MrSifter

I broadly agree with this. I also think women should have zero involvement in dinners or other Masonic affairs. As an organisation we’re sacrificing so many things and standards to appeal to or appease the profane world.

I agree on ladies’ nights being naff. They’ve had their day. Only question I have is why bother doing a party at all?

Thanks. Hard enough getting people to do the ritual in Chapter let alone add commentaries! I’ve found options on Rosetta if anyone is interested. There’s a demonstration team and also a RA tracing board lecture.

Looking for some help/advice. Our London Chapter doesn’t have any exaltees lined up and we’re looking for ideas so the meeting isn’t just opening and closing. Are there any demonstration teams or particularly good lecturers we could approach and ask them to perform at the meeting? Many thanks in advance.

In Scotland you have to be a MM to do your Mark. The lodge is opened in the 3rd then reduced to a second to perform the ceremony. Not sure about HRA up there as I was exalted in England.

I like the Scottish system that you do Mark in your craft lodge. Most lodges have one or two Mark degrees per year. No separate governing body and no other regalia therefore preventing unnecessary cost. I’d like to see HRA done in craft lodges in England as a “special meeting” when there’s a candidate. I don’t see the need for separate governing bodies. I’d keep all the other side orders separate.

Thank you. If getting a “reward” is what motivates someone and it’s what they want, I’ve no problem at all with the lodge supporting that. In return, the bare minimum we can expect any brother to do is give it his all in whatever office he is invested in. Sadly, and far too often, it’s not what happens. On a personal level I just find it very disheartening that every single lodge meeting, GP meeting and festive board a large chunk of the discussions revolve around this issue. Even more so when it’s top of the VO and SVO’s agenda. As I say, it is bread and circuses to keep the masses in line.

Be a love, put up the full quote and in context.

I’ll take that as you withdrawing your outrageous smear against me. Hopefully yorksmason does likewise. I’m all for supporting any brother through the Chair that’s prepared to do his absolute best and am consistently on record as saying that’s what we should all do if it is what the brother wants to do. I’ve had no higher honour than being installed in the Chair of King Solomon of my craft lodge, it is one of the highlights of my life and I’d love every brother to experience it To answer your last point, I don’t think “rank” or “honours” (whatever term applies) should exist at all. Human beings being what they are, it’ll always be open to abuses and perverse qualifying criteria. If it didn’t exist we wouldn’t have these embarrassing discussions on here, in GP meetings and every festive board. It’s bread and circuses and I actually find it quite disturbing that so many people (despite the inevitable protestations) are utterly obsessed “being eligible for senior positions” as you euphemistically put it.

1. It is not a thread about ranks. The thread is actually about “unsuitable candidates”, whatever that nebulous term means. The “honours” discussion is a side issue (rabbit hole!). 2. I don’t agree that to receive LGR you have to “put in serious work.” The fact there’s barely a PM five year plus out of the Chair in London without LGR is a testament to how difficult it is to get this “honour.” I say that as someone that has visited dozens of London lodges where dark blue nearly always outnumbers light blue. I’d be pretty confident in saying I’ve never attended a lodge where light blue was the majority. 3. Can you or yorksmason point to one post where I said that only those who are highly proficient at ritual should be able to go through the Chair or be the only ones eligible for “honours?” 4. What is this “recognition they deserve” you speak of? I thought yorksmason had a window into their souls and was able to judge them on how “just and upright” they are? As an aside, we lost one old PM who never had honours because he’d never joined HRA. He felt quite put out by it. It was all very sad as he’d been a wonderful lodge member, served in multiple offices and been a very attentive Almoner. It turned out he was cast aside by our glorious rulers because anyone that’s not in HRA isn’t good enough in their view. I could then go on at length about some quite appalling PMs utterly desperate for LGR that do a mix of secretary/mentor/almoner/treasurer to a very poor standard for a couple of years each, join HRA with no intention of attending or progressing but just so they achieve the adequate number of points for a dark blue apron. I’d end the rank/honours system tomorrow. It’s not only unnecessary, it’s unmasonic and brings out the absolute worst in a lot of men.

Actually the problem lies in your selective quoting and virtue signalling. I can only wonder at what your motivations were for ignoring: “Invariably the PM will have filled two (possibly three) offices in that period so they get the adequate number of points to qualify for “honours.” How poor they’ve been in those offices or how little they’ve contributed to the wider Craft don’t seem to impact the award.“

I think that’s pretty fanciful to be honest and as a London Freemason it’s certainly not what I see. It’s rare being in any lodge where a PM five years plus out of the Chair doesn’t have the “honour” of LGR. Invariably the PM will have filled two (possibly three) offices in that period so they get the adequate number of points to qualify for “honours.” How poor they’ve been in those offices or how little they’ve contributed to the wider Craft don’t seem to impact the award. I think we need to face facts that the LGR “honour” is worthless other than to the regalia manufacturers. At least they get a nice day out at the investiture I suppose. I do accept that nowadays SLGR and Grand Rank are much harder to attain. Personally I wish more brethren put as much effort into their ritual as they do into chasing “honours.” I’m jaundiced by it all but I’ve had my fill of GP meetings and festive boards where it’s all a lot of people can talk about. I really don’t care if they’re in “twenty units” and attended over one hundred meetings last year, and certainly not if they can’t even do the most basic of ritual to a high standard.

I agree on the aprons and actually suggested plain white aprons for everyone on this very board a number of years ago. It did not go down well. I lived in NYC for one year and over there the brethren wear plain white aprons (PMs get a square and compasses with the sun in the centre on theirs) and I always felt that was a nice touch. My mother lodge is in Scotland and the Scotch get by just fine without an honours system. I’m in HRA (I also did my Mark in my mother lodge as is the Scotch custom) but I’m not too sure UGLE should be actively pushing the side orders. They’re great for really passionate and time rich brethren but not for the majority in my view. Admittedly I don’t know what the solution is on the esoteric side but then, perhaps the definition of that word applies.

David, I agree with what what you say about “honours” and personally find them abhorrent. It really brings the worst out in a lot of people. I also fail to see how it is an “honour” when just about everyone gets them on time served. That aside, I’m not sure how ditching the “honours” system and embracing the side orders would make any impact? Curious to understand your thinking here.

I’m curious to know how UGLE define “unsuitable people”. I also find the gender neutral phrasing strange. Regardless, overt atheists, those with criminal records etc. are obviously “unsuitable” men but how far do you extend the term? My London lodge always manages to get candidates and all are what, prima facie, would be deemed good candidates. We’ve had barristers, taxi drivers, doctors, lorry drivers, former headmasters, IT consultants, magicians, pilots and all manner of professional men join in the last decade. Sadly our success and retention rate isn’t good and greater than 50% were ultimately “unsuitable”. One chap turned up roaring drunk for his initiation (I don’t think we should have done the ceremony) and failed to turn up for his passing, we never heard from him again and he ended up being excluded. Another joined (a salesman) and said all the right things at the enquiry. “Father in law was a Freemason, wife hugely supportive, plenty of free time, want to better myself as a person, love meeting new people”, and the list went on. It became clear he was only there to network for business opportunities. After two years and realising there was no financial gain, we never saw him again. The former headmaster told us at his enquiry he’d always wanted to join, loved the idea of LoI, learning ritual and also being a concert pianist was a “perfectionist”. He received an outstanding initiation in the December, attended the installation in March, then we never heard from him again. He completely ignored all attempts at contact then wrote to us about one year later saying he’d “lost his faith in God” and resigned. All of the above were known men to their proposer and seconder. Our current Master has been absolutely fantastic and was a UGLE referral, unknown to everyone. On the flip side we had another referral circa 2009 and we never saw him again after his raising. After nearly twenty years in the Craft I can’t say (in general terms) with any confidence who I know is suitable and who isn’t. I doubt UGLE could provide any further direction on that either, making their statement above both vacuous and otiose.