<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0">
   <channel>
      <title>The Lion&apos;s Paw</title>
      <link>http://www.thebrindles.org/nbrindle/blog/</link>
      <description>The Masonic thoughts and musings of a fundamentalist Past Master
I believe what really happens in [Masonry] is this: the old man is always wrong; and the young people are always wrong about what is wrong with him. The practical form it takes is this: that, while the old man may stand by some stupid custom, the young man always attacks it with some theory that turns out to be equally stupid.-- adapted from a quote by G.K. Chesterton, who was talking about history in general</description>
      <language>en</language>
      <copyright>Copyright 2008</copyright>
      <lastBuildDate>Wed, 20 Feb 2008 11:17:49 -0500</lastBuildDate>
      <generator>http://www.sixapart.com/movabletype/</generator>
      <docs>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss</docs> 

            <item>
         <title>I tire of talkers</title>
         <description><![CDATA[I haven't said a whole lot publicly about the whole Halcyon Lodge thing up in Cleveland, partly because it isn't any of my business (I'm not a member of a lodge in Ohio), and partly because there isn't really much to be said about a bunch of guys who claim to be Masons, yet have deserted their Grand Jurisdiction, thrown their obligations to the winds, and quite possibly committed fraud and grand larceny in the process.

But putting that to the side, I wouldn't even care about the obvious violations of decency, Grand Lodge code, and state and federal law, if the people involved would just shut the hell up.

Every time you turn around today, it seems like there are minions of the "erased" Jeff Peace (a sad misnomer of a moniker if I ever heard one, as there is nothing of peace about the man as far as I can tell) posting overblown, snide remarks about how they've left mainstream Masonry behind for a new, more fraternal model that they call (at least for the nonce) the Grand Orient of the USA…perhaps better known to some as GOOFUS.  In post after often-off-topic post, usually in comments to mainstream Masons' blogs, these GOOFUSes invariably whine about how evil Grand Lodges are, how Halcyon Lodge was only trying to save its building (by stealing it from the other members of the Lodge, who probably would never have let them take over the officer line if they'd known what was going to happen), and how mainstreamers are just a bunch of Scotch-swilling Shriners who don't care about good old Blue Lodge Masonry. (Which <em>they</em> don't, either -- to them it's all about mystery religion, pagan ritual, and tantric sex, with a cat for a Grand Secretary.  But I digress.)

Case in point:  The other day, WBro. Chris Hodapp posted a <a href="http://freemasonsfordummies.blogspot.com/2008/02/mike-illitchs-olympia-entertainment-to.html">story</a> about the Detroit Masonic Temple being saved from the taxman and the wrecker's ball by Mike Illitch of Little Caesar's Pizza fame.  First crack out of the box, a Halcyon boy (one who once misrepresented himself as a member of Lodge Vitruvian, which as that Lodge's secretary I can assure you he very definitely is not, and would never be elected to be, even if his petition were to be read in our lodge) delivered himself of a rant in the comments about how this was no different from what the Halcyon boyz did when they stole Halcyon's building from the men who had considered them to be their brothers.  WBro. Hodapp, who is normally a very easy-going kind of fellow (I've known him for 30 years, and I know whereof I speak), finally decided he'd had enough of Halcyon comment-jacking, and responded:

<blockquote>The Halcyon incident, while of cataclysmic importance to you, is scarcely a blip in terms of relevance to the grand panoply of Masonic history.

Frankly, the Masonic Internet community is weary with your accusations against members of the Grand Lodge of Ohio over what happened in Cleveland, because they don't pass the smell test. And your relentless name-calling and mud-slinging is about as far from decent Masonic behavior as it gets. 

You and a tiny clot of fellow bellyachers clutter up the Masonic blogosphere every chance you get, making it appear that you are of greater importance than you really are. You tear down, but you don't build. You make noise, but it's clear that you achieve little else. For a little bunch of boys who are now freed from the supposed shackles of mainstream Masonry, you sure worry a lot about poking your noses back in under the tent flap. If mainstream Masonry offers so little to you and is so repugnant to you and your lodge, the best of luck to you. You won your skirmish, you have your building, and you even have your own brand spankin' new Grand Lodge, er, Orient. Go be a big success. Prove to the rest of the world that you have a better way. But in the meantime, spare us from your ceaseless self-aggrandizing, bomb-tossing, and bedwetting.</blockquote>

Because I am not as nice as WBro. Hodapp, believe fervently in piling on to this kind of thing, and am equally weary of Halcyon and Jeff Peace and all associated yammerheads, I added:

<blockquote>I'll second Chris's motion. You Halcyon guys sound more and more desparate every time you post your whines and rants somewhere.

Go play with your Grand Disorient and leave real Freemasons alone.</blockquote>

Now, this doesn't exactly sound nice or brotherly…and of course, it wasn't meant to, because I don't consider these guys brothers.  I wouldn't say this about someone I thought was a real Freemason.  But anyone who has the gall to be accepted into a regular Lodge of Freemasons and then pull the kind of crap Jeff Peace and his ilk have been pulling since at least 2002 (and possibly earlier, my recollection of the Peace Corps doesn't go back that far) doesn't deserve any Masonic charity from me or any other regular Freemason.

The fact of the matter is, all these guys have walked away and started something new because they want to be Grand Poobahs and aren't willing to do the work it takes to become, if found worthy, a Grand Poobah.  At Halcyon, they decided to do that, and in addition, steal property that didn't belong to them from their mainstream brethren.  A more megalomanic, self-serving bunch of men (if men they are) I have rarely seen in my life.  I know so many young men who have jumped into regular Freemasonry with both feet and proceeded to mold it in their own image of what Masonry ought to be -- and with a full understanding of what that means -- that it absolutely boggles my mind that there are young men like the members of GOOFUS out there who can't think of anything in Masonry beyond themselves.

In today's Masonry, ideas are key.  When we started Lodge Vitruvian back in 2001, we weren't sure what would happen.  But we worked to create a lodge that was as close to the European Concept ideal as possible while still making it palatable to the powers-that-be in our Grand Lodge and the Masons in our state.  (Note that  very carefully -- we worked within the mainstream framework, we did not try to break out of it.)  The lodge didn't grow -- in fact we lost about half of our members over the first five years -- but we finally figured out why.  It wasn't because our ideas were too radical.  It was because brethren would come to visit us, take note of what we were doing, and take those ideas back to their own lodges as improvements.

Which was fine with us; if Vitruvian is just a test-bed, and other lodges are benefiting, we're fine with our membership remaining small.  In the meantime, we're not storming out into the Scottish Rite Cathedral parking lot and burning our hats because nobody will listen to us.

But the point is that the Peace Corps <em>don't</em> have any new ideas, and very few people in the mainstream care about what they're doing.  When all you do is create friction, and claim that you have "secret knowledge" and previously-undiscovered documents that you won't share with the rest of the Fraternity, that oh by the way prove that you are the only "correct" Freemasonry on the planet, you aren't part of the Fraternity, and you are rightly shunned.

I'll freely admit that there was a time I would have loved to have a guy like Jeff Peace in my lodge.  He looked at things in a new way, without the baggage of the past shadowing them.  He wanted to try new things.  He had some great ideas.  But he lost any support I might have given him when he walked away from the mainstream and -- worse -- started badmouthing it and airing what he considered its dirty laundry in public, generally acting like he was better than the rest of us because he'd told the establishment where to stick it.

If I were advising Jeff Peace right now, my advice would be identical to what Chris and I wrote in Chris's comments the other day:  Shut up about how great you are, and prove it.  If your version of Masonry is superior, you won't need to blare that news to the heavens -- because we'll all hear about it from other sources.  In the meantime, understand that mainstream Masons like us -- who believe in change and don't have a problem with working from inside the mainstream -- have lost our patience with you, don't intend to tolerate you, and won't be afraid to say so publicly.
]]></description>
         <link>http://www.thebrindles.org/nbrindle/blog/2008/02/i_tire_of_talkers.shtml</link>
         <guid>http://www.thebrindles.org/nbrindle/blog/2008/02/i_tire_of_talkers.shtml</guid>
        
        
         <pubDate>Wed, 20 Feb 2008 11:17:49 -0500</pubDate>
      </item>
            <item>
         <title>Review of The Templar Code for Dummies</title>
         <description><![CDATA[<em>The Templar Code for Dummies</em>
Christopher Hodapp and Alice Von Kannon

Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Publishing, Inc., 2007.
ISBN 978-0-470-12765-0

<hr>

The team of Chris Hodapp, P.M. and Alice Von Kannon turn out his second and her first "For Dummies" book just in time to catch the coattails of -- or more accurately, to serve as a sort of "pre-viewing guide" to -- author Dan Brown's long-promised and long-anticipated Da Vinci Code sequel.  And whether or not that sequel ever sees the light of day, this book will be a revelation for "Brownites", as it terms them, who may have been a bit too eager to accept Brown's self-serving rewrite of Templar and Masonic history.

The book's first five chapters are a straightforward historical account of how the Templars came to be, and what they were all about.  From defining knighthood and monkhood, to the Templar Rule established by St. Bernard of Clairvaux for their government, to their mission of protecting pilgrims on their journey to the Holy Land and their creation of the first international banking system and letters of credit, through their last years of defeat, denunciation and final destruction, everything you would ever want to know about the Templars is laid out in the freewheeling but accessible "Dummies" style to which Hodapp and Von Kannon are becoming very well accustomed.

In a well-researched and sourced sixth chapter, Hodapp and Von Kannon examine in "Cold Case Files"-like detail the evidence used by French king Phillip IV ("The Fair") to force the downfall of the Templars, and they find much chaff and little if any meat in the wild accusations made by Phillip -- and they also report the surprising and only recently-made-public story of Pope Clement's secret absolution of the Templars following their arrests.  Sadly, absolution was as far as the Pope, his power weakened by Phillip's domination and under what was essentially house arrest at Avignon, could go.

Chapters 7 through 11 detail the post-fall Templar myths, legends, and even a bit of fact, discussing among other things the legends of the Holy Grail and the alleged bloodline of Christ through his marriage to Mary Magadalene, who later is said to have settled in France and become one of the progenitors of the Merovingian royal family.  Also discussed is the Priory of Sion hoax on which a lot of this recent mythology is based.

Then Hodapp and Von Kannon throw things into a different gear.  Chapters 12-14 are not so much conceived as Templar history as they are a disputation of Dan Brown's fictional history, in which Brown plays fast and loose with the history of the Catholic Church, the Templars and Opus Dei, the fraudulent Priory of Sion, and the "suppression" of the "Feminine Divine" by the Church.  It will perhaps be not surprising to Templar-savvy Freemasons that the Brownite version of history does not fare well in these chapters.

The last three chapters of the book are, of course, the Dummies-standard "parts of tens."

Overall the book is never boring, always an informative and interesting read.  The authors have turned out yet another fine addition to any Masonic library.

<hr>

This review was written by me for publication in the October 2007 issue of the <em>Indiana Freemason Magazine</em>.
]]></description>
         <link>http://www.thebrindles.org/nbrindle/blog/2007/10/review_of_the_templar_code_for.shtml</link>
         <guid>http://www.thebrindles.org/nbrindle/blog/2007/10/review_of_the_templar_code_for.shtml</guid>
        
        
         <pubDate>Mon, 15 Oct 2007 11:44:41 -0500</pubDate>
      </item>
            <item>
         <title>Disclaming a link</title>
         <description>I see that the BurningTaper blog (which I only read for laughs when someone points me to a particularly egregious post) has linked me.  I didn&apos;t ask for the link, I have no connection to that blog, and I have no desire for my blog to be associated with it.

Just making it clear.</description>
         <link>http://www.thebrindles.org/nbrindle/blog/2007/03/disclaming_a_link.shtml</link>
         <guid>http://www.thebrindles.org/nbrindle/blog/2007/03/disclaming_a_link.shtml</guid>
        
        
         <pubDate>Tue, 20 Mar 2007 15:52:00 -0500</pubDate>
      </item>
            <item>
         <title>My feeling about the Shrine</title>
         <description>These are just random thoughts brought on by a posting about the Shrine I read on a Masonic forum today.

I think it would be safe to say that within 5 to 10 years the Shrine will be forced to break its Masonic ties for strictly practical reasons.

I would not want my Shriner friends and brethren to take this the wrong way; I am not offering an opinion on whether that would be bad or good for either organization -- I&apos;m just being pragmatic and looking at the numbers and guessing at the future.  

As Masonic membership declines or levels off, obviously so will Shrine membership, as long as it is tied to Masonry.  This will eventually lead to the Imperial Divan needing to make a decision one way or the other in order to grow the organization and preserve the philanthropies.  If the separation is done with finesse and sensitivity, no Mason will have to feel that he has to choose between the organizations, and no Grand Lodge will feel that it has to proscribe Shrine membership -- that is, it ought to be a win-win for both organizations.  As one of my college professors used to say at the beginning of every semester, &quot;if we must part, let us part friends.&quot;  If we ever do part from the Shrine, I hope that is how we do it.

Again, I&apos;m sorry if some don&apos;t agree and/or don&apos;t want to hear this kind of talk.  But one thing we don&apos;t do well in Masonry is long-range planning.  We have to start looking farther ahead than we do and consider all the scenarios -- best, neutral, and worst cases all included -- and losing the Shrine is just one of those scenarios that we&apos;d better start thinking about.</description>
         <link>http://www.thebrindles.org/nbrindle/blog/2007/02/my_feeling_about_the_shrine.shtml</link>
         <guid>http://www.thebrindles.org/nbrindle/blog/2007/02/my_feeling_about_the_shrine.shtml</guid>
        
        
         <pubDate>Tue, 27 Feb 2007 14:39:01 -0500</pubDate>
      </item>
            <item>
         <title>How free is speech?</title>
         <description><![CDATA[The recent injunctions by the MW Grand Master of Masons in Florida against WBro. Tim Bryce, who publishes occasional articles on Masonry and distributes them electronically, have engendered a great deal of chatter across the Masonic Internet.  Most of the chatter seems to take WBro. Bryce's side, but then, most of the chatter is happening on inflammatory neo-Masonic sites that seek to overthrow or supplant the existing "regular" Masonic order.  I won't waste my time or yours detailing what sites those are because none of them seem to get the point.  And similarly I am not going to waste time explicating WBro. Bryce's arguments -- they are out there for any Mason to read if he wants to find them.  My purpose in writing is to discuss freedom of speech within the Fraternity, and our responsibilities as Masons when we exercise such speech.

When we join a Masonic lodge, we take (for better or worse) an obligation or three.  Those obligations enjoin us to stand to and abide by all the laws, rules and regulations of a lodge of Master Masons so far as they shall come to our knowledge.  Though we are probably not aware of it at the time, that includes the laws of the Grand Lodge under which our lodge is holden, and to the edicts and decisions of the Grand Master of our Grand Lodge for the time being.

While it is fair to say that it ought to be more clear that our lodges answer to a higher authority and do not exist in a vacuum, and that our petitions probably should include a statement to the effect that the subscriber promises due diligence in abiding by the jurisprudence of not only the lodge but also of the Grand Lodge, the fact is that we are bound by those rules when we are obligated.  It follows that we should insist that all of our new Master Masons make a study of not only our lodge bylaws but of all the Grand Lodge regulations (in Indiana, the "Blue Book") that they have subscribed to by taking their obligations.

But that is beside the point.  We should hope that ignorance of Grand Lodge law does not cloud the thinking of one who has been Master of a Lodge, and who is presumed by virtue of having served in that position to understand what is and what is not permitted of Masons in his Grand Jurisdiction, and what credence is to be paid to an edict of his Grand Master.

The one overriding rule in Masonry is that if the Grand Master tells you to jump, you ask, "How high?"  You do not beat around the bush and try to find loopholes that allow you to continue to do what you were told not to do.  You do not excoriate the Grand Master for his decision and allege that he is trying to force you out of the Fraternity.  You ask, "how have I offended?" rather than state "I can't see how I can have offended."  If you can't get this straight, you leave yourself open to censure, suspension, or even expulsion, depending on how the Grand Master feels about your offense.

And if you are a bystander to something like the Bryce affair, you don't come off the sidelines saying, "Who does his Grand Master think he is?", or "Haven't they heard of the First Amendment in Florida?" -- <i>especially</i> when you don't know both sides of the story, but more importantly because it makes you look like a fool who has reacted mindlessly instead of making a study of Masonic jurisprudence and understanding that the Grand Master is the highest Masonic authority in his Grand Jurisdiction and that there is only free speech and freedom of the press in Masonry as long as Masons tolerate what it is that you have to say.

Perhaps, though, this is simply characteristic of our modern society.  Young people don't want to listen to their teachers, or their priests or ministers or rabbis -- or even their parents -- when they are exhorted to live virtuous lives. The concept of an authority figure who is obeyed simply <i>because</i> of his or her authority as granted by law (be it the law of the family, the state, the church, or the Fraternity) is lapsed or weak among young folks who have heeded the siren call of good times (parties, drinking, shacking up, and so forth) and decided that figures of authority are old fuddy-duddies.  Sadly enough, it appears that we have let quite a few of these young people slip past our West Gate in recent years, and now we find that they are challenging the very authority to which they obligated themselves on our own altars in the name of an imagined freedom to attack the foundations of the Fraternity from inside its very Temple.

The freedom of speech and press argument in the Bryce case hinges on an apparent application of Florida's Masonic law that prohibits "circularizing".  In other words, Masons in Florida appear to be prohibited from sending out manifestos and editorials to other Masons on Masonic subjects that are not sanctioned by the Grand Lodge.  This is not an uncommon rule; Indiana had until only a few years ago a similar prohibition against circularization.  Lodge publications (newsletters, for instance) are typically exempt from circularization rules, although some Grand Lodges may exercise some editorial control over their content, and may even "license" such publications.  In the Bryce case, it appears that WBro. Bryce's content was such that his Grand Master had to take official notice -- particularly when some of the recipients complained to his office that WBro. Bryce was sending it out.  The Grand Master responded by informing WBro. Bryce that he could no longer publish his content in Florida without approval.  When WBro. Bryce continued to publish outside of Florida, and complaints apparently continued to be received by the Grand Lodge of Florida, the Grand Master once again clamped down.

WBro. Bryce's rejoinder would appear to fit into the "I can't see how I have offended" variety of responses that I described above.  WBro. Bryce has decided, even though his Grand Master has enjoined him from publishing his content by any means, that he will continue to make his content available by means other than email -- most likely on private Masonic forums that require a membership login to access.  In my opinion this opens WBro. Bryce up to suspension or expulsion -- in point of fact his email outlining his plan to continue publishing should probably accomplish that for him, or would if I were his Grand Master.  Rather than being pushed out of the Fraternity as he claims will be the case, he will really have no one to blame but himself for his eventual downfall.  His Grand Master has so far been willing to allow sufficient latitude for WBro. Bryce to climb down from his high horse with only minor admonishment.  I do not think his Grand Master will hesitate now that the battle line has been drawn, and insofar as it is my privilege to weigh in on how the Grand Master of a Jurisdiction where I am not a member runs his Grand Lodge, I really can't see how WBro. Bryce would have a leg left to stand on.

What is missing in the argument that there is a First Amendment and that there is freedom of speech and press in America is the fact that the First Amendment does not necessarily apply within voluntary associations.  The Vallandingham case during the Civil War notwithstanding, it is certainly true that one cannot be stripped of his American citizenship and thrown out of the country simply for espousing radical or even treasonous thoughts.  

But within an organization such as Masonry, which has its own internal rules of conduct, speaking out against the organization in a manner calculated to cause unrest among the membership is often grounds for finding oneself on the outside looking in.  The argument of the organization is that harmony is to be preserved whenever possible, and that there are official channels for discussing and requesting change.  Change is often difficult and can take many years because there is always a sentiment for maintaining the status quo.  To step outside the official channels and appeal to the membership at large as WBro. Bryce has done is simply a violation of the principles under which most Grand Lodges operate.  He therefore cannot argue that he is being pushed out, when as I have already demonstrated above, he has put himself outside the pale by refusing to heed his Grand Master's admonitions.

As for those who cry that WBro. Bryce's free speech rights have been trampled on and who ask "who does his Grand Master think he is" and "Can Grand Lodges actually tell their brethren what constitutes appropriate behavior?" -- well, the answers are "The supreme Masonic authority in his jurisdiction", and, "Yes, they can."  And if you read your organic documents, you will find that it's true.

What is possibly more worrying about this kind of response is the absence of civility and propriety suggested by them.  But that is a topic for another day.]]></description>
         <link>http://www.thebrindles.org/nbrindle/blog/2007/01/how_free_is_speech.shtml</link>
         <guid>http://www.thebrindles.org/nbrindle/blog/2007/01/how_free_is_speech.shtml</guid>
        
        
         <pubDate>Thu, 04 Jan 2007 14:17:16 -0500</pubDate>
      </item>
            <item>
         <title>Dulce et decorum</title>
         <description><![CDATA[(Originally written in April, 2005)

On a Masonic email forum to which I subscribe, the question was raised recently as to whether it was required that Brethren participating in  a Masonic funeral procession wear tie, jacket, and wear only white gloves with a white apron. Additionally, it was asked whether or not wearing past master aprons in such a procession was appropriate.

My response was to quote the Indiana Masonic Memorial Service pamphlet on this issue.

<blockquote>"At any type of Masonic funeral or memorial service the Brethren should wear appropriate clothing -- dark suit with white shirt and black shoes. Members should be clothed in white gloves and aprons before entering the room in which the ceremonies are conducted. The apron should be worn on the outside of the coat, and, in all circumstances, the apron strings should be tied in a neat bow under the bib."

<i>-- Grand Lodge of Indiana F&AM, "Masonic Memorial and Funeral Ceremonies", 1976 edition; p. 4.</i></blockquote>

This seems fairly cut and dried. However, subsequent responses in the same thread suggested that a significant number of brethren did not agree with me -- even though the funeral ritual is quite specific as to these requirements. I responded again more or less as I write below (I have made some editorial changes and additions to what I actually posted to the forum).

How we dress at a public Masonic function should not even be a topic for discussion. That it is strikes me as being just another symptom of the inexorable decline of our Fraternity. We joke (well, some do) about serving spaghetti or hot dogs (or maybe both) on a paper plate for a Master Mason degree dinner. We opine about the declining knowledge of ritual among our brethren (more particularly among the officers we elect to lead our lodges), and we argue about what constitutes proficiency in the lectures. But indeed, our lowering of standards in the articles of the festive board, our ritual work, and Masonic proficiency is something our forebears would have recoiled from, and I see no reason to believe they would not have recoiled equally from the slackening of our standards of dress.

To them it was a matter of simple respect, and to us it should be as well.

The funeral service is a public ceremony, after all, and the Fraternity should always be represented in public with honor, dignity, and pride. It is VITALLY important "how it's going to look." What do we want the public face of Freemasonry to look like, anyway? When exactly did funerals become casual affairs? 

The young man who may be drawn to Masonry because of the funeral service held for his grandfather may have a different opinion if the men conducting it are dressed in, say, golf shirts and slacks. In like situation, certainly I would consider it a lot less impressive, and I frankly would question whether the men cared more about my grandfather or more about getting this over with so they could get on with more important things.

In an article published back in 2004, radio host Dennis Prager <a href="http://dennisprager.townhall.com/columnists/DennisPrager/2004/06/01/one_man_wore_jacket_and_tie_at_high_school_graduation">tells the story</a> of his producer who was the only man in attendance at his daughter's high school graduation ceremony who had bothered to wear a jacket and tie. (Three other men were wearing ties without jackets.) Prager says:

<blockquote>This story exemplifies yet another aspect of the age in which we live, the Age of Stupidity. Only in an age that rejects wisdom could most people believe that clothing is unimportant. Callers to my radio show have often told me, for example, that it is entirely unimportant what people wear even to church -- after all, God sees people's hearts, not their clothing, right?

Clothing has come to have no other purpose than providing comfort to the wearer. Fewer and fewer people appreciate how much what we wear affects both us and the people around us.</blockquote> 

Prager and I find ourselves in complete agreement about how wrong this is. He points out:

<blockquote>What we wear communicates what we think of ourselves, but even more so, what we think of the world around us.

When guests dress up for a wedding, they do so in order to honor the bride and groom and to proclaim how much they honor the marriage ceremony.

When students and teachers dress up for school every day, they are honoring education. It demonstrates the foolishness of the people who run American education that they, of all people, so often lead the attack on school uniforms. Incredibly, they don't understand how much respect education loses when students wear to school what they wear to the mall.

When parents and others attending a high school graduation show up in shorts, T-shirts, Hawaiian flower shirts and jeans, they are saying to the students that this night is no more significant than any other time they wear the same clothing. Just ask students how they would react if all the male guests wore jackets and ties and all the women dressed equally formally.</blockquote>

Which of these analogies represent what we want for the loved ones of our departed brother?

In the forum, a vague argument was made suggesting that we should pay more attention to "Masonic compassion". I am not sure to whom this compassion was to be directed, but I suspect it was to the brother who shows up in casual clothing or who insists on wearing his past master's apron. If this is the case, apropos Prager, we should consider that this "compassion" may be misdirected. Is it compassionate to the family to appear as if we have no respect for their loved one? 

These are "the last offices of respect and love that we pay to the dead", and they "are useless ceremonies except as they are lessons to the living"! It may indeed be "of little moment to [our departed brother] how or in what manner his obsequies are performed", but certainly it is of great moment to us -- and more importantly, it is of great moment to his family! They asked us to be there, after all. Clearly <i>they</i> wanted the pomp and ceremony. It is not our place to deny it to them by showing up looking like we're on our way to the ball game or the golf course. (While we may be, we can always carry a change of clothes with us and spare them wondering if asking us was an imposition on our time.)

In the community at large Masons should -- nay, Masons MUST -- be willing and able to hold ourselves to a higher standard. Remember the EA charge: "For these are to distinguish you from the rest of the community, and mark your consequence among Masons." Granted this refers to keeping secret the mysteries of the Order, but why should only the <i>mysteries</i> "distinguish [us] from the rest of the community"?

It would seem that our ancestors had a better sense of propriety. Have we lowered our sights? Have we lowered our expectations? If so -- more's the pity. Nothing less than the honor, glory, and reputation of the institution are at stake. 

"Keep the young generations in hail,
And bequeath them no tumbled house!"

Brethren, the house <i>is</i> tumbling. Our standards <i>are</i> dropping. Our Fraternity is in decline. At what point do we finally stand athwart history and yell, "Stop"?

Wearing appropriate attire to a Masonic memorial service might be one way to start.]]></description>
         <link>http://www.thebrindles.org/nbrindle/blog/2006/10/dulce_et_decorum.shtml</link>
         <guid>http://www.thebrindles.org/nbrindle/blog/2006/10/dulce_et_decorum.shtml</guid>
        
        
         <pubDate>Wed, 11 Oct 2006 15:29:42 -0500</pubDate>
      </item>
            <item>
         <title>Dues that don&apos;t...anymore.</title>
         <description><![CDATA[NOTE:  There is an updated version of this paper at <a href="http://www.vitruvian.org/papers/DuesThatDontAnymoreRev200706.pdf">http://www.vitruvian.org/papers/DuesThatDontAnymoreRev200706.pdf</a>.

<p align="right">"A high quality lodge must be paid for --<br />therefore dues need to commensurate with this."<br /><i>-- The first of the Two Great Pillars of Lodge Epicurean, the premiere "European Concept" lodge</i></p>

<p align="right">"Masons are cheap, and they love to bitch."<br /><i>-- unattributed to protect the guilty</i></p>

<p>Many years ago, Dwight L. Smith, PGM, and editor at the time of the <i>Indiana Freemason</i>, wrote the following in his pamphlet entitled "Whither Are We Traveling?":</p>

<blockquote><b>Has Freemasonry become too easy to obtain?</b> Fees for the degrees are ridiculously low; annual dues are far too low. Everything is geared to speed揚etting through as fast as possible and on to something else. The Lodge demands little and gets little. It expects loyalty, but does almost nothing to put a claim on a man痴 loyalty. When we ourselves place a cheap value on Masonic membership, how can we expect petitioners and new members to prize it?</blockquote>

<p>How, indeed?  And Smith was writing on this problem in the 1960's -- <i>nearly fifty years ago.</i>  Fifty years later, the situation has not improved; it has only gotten worse as the worth of our money has devalued and Lodge dues and fees have remained, in large part, numerically the same.</p>

<p>What's worse, we've lost half of our membership since Smith wrote those words.  And what's worse than that, we have a huge cohort of members, well out of proportion to their numbers in the general population, who pay no dues at all because they have reached 50 years in Masonry.  (In my Lodge alone these members amount to nearly a third of the total.  And I doubt that we are exceptional in this regard.)</p>

Forget reforming Social Security -- we've got a crisis in our own midst, and the pinch is being felt <i>right now.</i></p>	

<p align="center"><img src="storyend_dingbat.gif"></p>

<p>So why are we facing this monetary crisis?  As Al Smith (no relation to Dwight) used to say, let's look at the record.</p>

<p><i>1. Lower membership numbers:</i>  A case can be made that lower membership numbers aren't necessarily a bad thing, but they do suggest that the amount of money required to keep the fraternity solvent is going to have to come from a smaller cohort in future.  And in all likelihood, Masonic membership numbers will never again reach post-WW2 levels.</p>

<p><i>2. Lodges are too quick to pull the trigger on non-payment of dues and requests for demits:</i>  In many Grand Lodges, annual losses from death are beginning to bottom out, but are being eclipsed by suspensions for NPD.  And demits are higher than suspensions.</p>

<p><i>3. More and more members on "fixed incomes":</i> Many Lodges opt to keep dues low because they have enough members paying dues to get by at the lower rates, while trying to protect older members who are on reduced or fixed incomes.</p>

<p><i>4. More and more members being remitted for seniority:</i>  By this is meant Lodges in which all 50-year members are excused from paying dues, usually by Grand Lodge fiat.</p>

<p><i>5. Public fundraisers traditionally held to help keep dues low don't work:</i>  In many venues, the summer Lodge fish fry and the winter Bean Supper are no longer the big draws that they used to be.</p>

<p>We've identified a few areas of trouble.  There are unquestionably more, but this paper has to end at some point, so let's take a look at the ones above in more detail.</p>

<p align="center"><img src="storyend_dingbat.gif"></p>

<p>1.	Lower membership numbers are a fact of life.  Every since the 1970's and the near-total inability of the Craft to attract the "lost generation" of baby boomers (sons of our older members, fathers of our younger members), our membership curve has been heading for the basement, with little or no recovery predicted.</p>

<p>	In Indiana, we have recently found that our losses from death have rounded the downward curve and have been slightly lower than in previous years.  Annual losses from deaths topped out at 4,077 in 1968 and hovered in the 3,500-3700 range for much of the next few decades.  By 2004 they had dropped to 2,651, and have in fact been below 3,000 since the turn of the century.</p>

<p>	But this is still a large subtraction for a Grand Lodge that has raised only, on average, 1,666 new Master Masons each year since 2000. The Grand Lodge has added in total only an average of 2,791 members (including affiliations, restorations, and "other reasons") each year in the same period, while losses from all causes averaged 4,512 per year<sup><a href="#footnote1">1</a></sup>.   Why are our losses continuing to mount?</p>

<p>2.	As it turns out, the largest loss of membership (in Indiana, at least) comes from demits and suspensions for non-payment of dues.  Consider the following table:</p>

<table>
<tr><td>Year</td><td>Total Losses<br />(incl. Deaths)</td><td>Deaths</td><td>Demits</td><td>Suspensions</td></tr>
<tr><td>2000</td><td>5,084</td><td>2,928</td><td>1,360</td><td>785</td></tr>
<tr><td>2001</td><td>4,955</td><td>2,914</td><td>1,155</td><td>909</td></tr>
<tr><td>2002</td><td>5,158</td><td>2,679</td><td>1,635</td><td>827</td></tr>
<tr><td>2003</td><td>4,660</td><td>2,610</td><td>1,123</td><td>917</td></tr>
<tr><td>2004</td><td>5,329</td><td>2,651</td><td>1,612</td><td>1,055</td></tr>
</table>

<p>	It is clear that while deaths may be bottoming out (remember -- they topped out at 4,077 way back in 1968), both demits and suspensions are trending significantly higher.</p>

<p>	In the old days, a man didn't demit or get himself suspended for non-payment of dues unless and until the Lodge had exhausted all means of investigation and remedy.  For the man who wanted to demit, it might not have been as simple as "I can't pay my dues" or "I'm moving out of state and transferring to the Lodge there".  There was always the possibility of disharmony that could be patched around to alleviate the problem.  And for the man who couldn't pay his dues, there was remission, or a generous brother who would step up and fulfill his duty to contribute relief.</p>

<p>	Today Lodges often don't want to go to the trouble.  After all, we send dues statements out, and when the dues don't get paid by the due date, the secretary sends a notice to the members in arrears.  Finally, there is a set procedure for the dues committee to follow each month until finally charges are filed and trials held for non-payment.  Not all Lodges, however, take heed of the admonishment to contact personally each brother who is in arrears and ascertain if there is a problem -- and unfortunately, many of our older brethren consider asking for remission something akin to the mark of Satan.  As a secretary, I've heard "I don't want charity" far too many times from brethren who know full well that the Lodge is there to help them if needed.</p>

<p>	And demits -- every Mason has a right to demit.  I suspect many Lodges just accept requests for demits unquestioned, even though they are supposed to make personal contact to investigate the brother's reasoning.</p>

<p>	In sum, while annual losses to death are bottoming out, it's not time to wipe our brow and sigh in relief.  We've got other problems to deal with that cut into our numbers just as badly.</p>

<p>3.	The "fixed income" issue is to some extent quite real.  While it's true that retirees typically do not draw the kind of monthly income from pensions and Social Security that they did while working at their pre-retirement careers, the fact of the matter is that senior citizens today have more disposable wealth than at any time in the nation's history.  But not all of our members are among the group that can comfortably cruise, travel, play golf, maintain a second home in Florida, or otherwise enjoy a relaxing life after 65.  Many of our members continue to work in lower-paying jobs after retirement, not just for "something to do", but because they wouldn't be putting food on the table if they didn't.  But that doesn't translate automatically into an inability to pay dues.</p>

<p>	The fact is, though, that most of our Lodges aren't charging anywhere near the percentage of household income for dues that they were even 50 years ago.  The burden of Lodge dues is not nearly as great for today's retirees as they were in earlier times.  Even a lodge charging $100 a year -- as mine does -- is asking for less than $10 a month to fund its programs.  You probably can't get the senior citizen's plate at the local cafeteria for $10 anymore, and your monthly newspaper subscription probably runs at least that much, and probably more.  And let's not get into how many -- or in fairness, how few -- Starbucks lattes you can buy for that.</p>

<p>4.	Fifty-year awards are great.  They are a landmark on a long and well-lived life, regardless of whether the brothers receiving them have been active members in their lodges.  At some point in the middle 1940's, Indiana decided that 50 year members should also get something a bit more financially rewarding -- they would be excused from paying dues (including Grand Lodge assessments, Masonic Home assessments, and lodge dues) for the rest of their lives -- in other words, they would be granted seniority remission.</p>

<p>	Now, in a time when the actuarial tables suggested that very few men would live to the age of 71 (the minimum age for a man to receive such an award, given that at the time one had to be 21 in order to petition a Lodge in Indiana<a href="#footnote2"><sup>2</sup></a>), and in fact the life expectancy at birth for a male in 1940 was only 60.8 years<a href="#footnote3"><sup>3</sup></a>, this meant both a great deal and not much at all.  A great deal in that a man who lived that long probably deserved a special recognition, and not much at all in that very few men ever got the 50 year award and no longer had to pay dues.</p>

<p>	Flash forward to 2006.  In my lodge, there are about 170 members, 44 of whom have received the 50 Year Award of Gold and are excused from paying dues.  That means almost 26% of the members of my lodge are paying no dues at all, and five more will receive the AWG in 2006.</p>

<p>	I would suggest that this is untenable, and I'm not alone -- the Grand Master of Masons in Indiana recommended at the 2005 Annual Communication that we begin a 10-year process of raising the seniority remission age to 60.  (The AWG would still be awarded at 50 years.)</p>

<p>	Of course it was voted -- if not shouted -- down.  The general attitude seems to be that 50 year members have "paid enough", a curious concept given that plenty of men reach retirement (as I myself will) without the faintest chance of ever becoming 50 year members.  We will continue to face the reality of ever-rising costs to the lodge that will require higher and higher dues, while significant numbers of our lodge brethren who happened to come into the fraternity years before we did are able to sit comfortably and not pay dues for perhaps 5, 10, 15, or 20 years (or more).  In an organization based on fairness and meeting on the level, how exactly do we justify this?</p>

<p>	At any rate, the life expectancy of males today is 74.5 years.  So here's a radical proposition:  Why aren't we giving the AWG at 50 years and granting seniority remission of dues after 75 years, when we give the 75 year award?  That would put things back very much as they were when the Grand Lodge originally envisioned them.  When the 75 year award was instituted in Indiana in 1995, it was clear that the number of Masons making it to that threshold was significant.  <i>That means that, in Indiana, we actually have living members who have spent 1/3 of their Masonic lives paying not a dime in dues to their lodge, or in assessments to their Grand Lodge.</i></p>

<p>	This is not to say that they should have, but at the very least we should not grant automatically seniority remission at 50 years without an investigation into whether or not the remission is actually needed.  We should be "means-testing" for this, much as the local Scottish Rite Valley currently does, and remission should be turned down if the brother can afford to pay dues.</p>

<p>	As with Social Security, we've gotten ourselves into a situation where fewer and fewer of us are subsidizing more and more of us who don't pay dues.  And it will be difficult to make those who have fully "bought" into the program see its inherent unfairness.  In 1994, there were 14.58 dues-paying brethren for every 50-year member being remitted.  In 2004, there were 6.5.  Is this program indefinitely sustainable?  You tell me.</p>

<p>	As for having "paid enough", well, that might be true if dues money was an investment that would continue to pay dividends for the rest of time.  For my part, I believe that Grand Lodges offering Life Membership or Life Endowment programs need to expand their scope, and make it easier for members to join those programs earlier in life when they may be making more money, but also have families to support.  For Indiana, my recommendation would be to ease into a program of exchanging remission for life endowed memberships. The existing life endowment program, which allows one to buy in with a single payment or by dividing the full payment into three annual payments, needs to give members more time to buy in. Perhaps there should be a sliding scale of number of payments allowed based on the dues amount (if dues are under $75, 3 payments; dues $76-$100, 4 payments; and so forth; or it could be based on the total amount required to be paid into the annuity instead).  To be completely crass and mercenary, but at the same time entirely truthful, it is only with a lifetime endowment that pays off even after a brother dies that a brother can ever truly be said to have "paid enough" to warrant not having to pay dues any longer.</p>

<p>5.	Traditional public fundraisers don't work anymore for many lodges, primarily for two reasons:  First, the older generation is tired of doing them and the younger generation wants to be of service to the community, not so much to themselves; and second, because so many charitable organizations are competing for our shrinking discretionary income these days, the public perception of Masonic fundraisers -- if there is such a perception -- is more than likely that they are just one more hand sticking out palm up.</p>

<p>	The damage in this situation is that Masonic fundraisers usually don't benefit the community at large, but rather, are designed to raise money to fix the roof, or replace the furnace, or paint the lodge hall.  Most younger Masons rebel at the thought of becoming cod batterers at the fish fry, or serving up beans at the annual bean supper to begin with.  Most older Masons don't understand why that is -- after all, those things are traditions.  But the real fundamental misunderstanding is that the younger generation have been brought up in an environment that encourages service to others, while the older generation sees nothing wrong with the public at large helping support the Masonic Lodge.</p>

<p align="center"><img src="storyend_dingbat.gif"></p>

<p>So what is the obvious solution to these problems?  Well, raise dues and fees, of course!  I can hear the arguments already:</p>

<p>"We can't do that!  We've never had to do that before!  We make enough from our fundraisers to get by!  Why, dues and fees are too high now!"</p>

<p>Really?  Are they?  Let's look at what Dwight Smith had to say about that 50 years ago:</p>

<blockquote>In 1911 Floyd F. Oursler was making ten dollars a week as an apprentice
printer. The fee for the three degrees in Winslow Lodge No. 260 was twenty
dollars. That was the full amount of two weeks' pay.<br /><br />

Of course, in 1911 a dollar was worth a dollar, and there was no withholding
tax for printers making ten dollars a week, no gross income tax, no social
security. Just the same, twenty dollars was two weeks' pay - all of it. And Floyd
Oursler thought enough of Freemasonry to empty his pay envelope twice to enjoy
the privilege.<br /><br />

Today, fifty years later, the minimum fee that may be charged by Lodges in
Indiana has been increased to thirty dollars - and one Lodge out of every five
charges the absolute minimum that the law will permit. (If the minimum fee were
still twenty dollars, I daresay at least 75 Lodges would be charging that figure.)
If the same relationship between wages and fees as prevailed in 1911 were
maintained in 1962, Lodges now charging from thirty to sixty dollars would be
charging $100 to $150 - and the Fraternity probably would be stronger and better
thereby.<a href="#footnote4"><sup>4</sup></a></blockquote>

<p>MWBro. Dwight wanted lodges in 1962 to charge between $100 and $150 in fees.  According to the US Government's Consumer Price Index inflation calculator<a href="#footnote5"><sup>5</sup></a>, that means he would want lodges in 2006 to charge between $675 and $1000 in fees!  A grand to petition?  Are you kidding?</p>

<p>Why, that's enough to give a whole sideline of Past Masters sprained index fingers!</p>

<p>And so far as dues are concerned, Broad Ripple Lodge in 1904 charged $4 per annum.  We raised our dues in 2003 to $85 (effectively $58.30, exclusive of all Grand Lodge assessments).  In 2005 our dues were raised to $90 (effectively $59.05), and in 2006 to $100 (effectively $68.05).</p>

<p>$4 in 1904 was equivalent to $82.09 in 2005.<a href="#footnote6"><sup>6</sup></a>   Are we keeping up with inflation?  I don't think so.  And at Broad Ripple our dues and fees put us among the top 10 or 15 lodges in the state.  Imagine what the Lodge still charging $15-$20 per year, exclusive of Grand Lodge assessments, is doing for operating revenue.  (In 2005 there were 8 lodges in Indiana charging in that range; the <i>average</i> per lodge was $47.18.)</p>

<p>Dues are low today because fifty years ago, volume made up for value.  When membership peaked in the 1950's, there were so many Masons that you didn't <i>have</i> to charge much for membership in order to keep a lodge solvent.  And members got so used to cheap dues and low fees that, even as membership tumbled in the late 1960's and 1970's, they refused to raise them to at least keep pace with the losses and with inflation -- because "we'd never had to do that before!"</p>

<p>Well, brethren, with all due respect:  What's the alternative?</p>

<p align="center"><img src="storyend_dingbat.gif"></p>

<p>Several years ago, I considered -- very briefly -- joining a prestigious downtown club here in Indianapolis.  I knew from the start that it was a budget-buster for me, but I was interested to see what the dues structure was like.  My eyes were opened quite wide.  As a resident member of age 37 and above, I would be charged an initiation fee of $3,000.  Then, monthly (not annual) dues of $120, plus $15/month for the capital building fund.  In other words, in the first year I would be dinged for $4,620, and then $1,620 each year afterwards -- assuming no increases in dues.<a href="#footnote7"><sup>7</sup></a></p> 

<p>The first year I was a Mason, it cost me $141.50.  The year after, $60.</p>

<p>Brethren, we're selling ourselves FAR too cheaply.  Our dues simply don't, anymore.  Our initiation fees are a disgrace to the Craft, and encourage far too many unworthy men to challenge our West Gate.  It's time to raise dues and fees to what the market will, demonstrably, bear.  And it's time to stop automatically granting remission of dues to a significant and growing segment of our brethren.  In states that have Life Membership programs, it should be made easier for brethren to get into those programs, possibly by stretching out the number of years over which payments can be made into the annuity.</p>

<p>Otherwise we can look forward to more years of dwindling and mediocre membership, decaying buildings, and lost opportunities.  As a member of what was once considered the premier society of gentlemen, that prospect holds no joy for me.</p>

<p>--------<br />
<p><a name="footnote1"><sup>1</sup></a>  Membership numbers from 2000-2004 are found in the 2005 Proceedings of the Grand Lodge of Indiana, F&AM, Comparative Statement of Membership, page 208.  I have omitted plural membership additions in my calculations.  All types of losses are represented.</p>

<p><a name="footnote2"><sup>2</sup></a>  Unless he was a Lewis, but the number of 18-year-old petitioners was probably insignificant in the grand scheme of things, and even a Lewis would have had to cheat the Reaper by 8 years at the time in order to get a 50 year award.</p>

<p><a name="footnote3"><sup>3</sup></a>  <a href="http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005148.html">http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005148.html</a></p>

<p><a name="footnote4"><sup>4</sup></a>  This story comes from one of the supporting editorials ("Where Your Treasure Is") for "Whither are we traveling?", which can be found at http://www.vitruvian.org/papers/ along with MWBro. Smith's other important works.</p>

<p><a name="footnote5"><sup>5</sup></a>  Found at <a href="http://www.bls.gov/cpi/">http://www.bls.gov/cpi/</a></p>

<p><a name="footnote6"><sup>6</sup></a>  Use the calculator at <a href="http://www.westegg.com/inflation/">http://www.westegg.com/inflation/</a> for years earlier than 1913.</p>

<p><a name="footnote7"><sup>7</sup></a>  But don't take my word for it.  See the application for membership of the Columbia Club of Indianapolis, found on their website at <a href="http://www.columbia-club.org">http://www.columbia-club.org</a>.  Or check out the prestigious club in your own town and see if they don't have a similar fee structure.</p>

<p>--------<br />
This article was originally published on MasonicDictionary.Com at <a href="http://www.masonicdictionary.com/d.html">http://www.masonicdictionary.com/d.html</a> .

This article is copyright (c) 2006 Nathan C. Brindle. Permission is granted to Masonic Lodges to download and distribute this essay for educational purposes. Permission is granted to republish this essay in bulletins, summonses and other Masonic publications provided that you credit the contributing author and MasonicDictionary.com in the publication.]]></description>
         <link>http://www.thebrindles.org/nbrindle/blog/2006/10/dues_that_dontanymore.shtml</link>
         <guid>http://www.thebrindles.org/nbrindle/blog/2006/10/dues_that_dontanymore.shtml</guid>
        
        
         <pubDate>Wed, 11 Oct 2006 14:45:41 -0500</pubDate>
      </item>
            <item>
         <title>Hello World</title>
         <description><![CDATA[My name is Nathan Brindle.  I am a Freemason, raised to the sublime degree in March 1999.

I am a Past Master of Broad Ripple Lodge No. 643, F&AM, in Indianapolis, Indiana, and am the current Secretary there.  I am also a charter member and Charter Secretary of Lodge Vitruvian No. 767, F&AM, and a member and current Tyler of Logan Lodge No. 575, F&AM, both of Indianapolis.

I'm not quite as famous as <a href="http://freemasonsfordummies.blogspot.com/">some Ripple/Vitruvian members</a>, but every now and then I have a thought or six that I'd like to share...and that will happen here.

I have a number of other Masonic resume items but I think that's enough for now.  Except, I suppose, to mention that I am one of the original <a href="http://www.knightsofthenorth.com">Knights of the North</a>.

Enjoy the ride.]]></description>
         <link>http://www.thebrindles.org/nbrindle/blog/2006/10/hello_world.shtml</link>
         <guid>http://www.thebrindles.org/nbrindle/blog/2006/10/hello_world.shtml</guid>
        
        
         <pubDate>Wed, 11 Oct 2006 14:40:37 -0500</pubDate>
      </item>
      
   </channel>
</rss>
