Quote:
| Originally Posted by phimac39 What's it like up there on your soap boxes ? So by your line of thinking we can pick and choose which rules we are going to follow and which ones we will not because we don't agree with them . A Mason violated his obligations , was called out on it , posted it on the internet so he could find a shoulder to cry on and every Mason that agrees with the GL of KY are not true Masons .
It seems to me you don't know which end of the Grand Lodge is which . |
I know nothing about the GL of KY, but I am learning.
I now see this issue as a clash between Grand Lodges, brought on by a desire by one Mason who thought he was doing the right thing.
He had posted this thread in two other forums. It was said to be a "hypothetical" situation and at the time I had my doubts about such a scenario, I actually was disgusted as I didn't think he was being honest at the time as there was more to it.
Posting this on the Internet in hindsight, may not have been his best idea.
My short reply to his thread, at the time, was along the lines....."you can't serve two Masters. He now knows this to be true.
Being "under the thumb" of two Grand lodges meant that somewhere along the line was going to be a clash of policies of some sort. Resigning from one would have been the better option.
It now eventuates that he has been expelled by the GL of KY and they in turn, have contacted the GL of NY seeking his expelment(does this word exist?) from that lodge. The reason.......breaking the sacred oath by visiting a clandestine lodge. To the GL of NW it isn't.......but to the GL of KY it is.
I hope the GL of NY stand by this bretheren as he has in no way violated his oath to them. Worse is that this matter has two Grand Lodges locked in a moral issue over another Lodge.
Wether the bretheren involved knew of this "recognition/non recognition" between the two lodges, remains to be seen.
If he did know, then I would have to say that it may have been a ploy by him to test the rules, which I feel is not right. The matter could have been discussed quietly and the bretheren should have disclosed his intentions to one or both to the Grand lodges concerned.
Diction betweem the two Grand Lodges now involved would have been far better before this event, not after.
Where one Grand Lodge recognises another Lodge and the other doesn't, I don't understand. It just makes visitation to another Lodge more harder, unless checked through the Grand Lodge before visiting.
Here in Australia, a MM must check with the Grand Lodge in his state before visiting a foreign Lodge.
Now after this incident, I will double check.
You may now tear my statement apart. Personally,I don't care what you do.
I have answered with my heart and no man will prevent another man from speaking what he feels.