet, I took my Obligation in Florida and at that time, PH was considered clandestine, and I was not allowed Masonic communication. Now Florida Lodges are in Amity therefore, our Obligation has been modified, or we have been granted a waiver to our obligation. Same should women be allowed in Lodges I would think. But again, we are all on this site for Light in these matters.

Perhaps in a case such as allowing women in our lodges and setting with them the Grand Lodge would modify the obligation (it would have to) and would issue a decree or an edict releasing all members of lodges under them from that part of their obligation. I am just curious as to how it would be done.

 

[Bloke]

Perhaps in a case such as allowing women in our lodges and setting with them the Grand Lodge would modify the obligation (it would have to) and would issue a decree or an edict releasing all members of lodges under them from that part of their obligation. I am just curious as to how it would be done.

How is not the question.
Why is.

Men feel so marginalized and vilified in my society at the moment.
I really value single gender spaces. I don't want the whole world to be like that, but the predominantly male space of lodge is something I value. I say "predominately" because we have family and friends functions all the time. We have two next month. I don't want to force myself into spaces like female birth circles and think the sexes (are we even allowed to use that word nowdays?) benefit from time alone without their counterparts.

I think I will be called a dinosaur for this view nowadays I suspect.

Part of the problem is that Freemasonry is often seen as some sort of economic elite of business professionals networking and exclusion of women deny them access to that. We all know Freemasonry is not like that, it is a fraternity, indeed is is probably one of the most significant men's and oldest welfare organizations about, but how we execute on that is rarely well explained, often not understood and rarely articulated.

 

[Brother JStoffo]

The question still remains. If a Grand Lodge changes portions of our Obligation, do we stick to our original Obligation or get a pass on the parts of it that have changed? Further, does our Obligation change when visiting a Lodge in a different jurisdiction with different rules?

 

[MarkR]

Further, does our Obligation change when visiting a Lodge in a different jurisdiction with different rules?

I would tend to think that any foreign jurisdiction that has practices or rules that violate your obligation, that jurisdiction is unlikely to be recognized by yours. Unrecognized, therefor visitation not allowed. End of quandary.

 

[Glen Cook]

The question still remains. If a Grand Lodge changes portions of our Obligation, do we stick to our original Obligation or get a pass on the parts of it that have changed? Further, does our Obligation change when visiting a Lodge in a different jurisdiction with different rules?

No, one’s obligation doesn’t change when visiting.

One may be subject to additional laws in another jurisdiction. For instance, in Utah it is a masonic offense to give the aid or countenance of freemasonry to a lottery or gift enterprise.

 

[Brother JStoffo]

What about if your own Grand Lodge changes the rules? Doe that give you a pass on the part of our Obligation that was changed? In our own home Lodge?

 

[Glen Cook]

What about if your own Grand Lodge changes the rules? Doe that give you a pass on the part of our Obligation that was changed? In our own home Lodge?

I am not a member of your grand lodge. I don’t know its view.

 

[Brother JStoffo]

Aaahhh. Very telling. So, it is subjective then. We follow the Lodge of the area that we are visiting. Got it!

Thanks.

 

[Glen Cook]

Aaahhh. Very telling. So, it is subjective then. We follow the Lodge of the area that we are visiting. Got it!

Thanks.

Not sure to whom you are referring, but that would not be my view.

 

[Chaz]

Not sure to whom you are referring, but that would not be my view.

Would it be correct that we are to follow the more restrictive of the jurisdictions that we belong to or does one supercede another?

 

[Glen Cook]

Would it be correct that we are to follow the more restrictive of the jurisdictions that we belong to or does one supercede another?

In my experience, we are safe applying the more restrictive rule. We should remember that the usual position of GLs is that they maintain personal jurisdiction over their members no matter where they may be. I have seen GLs discipline their members for acts elsewhere. I think one was discussed in this very forum: a dual jurisdiction member attended a PHA lodge with which one GL was in amity, but the other not. The "not in amity" GL disciplined him.

This is the same rule we generally apply for those of qualified to practice law in more than one jurisdiction: you apply the more restrictive rule, as the regulator may take action regardless of the civil jurisdiction in which the violation occurred.

 

[K4DL]

I had a conversation with a brother recently and while not on the exact issues brought up here it did have to do with his Obligation. He quoted part of it and left out a line, I added it and he said that the obligation he took in another state did not have that in it and that was the obligation he lived by. It made the part of the Obligation more restrictive than what I took so it would in no way violate our GL's obligations which he never took.