Would-Be Shriner Says He Was Subjected to Painful Initiation Rites
Mike Wells
true. BTW, that trial was (I believe) started in 1991. What was the outcome,
or is the trial still in progress?
Mike Wells
Normal #673 AF&AM Illinois
Collector of old Masonic books
Nomen Nescio <nob...@dizum.com> wrote in message
news:3e2431c2a89f3561...@dizum.com...
> Would-Be Shriner Says He Was Subjected to Painful Initiation Rites"
> The Associated Press
> Domestic News
> PM Cycle
> November 20, 1991
>
> LEXINGTON, Ky. - Michael G. Vaughan says he went to the Shrine temple to
learn
> the secrets of the universe. What he learned, he says, is that the
Shrine's
> initiation rites involve electric shocks and the humiliation of having
one's
> underwear filled with strawberries and whipped cream.
>
> Now his lawsuit against the fraternity has become cloaked in nearly as
much
> secrecy as the rites themselves.
>
> A judge has ordered all participants in the lawsuit not to divulge details
> of the case. The case file has been sealed. And only those directly
involved
> with the lawsuit know when and where to meet for the trial Dec. 9.
>
> The lawsuit was filed last year by Vaughan, a 44-year-old brick mason who
claims
> he was knocked unconscious and suffered other injuries during initiation
rites
> in 1989 at the Oleika Shrine Temple in Lexington. He seeks an unspecified
amount
> for medical bills, lost income and punitive damages.
>
> Before Circuit Judge George Barker issued a gag order last summer, Vaughan
> said in interviews that he wanted to become a Shriner because the group
promised
> spiritual and emotional fulfillment.
>
> The Ancient Arabic Order of the Nobles of the Mystic Shrine has about
725,000
> members in the United States, Canada and Mexico. The group is renowned for
> its philanthropy: Its charitable foundation runs 19 orthopedic and three
burn
> hospitals where needy children are treated free of charge.
>
> But Shriners also are famous for their love of fun. Temples hold circuses
and
> football games, and Shriners driving miniature cars and boats and wearing
Arabian
> costumes, turbans and fezzes are familiar sights at parades across
America.
>
> "I assumed that the Shrine, as the word would imply, was like (God's)
highest
> secret order, where a great secret would be learned once you got it,"
Vaughan
> said.
>
> So, in 1989, he and about three dozen other initiates stood before an
audience
> of Shriners and began a series of tests, which included walking on an
electrified
> mat, sitting on an electrified bench and getting a jolt of electricity to
their
> bare buttocks, the lawsuit says.
>
> At one point, the lawsuit says, Vaughan's shorts were taped to his legs
and
> he suspected a nearby sinkful of strawberries, whipped cream and ice cream
> was to be poured into them.
>
> This last humiliation was not carried out, he says, because a table fell
over
> and took him with it. The lawsuit says Vaughan hit his head on the floor
and
> was knocked unconscious.
>
> Vaughan did not pay his dues and never returned to the temple.
>
> His lawsuit claims that the activities were painful and harmful and that
he
> needed medical treatment because of them. He accuses the supervising
Shriners
> of assault and fraud.
>
> A court-ordered videotape of the temple's initiation devices confirmed
much
> of Vaughan's story, including the existence of the electrified bench and
mat.
>
> Lawyers on both sides of the case and officials of the Oleika Shrine
Temple
> refused to comment this week, citing the court order. Vaughan has an
unlisted
> telephone number and could not be reached.
>
> In court documents, the temple denied several of the allegations but
acknowledged
> that shocks "of less than one second" are administered during initiation.
The
> Shriners denied Vaughan was knocked unconscious.
>
> Theodore Corsones, lawyer for the national Shriners' organization, said he
> could not comment on the case but that his own initiation as a Shriner was
> spiritually uplifting. He said he toured a Shriners hospital for crippled
children.
>
> "As for what went on in Lexington, I haven't the foggiest because I wasn't
> there," Corsones said.
>
> Rules are issued each year on proper initiation techniques, he said.
>
> Robert E. Manley, whose Cincinnati law firm specializes in fraternity law,
> said at least 35 states, including Kentucky, have laws that ban hazing.
Manley
> is not involved in Vaughan's lawsuit.
>
> Manely said he wasn't sure if Kentucky's hazing law would apply to the
Shrine
> case. But if the allegations are true, Vaughan could file an assault and
battery
> complaint, he said.
>
> http://freemasonwatch.freepress-freespeech.com/
>
>
medsarge
posted...that way he isn't responsible for any follow-up info that may be
involved. Maybe he could find an aricle somewhere....
--
-----------
I argue very well. Ask any of my remaining friends. I can win an argument on
any
topic, against any opponent. People know this, and steer clear of me at
parties.Often, as a sign of their great respect, they don't even invite me.
"Mike Wells" <mgwb...@fgi.net> wrote in message
news:Y2r77.694$Ip4.4...@nntp1.onemain.com...
Mike Martin
He went to learn the secrets of the Universe! Oh brother!
Then had a sulk and filed a lawsuit.
Sounds like a spoilt brat to me.
He should have his arse smacked and be grounded for a week.
--
Mike, (A.K.A. mike...@my-deja.com), Mersey Lodge, No 5434 (London),
Lodge of Ideal Endeavour, No 7379 (W.Kent), Quator Coronati Correspondence
Circle.
A moderator and member of www.thefreemason.com/
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.264 / Virus Database: 136 - Release Date: 02/07/01
Mike Wells
some serious, to a candidate during Degree work of either Blue lodge or an
Appendant Body. To me, there is no place in this organization for hazing,
degradation of the individual, or potential injury. I believe that you
would agree that Degree work should be conducted with respect for our
organization and the Brother.
F&S,
Mike Wells
Normal #673 AF&AM Illinois
Collector of old Masonic books
Mike Martin <mich...@martin118.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:9jlot9$glj$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
Mike Martin
"Mike Wells" <mgwb...@fgi.net> wrote in message news:4Ox77.1402
> degradation of the individual, or potential injury. I believe that you
> would agree that Degree work should be conducted with respect for our
> organization and the Brother.
Dear Bro. Mike,
I agree entirely with regard to Freemasonry and here in the UK it is so.
Although I have witnessed a candidate faint during his initiation, after his
recovery he explained that it was due to the apprehension he felt caused by
the anti-masonic rubbish he had read up on first.
However, this article is talking about a quasi-masonic organisation and
therefore does not fall under the aegis of Freemasonry.
--
Yours Sincerely & Fraternally
Jack Hickey
>> LEXINGTON, Ky. - Michael G. Vaughan says he went to the Shrine temple to
>>learn the secrets of the universe. What he learned, he says, is that the
>>Shrine's initiation rites involve electric shocks and the humiliation of
>>having one's underwear filled with strawberries and whipped cream.
What if one's underwear is ALREADY filled with strawberries and whipped
cream?
What if one does not consider it humiliating? I rather enjoy it ...
Brother Vaughan went to the Shrine to "learn the secrets of the universe"
from
an organization known to be staffed by little fat men who dress in silly
costumes and drink copious amounts of adult beverage while riding miniature
motorcycles?
If he didn't take the time or effort to bother to learn the NATURE of the
organization, or what to expect, then he has nothing to complain about. As
another poster wrote, he sounds like a spoiled brat.
ANNOUNCEMENT:
I am becoming a Shriner on Saturday, 28 July, Cairo Temple of Rutland,
Vermont.
I already know what to expect. I took the time to find out, and decided
that
it was worth the effort and the mild hazing. I know about the "hot sands"
and
other such things. I figure that I can put up with and go along with the
childishness of it all in order to attain the benefits that come with
membership.
Jack Hickey
Master-Elect
Isaiah Thomas Lodge
Worcester MA
Bryan Hayes
Few questions:
A Shriner initiate must be a high ranking Freemason. Or at least a MM.
Right?
Isn't it a fact that Freemasons don't believe in prosecution by law?
Why would someone who believes in Freemasonry and its teachings
file a lawsuit against his own?
Bryan Hayes
Toronto, Canada.
Not a Mason yet... :-(
...but soon. :-)
"Mike Wells" <mgwb...@fgi.net> wrote in message
news:Y2r77.694$Ip4.4...@nntp1.onemain.com...
Ed King
wrote:
> He made sure that the part about the case file being sealed was
> posted...that way he isn't responsible for any follow-up info that may be
> involved. Maybe he could find an aricle somewhere....
1991. Had to have been a Mason AND either Scottish Rite or York Rite member
before joining Shrine - and yet, the guy thought he was going to find the
secrets of the universe in the self-described "playground of Masonry"???? Man
oh man.
For readers: there _are_ some fraternity-like pranks in joining Shrine. It's
really quite simple and everyone is aware of them before they take part. There
are those, however (including a young man I sponsored into Freemasonry and
whose father was a Director in the local Shrine unit), who find the pranks
distasteful and undignified. Others, however, feel there aren't enough and
want even MORE hijacks.
As a result, there's often a dichotomy of feelings about Shrine membership.
Masons support its strong charity efforts and many of them greatly enjoy their
participation in units (Clowns, Mini-Bikes, etc.). However, the chicanery and
'frat-boy' atmosphere CAN lead to excesses in behavior (the 'drunkenness'
often cited as an example although even it is NOTHING compared to the corner
bar on any Friday or Saturday night) and the Shrine gets its share of
criticism from folks like "Watchy" who contribute NOTHING themselves to
society and exist only to debase others.
The dichotomy of interests is one of the reasons the Shrine has - over the
years - sought to move themselves away from Freemasonry and be established as
an organization *without* any Masonic membership requirements. They have moved
half-way in that direction by eliminating 'rite' membership as a prerequisite.
And I can't for the life of me imagine ANY Shrine organization spending money
on good strawberries and cream for that purpose! Ice cubes, perhaps.... <G>
<snip of 'Watchy''s further attempts to defame Masons. Poor guy: no life at
all and now with his site name, nobody can even find him! <ROFL>>
Fraternally,
Ed King
http://www.masonicinfo.com -- Anti-Masonry: Points of View
Internet newsgroup posting. Copyright 2001. All rights reserved.
steve.hudson
"Bryan Hayes" <hayes...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:7LA77.11407$A4.13...@news20.bellglobal.com...
>
> Few questions:
>
> A Shriner initiate must be a high ranking Freemason. Or at least a MM.
> Right?
> Isn't it a fact that Freemasons don't believe in prosecution by law?
> Why would someone who believes in Freemasonry and its teachings
> file a lawsuit against his own?
>
Brian, this is a long, long way from being a 'fact'. Although I do know
some fundamentalist Christians who personally don't believe in lawsuits,
Masonry is _not_ a religion or bound to any specific religious practices.
Masons as an official body certainly champion justice and furthermore
generally agree that justice requires the exercise of law -- both internally
(via Masonic jurisprudence) and externally -- through the state and civil
authorities.
I hope this answers your question.
--
Steven M. Hudson .'.
Jerusalem Lodge No. 49
Ridgefield, CT, USA
Jack Hickey
>For readers: there _are_ some fraternity-like pranks in joining Shrine. It's
>really quite simple and everyone is aware of them before they take part.
There
>are those, however (including a young man I sponsored into Freemasonry and
>whose father was a Director in the local Shrine unit), who find the pranks
>distasteful and undignified. Others, however, feel there aren't enough and
>want even MORE hijacks.
Indeed. I am planning to join the Shrine this weekend -- Cairo Shrine in
Vermont -- and I know very well what to expect. I know about the "hot
sands"
and that sort of thing, and I don't care for it at all; at best, it's silly.
Sometimes, you have to decide on a trade-off, though. I told my sponsor
that
I'll put up with what *I* consider to be the foolishness of BECOMING a
Shriner
for the privilege of BEING a Shriner.
... and if the electric carpet hurts me too much, I'll just clutch my chest,
scream incoherently about my pacemaker, and collapse on the floor. I'm a
good actor, I'll bet you a nickel I could make the Potentate pee on himself.
If the Brother back in 1991 didn't know what to expect ("secrets of the
Universe," indeed!) then it was his own fault. If you want the "secrets
of
the universe," stay home and watch Discovery Channel.
Mike Martin
"Bryan Hayes" <hayes...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:7LA77.11407$A4.13...@news20.bellglobal.com...
> Right?
> Isn't it a fact that Freemasons don't believe in prosecution by law?
> Why would someone who believes in Freemasonry and its teachings
> file a lawsuit against his own?
Dear Bryan,
If I remember rightly, I read somewhere that the requirement for masonic
membership has been removed from the Shrine in some areas of the US in order
to increase membership. That being said Freemasons do believe in the Law and
it is part of the Obligation to do so. Please do not be fooled by the
rumours and myths surrounding Freemasonry
--
Animal Style Gene Goldman.·.
<hayes...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> Few questions:
>
> A Shriner initiate must be a high ranking Freemason. Or at least a MM.
> Right?
In order to join the Shrine, one must be a Master Mason.
As far as "high ranking" is concerned, I suppose that would be
correct.
There are three Degrees in Masonry. Entered Apprentice, Fellowcraft
and Master Mason. These are as close to "ranks" as we get.
Virtually every Mason is a Master Mason. In fact, in most American
jurisdictions you cannot even join a Lodge until you are a Master
Mason. Up to then, you are considered a candidate, and have very few
privileges.
> Isn't it a fact that Freemasons don't believe in prosecution by law?
No. It is a fact that Masonry teaches us that settling disagreements
like gentlemen is almost always preferable to litigation. It is a
fact that many Masons work within the legal profession, which would be
unthinkable for anyone who didn't believe in prosecution by law. And
it is a fact that in most, if not all, Masonic jurisdictions there
exist administrative procedures that closely resemble - to the point
of being indistinguishable from - courts of law, in which a Mason
accused of violating our rules may be tried, and if found guilty may
be expelled from the fraternity.
While there may be some Masons who do not believe in prosecution by
law, that belief is a product of their personal opinions and values,
and not a teaching of the fraternity.
> Why would someone who believes in Freemasonry and its teachings
> file a lawsuit against his own?
If he feels that he was wronged and is not satisfied with other
measures of seeking redress - just like anyone else. In fact, certain
issues are not permitted to be brought to Masonic jurisprudence or
adjudication in the first place. Particularly political and business
disputes. In most jurisdictions, these and similar issues - as a
matter of Masonic law - must be addressed outside the fraternity.
It is admittedly rare for one Mason to sue another, but it does
happen. Usually, when the two men apply the principles and virtues
taught in Masonry, they are able to settle the issue without having to
resort to such unpleasantness. But every once in a while, the matter
cannot be resolved without a courtroom. It happens.
--
|O| Be well. Travel with a light heart.
Brother Gene .*.
H.M.S.H.
Q.P.H.D.
Give me [Backspace] or give me death.
http://www.calodges.org/no442
http://www.blackmountainlodge.net
http://www.freemason.org
MBBFMN #387
ICQ #503060
They can have my [Backspace] key when they pry it from my cold, dead, fingers.
Internet newsgroup posting. Copyright 2001. All rights reserved.
[Backspace]: use it or lose it.
Any Mason may use the contents for any valid Masonic purpose, permission may be granted to others upon request.
[Backspace]: The key of Champions!
102. Paraphrase of quotations is the colloquialism of the cultured. - Restivo
"I never represent my opinion as fact." - Restivo
Got [Backspace]?
jDolan
>
> Indeed. I am planning to join the Shrine this weekend -- Cairo Shrine in
> Vermont -- and I know very well what to expect. I know about the "hot
> sands"
> and that sort of thing, and I don't care for it at all; at best, it's silly.
You're gonna be up this way?
Give a shout if there's any spare/free time. If you're going to be at the Rutland
Lodge, I could meet you there.
> Sometimes, you have to decide on a trade-off, though. I told my sponsor
> that
> I'll put up with what *I* consider to be the foolishness of BECOMING a
> Shriner
> for the privilege of BEING a Shriner.
Good luck, Jack!
--
jHam You have the time, they might not:
White River #90 Feed the hungry with a click of your mouse:
Bethel, Vt. http://www.thehungersite.com
Jack Hickey
>Jack Hickey wrote:
>> Indeed. I am planning to join the Shrine this weekend -- Cairo Shrine in
>> Vermont -- and I know very well what to expect.
>You're gonna be up this way?
That's the plan. My sponsor and I, and four other candidates, are leaving
Worcester at 5.30 a.m. on Saturday and driving up to Rutland, and I
understand
that the day will be pretty full. We're not staying overnight up there,
this
time -- since I have to work on Sunday, we'll be leaving Vermont late
Saturday
afternoon and driving back.
> Give a shout if there's any spare/free time. If you're going to be at the
Rutland
>Lodge, I could meet you there.
I have no idea where anything is; I don't even know where in Vermont Rutland
is. I can identify Vermont on a map, sometimes.
>Good luck, Jack
grazie.
JH
Jinn
> What if one's underwear is ALREADY filled with strawberries and whipped
> cream?
> What if one does not consider it humiliating? I rather enjoy it ...
<sigh> Again, TMI, Dewde.
> Brother Vaughan went to the Shrine to "learn the secrets of the universe"
> from
> an organization known to be staffed by little fat men who dress in silly
> costumes and drink copious amounts of adult beverage while riding miniature
> motorcycles?
Well, where 'else?' Sounds like they've got it together to 'me.'
> If he didn't take the time or effort to bother to learn the NATURE of the
> organization, or what to expect, then he has nothing to complain about. As
> another poster wrote, he sounds like a spoiled brat.
> ANNOUNCEMENT:
> I am becoming a Shriner on Saturday, 28 July, Cairo Temple of Rutland,
> Vermont.
> I already know what to expect. I took the time to find out, and decided
> that
> it was worth the effort and the mild hazing. I know about the "hot sands"
> and
> other such things. I figure that I can put up with and go along with the
> childishness of it all in order to attain the benefits that come with
> membership.
You just want the strawberries & whip cream. And the minibike.
Jinn
> Jack Hickey
> Master-Elect
What 'is' the world coming to? <s>
Jack Hickey
>Jack Hickey <jackh...@MailAndNews.com> wrote in message
news:<3B67...@MailAndNews.com>...
>> I am becoming a Shriner on Saturday, 28 July, Cairo Temple of Rutland,
>> Vermont.
>You just want the strawberries & whip cream. And the minibike.
You figured me out. Darn.
That's not the reason I'm joining the Shriners, though. I don't have to go
all the way to Vermont to have my underwear filled with whipped cream ... I
can do that right here at home.
>> Jack Hickey
>> Master-Elect
>What 'is' the world coming to? <s>
Damfino. I'm still astonished.
Jack Hickey
Master-Elect
Ed King
> "Bryan Hayes" <hayes...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:7LA77.11407$A4.13...@news20.bellglobal.com...
> > A Shriner initiate must be a high ranking Freemason. Or at least a MM.
> > Right?
> > Isn't it a fact that Freemasons don't believe in prosecution by law?
> > Why would someone who believes in Freemasonry and its teachings
> > file a lawsuit against his own?
>
> Dear Bryan,
>
> If I remember rightly, I read somewhere that the requirement for masonic
> membership has been removed from the Shrine in some areas of the US in order
> to increase membership.
Not true. There was a proposal at the Annual Shrine meeting in 2000 submitted
to do just that (and for that as well as some other reasons). The motion
failed however. Another motion, though, removed the requirement that a Mason
be either a 32nd Degree Scottish Rite Member or a Knights Templar Member.
Accordingly, one only now need be a Master Mason in order to become a Shriner.
This has been in effect since mid-2000, well after the 1991 incident the
anonymous 'Watchy' is attempting to ferment trouble with.
> That being said Freemasons do believe in the Law and
> it is part of the Obligation to do so. Please do not be fooled by the
> rumours and myths surrounding Freemasonry
Amen. So mote it be! <G>
Fraternally,
Ed King
http://www.masonicinfo.com -- Anti-Masonry: Points of View
Ed King
> Few questions:
>
> A Shriner initiate must be a high ranking Freemason.
There's no such thing as a "high ranking" Freemason. All who are Master Masons
meet 'upon the level'. This is FAR more than just a trite phrase: it's fact!
> Or at least a MM. Right?
That's correct. And in 1991, the person would have also had to have received
the Scottish Rite and/or York Rite Degrees except if they had joined the
Shrine in Canada where there was a waiver of that requirement due to the
sparsity of those bodies. Accordingly, the expectation of 'universal
enlightenment' or any such thing was preposterous on its face.
> Isn't it a fact that Freemasons don't believe in prosecution by law?
Whoever said that? Why right on this very newsgroup, we've had a person who's
been claiming that he's being treated unfairly, that people are answering his
messages (which he sees as some sort of affront) and that he's been the victim
of persecution by rogue cult Masonic enforcers. We have encouraged him in the
strongest possible terms to seek redress under law. (Parenthetically, his
claims are nothing more than hot air and lots of it but nevertheless, if he
thinks he has a claim, law is the appropriate recourse!).
> Why would someone who believes in Freemasonry and its teachings
> file a lawsuit against his own?
Who knows. If he was so stupid as to think he'd find some secret to the
universe in the Shrine, he'd also do something like filing a law suite for
having strawberries and cream in his underwear I suppose. <Guffaw> The few
people who don't appreciate the horse-play of the Shrine initiation usually
just walk away quietly. There's always the exception however.
When I joined the Shrine, it was a three day event. 'Hazing' started at 6 pm
on Friday, went all through the night and ended at the banquet the next
evening. On the other hand, there were pauses where you were forcefully
reminded of why you were there: things such as having to talk extemporaneously
to a group of men WELL your senior about why you were a Mason. No fooling,
every one of them in suits and ties and perfectly sober. Of course, ten
minutes later I was rolling an egg down the hotel hallway with my nose....
<BWG>. The crowning 'glory' of the whole thing was the 'slave auction' on
that Friday night with the candidates being 'sold' to various groups of
bidders and ALL profits going to the Shrine hospitals. The highest price was
paid for _ME_! <Big Grin> Needless to say, the 'slave masters' wanted to get
their money's worth of laughs and I tried to comply. In the process, I'd like
to think we helped a needy child.
Regards,
erik
: What if one's underwear is ALREADY filled with strawberries and whipped
: What if one does not consider it humiliating? I rather enjoy it ...
Good Evening Br Jack,
I feel obligated to point out to you that the 'oversharing' light
is now on. Please do not feel pressured into making it burn out. Not at
all. Nope.
--
ttfn
------------
Erik J. Meyer
Constellation Lodge AF&AM (no, we don't have numbers)
Hermann-Dexter Lodge IOOF #133 Dedham, MA
www.mychip.org are you a turtle?
Bryan Hayes
Dear Sir,
Thank you for your reply.
I was reffereing to high ranks as in the highest degrees of
York and Scotish Rite, which are appendent bodies of Freemasonry
and are the only source from which Shriners can draw membership.
Men like that whould know the old charges of Freemasonry and not
follow a lawsuit. No?
Thanks again,
Bryan Hayes
""Animal Style" Gene Goldman.·." <br_...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:tkutltofo0okdm471...@4ax.com...
Bryan Hayes
> There's no such thing as a "high ranking" Freemason. All who are Master
Masons
> meet 'upon the level'. This is FAR more than just a trite phrase: it's
fact!
>
> > Or at least a MM. Right?
>
> That's correct. And in 1991, the person would have also had to have
received
> the Scottish Rite and/or York Rite Degrees except if they had joined the
> Shrine in Canada where there was a waiver of that requirement due to the
> sparsity of those bodies. Accordingly, the expectation of 'universal
> enlightenment' or any such thing was preposterous on its face.
That is what I ment by "high ranking". Sorry for misunderstanding.
> When I joined the Shrine, it was a three day event. 'Hazing' started at 6
pm
> on Friday, went all through the night and ended at the banquet the next
> evening. On the other hand, there were pauses where you were forcefully
> reminded of why you were there: things such as having to talk
extemporaneously
> to a group of men WELL your senior about why you were a Mason. No fooling,
> every one of them in suits and ties and perfectly sober. Of course, ten
> minutes later I was rolling an egg down the hotel hallway with my nose....
LOL that sounds like a lot of fun! :-)
I am not being sarcastic. Good times.
> <BWG>. The crowning 'glory' of the whole thing was the 'slave auction' on
> that Friday night with the candidates being 'sold' to various groups of
> bidders and ALL profits going to the Shrine hospitals. The highest price
was
> paid for _ME_! <Big Grin> Needless to say, the 'slave masters' wanted to
get
> their money's worth of laughs and I tried to comply. In the process, I'd
like
> to think we helped a needy child.
I am very draw to that charity aspect of Freemasonry. If give to charities I
don't know
it's a drop in the ocean, but if a great number of people and me included
give money
to one, I think the impact would be greater.
Thanks for your reply,
Bryan Hayes
Steve Leazer
deal. After a couple of years I took a demit because it didn't
have any particular appeal to me. However, there is nothing wrong
with the organization for those who choose it. I do respect what
they give to children though. Anyone who doesn't know what it
going to happen at the initiation must have an IQ that is about
room temperature, but that's just my opinion. No ill will on my
part, just not my cup of tea. I will continue to be an active
member of the Blue Lodge and would be more so in the Rite if I
didn't have to drive so far to attend meetings.
-- Steve Leazer
----------------------------------------------------------------
"Ed King" <edk...@masonicinfo.com> wrote in message
news:VA.0000211...@mint.net...
Steve Leazer
to many of my brothers. I do not have a clue where you got the
idea that Freemasons don't believe in prosecution by law. I have
never heard such a thing. And... since a Mason can be removed
from masonry after a Masonic trial where the conviction by a court
of law is by itself enough to convict... I do not believe that
Masons oppose prosecution by law. I don't know what "high
ranking" means either. I belong to the Scottish Rite, but in no
way whatsoever consider that to be senior or superior to the 3
degrees I originally took. I would highly recommend that you find
a Lodge in your area and have a serious talk with its leadership.
They can explain a lot of this to you even though you are not now
a Mason.
-- Steve Leazer
--------------------------------------
"Bryan Hayes" <hayes...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:7LA77.11407$A4.13...@news20.bellglobal.com...
>
jDolan
> That's the plan. My sponsor and I, and four other candidates, are leaving
> Worcester at 5.30 a.m. on Saturday and driving up to Rutland, and I
> understand
> that the day will be pretty full. We're not staying overnight up there,
> this
> time -- since I have to work on Sunday, we'll be leaving Vermont late
> Saturday
> afternoon and driving back.
Will you be back up the next weekend? There is a Vt/NH football game in Hanover, NH
that weekend which is put on by the Shrine, and there is a big parade before it. Gonna
do that?
> I have no idea where anything is; I don't even know where in Vermont Rutland
> is. I can identify Vermont on a map, sometimes.
You'll likely remember it well, by the time you get back home. ;-)
Jim Bennie
wrote:
> FYI, Mike, there have been several cases in the U.S. that involved injuries,
> some serious, to a candidate during Degree work of either Blue lodge or an
> Appendant Body.
Good reason for the USA to go back to the old ways and adopt Bro. Martin's
'Emulation' ritual ;)
Jim Bennie, IPM No. 44, Vancouver
Jim Bennie
> In article <k5s77.177484$mG4.83...@news1.mntp1.il.home.com>, Medsarge
> wrote:
> > He made sure that the part about the case file being sealed was
> > posted...that way he isn't responsible for any follow-up info that may be
> > involved. Maybe he could find an aricle somewhere....
> 1991. Had to have been a Mason AND either Scottish Rite or York Rite member
> before joining Shrine - and yet, the guy thought he was going to find the
> secrets of the universe in the self-described "playground of Masonry"????
> Man oh man.
"God's highest secret Order"? It *promised* "emotional and spritual
fulfillment"? The Shrine? They must be smoking something in Kentucky
other than bluegrass.
Ed, have you ever heard of this case? Does anyone know whatever
happened with it?
> As a result, there's often a dichotomy of feelings about Shrine membership.
> Masons support its strong charity efforts and many of them greatly enjoy
> their
> participation in units (Clowns, Mini-Bikes, etc.). However, the chicanery
> and
> 'frat-boy' atmosphere CAN lead to excesses in behavior (the 'drunkenness'
> often cited as an example although even it is NOTHING compared to the
> corner bar on any Friday or Saturday night)
Perhaps if more American Lodges started allowing a drink or two after
their meetings, some Shriners wouldn't feel the need to overindulge
at other times.
Frankly, Ed, there aren't too many drunks hanging around the Shrine
here. Same as the Craft Lodge. People have to drive home after
functions so they don't drink much. And wives are at some functions
and are able to help their husbands avoid "intemperance and excess"
better than any Junior Warden ever could. :)
> and the Shrine gets its share of
> criticism from folks like "Watchy" who contribute NOTHING themselves to
> society and exist only to debase others.
Hey, and you've got to love someone posting about "secret rites" of
the Shrine while shamefully hiding their identity.
> And I can't for the life of me imagine ANY Shrine organization spending
> money on good strawberries and cream for that purpose!
Yeah. They'd have to make a decision. Ever tried to put Masons
together in a room and get them to do that? ;)
Jim Bennie
> Needless to say, the 'slave masters' wanted to get
Ed, please stop writing this [backspace] porn on the internet.
Jim Bennie, IPM No. 44, Vancouver
PS.. Did the DeMolays bid on you? They had an Advisor-Slave auction
here years ago. The Advisors put an end to it after the first year.
Jim Bennie
> In article <k5s77.177484$mG4.83...@news1.mntp1.il.home.com>, Medsarge
> wrote:
> > He made sure that the part about the case file being sealed was
> > posted...that way he isn't responsible for any follow-up info that may be
> > involved. Maybe he could find an aricle somewhere....
> 1991. Had to have been a Mason AND either Scottish Rite or York Rite member
> before joining Shrine - and yet, the guy thought he was going to find the
> secrets of the universe in the self-described "playground of Masonry"????
> Man oh man.
"God's highest secret Order"? It *promised* "emotional and spritual
fulfillment"? The Shrine? They must be smoking something in Kentucky
other than bluegrass.
Ed, have you ever heard of this case? Does anyone know whatever
happened with it?
> As a result, there's often a dichotomy of feelings about Shrine membership.
> Masons support its strong charity efforts and many of them greatly enjoy
> their
> participation in units (Clowns, Mini-Bikes, etc.). However, the chicanery
> and
> 'frat-boy' atmosphere CAN lead to excesses in behavior (the 'drunkenness'
> often cited as an example although even it is NOTHING compared to the
> corner bar on any Friday or Saturday night)
Perhaps if more American Lodges started allowing a drink or two after
their meetings, some Shriners wouldn't feel the need to overindulge
at other times.
Frankly, Ed, there aren't too many drunks hanging around the Shrine
here. Same as the Craft Lodge. People have to drive home after
functions so they don't drink much. And wives are at some functions
and are able to help their husbands avoid "intemperance and excess"
better than any Junior Warden ever could. :)
> and the Shrine gets its share of
> criticism from folks like "Watchy" who contribute NOTHING themselves to
> society and exist only to debase others.
Hey, and you've got to love someone posting about "secret rites" of
the Shrine while shamefully hiding their identity.
> And I can't for the life of me imagine ANY Shrine organization spending
> money on good strawberries and cream for that purpose!
Yeah. They'd have to make a decision. Ever tried to put Masons
together in a room and get them to do that? ;)
Jim Bennie, IPM No. 44, Vancouver
Jim Bennie
> some serious, to a candidate during Degree work of either Blue lodge or an
> Appendant Body.
Good reason for the USA to go back to the old ways and adopt Bro. Martin's
'Emulation' ritual ;)
Jim Bennie
> Needless to say, the 'slave masters' wanted to get
Ed, please stop writing this [backspace] porn on the internet.
Jim Bennie, IPM No. 44, Vancouver
PS.. Did the DeMolays bid on you? They had an Advisor-Slave auction
Mike Martin
I sit corrected.
S&F,
Mike M
"Ed King" <edk...@masonicinfo.com> wrote in message
news:VA.0000212...@mint.net...
Animal Style Gene Goldman.·.
<hayes...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> Dear Sir,
>
> Thank you for your reply.
> I was reffereing to high ranks as in the highest degrees of
> York and Scotish Rite, which are appendent bodies of Freemasonry
> and are the only source from which Shriners can draw membership.
Wrong. Any Master Mason may join the Shrine.
Additionally, the appendant orders (Scottish, York and other Rites,
for example) are not "higher" Degrees. They are more like
"additional" Degrees.
Consider the practice of Medicine. One must have an MD to be a
doctor. Once one is an MD, they can study a specialty - say Surgery.
Or not. No one is "more" of a doctor than an MD. Even as a surgeon,
one can go on to study Neuro, CardioThorasic, or Orthopedic. But they
are ALL MDs, none more than another.
Masonry is similar. All Master Masons are equally Masons. None
higher ranking than another (aside from any office they may hold at
any given moment). Some join other, ancillary organizations which
serve some special interest. The Shrine, the Rites, and hundreds of
other such organizations are all around. But within the scope of
*Masonry*, they are ALL Master Masons. That's it and that's all.
> Men like that whould know the old charges of Freemasonry and not
> follow a lawsuit. No?
No. Most Masons are extremely poorly researched in Masonic history.
> Thanks again,
Thank YOU.
Bryan Hayes
Pleasure reading your posts!
> > Dear Sir,
> >
> > Thank you for your reply.
> > I was reffereing to high ranks as in the highest degrees of
> > York and Scotish Rite, which are appendent bodies of Freemasonry
> > and are the only source from which Shriners can draw membership.
>
> Wrong. Any Master Mason may join the Shrine.
> Additionally, the appendant orders (Scottish, York and other Rites,
> for example) are not "higher" Degrees. They are more like
> "additional" Degrees.
Isn't that a reacent addition?
> Consider the practice of Medicine. One must have an MD to be a
> doctor. Once one is an MD, they can study a specialty - say Surgery.
> Or not. No one is "more" of a doctor than an MD. Even as a surgeon,
> one can go on to study Neuro, CardioThorasic, or Orthopedic. But they
> are ALL MDs, none more than another.
>
> Masonry is similar. All Master Masons are equally Masons. None
> higher ranking than another (aside from any office they may hold at
> any given moment). Some join other, ancillary organizations which
> serve some special interest. The Shrine, the Rites, and hundreds of
> other such organizations are all around. But within the scope of
> *Masonry*, they are ALL Master Masons. That's it and that's all.
Somehow I always associate "more" with higher. Like more school means
higher education... That type of thing... Sometimes I fail to express myself
clearly. Gets me in a lot of trouble... :-)
> > Men like that whould know the old charges of Freemasonry and not
> > follow a lawsuit. No?
>
> No. Most Masons are extremely poorly researched in Masonic history.
Why is that? This makes me wonder why do majoroty of people find it
sufficient to
perfom at the minimum of their abilities? Freemasonry is like a puzzle and
if you
are one, then why not learn all you can?
> > Thanks again,
>
> Thank YOU.
:-)
Thank you, Sir!
THE FOLLOWING IS CLEAR TO ME.
There are two reasons for which I am certain that I will try my best to
join:
1) Joint charity! Together my little donation becomes bigger means more.
2) Freemasons I meet are very nice and gentle people! It would
be a benefit to be able to pick their brains from time to time.
Bryan Hayes
Mike Wells
Jim Bennie <jgbe...@vcn.bc.ca> wrote in message
news:9jo9up$hrf$1...@vcn.bc.ca...
If so, imagine all of our current Grand Lecturers, Certified Instructors,
etc. clogging the unemployment lines. <g>
Keith Chesworth
Butting in here from the other side of the pond, I would go a bit
further and say that all Masons are equal, as I see it over here,
since we do all our none degree specific work in the 1st over here.
Once you are a Mason you are of equal consideration as all the others.
>
>> > Men like that whould know the old charges of Freemasonry and not
>> > follow a lawsuit. No?
>>
>> No. Most Masons are extremely poorly researched in Masonic history.
Trouble is that Masonic History is so wooly in so many areas. There is
just so much fact, so much conjecture and so much fiction all wrapped
up in bundles to be sorted out that a person with a life to lead and
family to support just has no chance of getting to the bottom of it.
>
>Why is that? This makes me wonder why do majoroty of people find it
>sufficient to
>perfom at the minimum of their abilities? Freemasonry is like a puzzle and
>if you
>are one, then why not learn all you can?
Because Freemasonry is an ancient fraternal organisation, pure and
simply put. Most of us are members because we believe in its aims and
ideals and have a love for those we have met in the organisation. So
we are in it for Freemasonry today not yesterday.
>
>> > Thanks again,
>>
>> Thank YOU.
>
>:-)
>
>Thank you, Sir!
>THE FOLLOWING IS CLEAR TO ME.
>There are two reasons for which I am certain that I will try my best to
>join:
>1) Joint charity! Together my little donation becomes bigger means more.
>2) Freemasons I meet are very nice and gentle people! It would
>be a benefit to be able to pick their brains from time to time.
>
>Bryan Hayes
>
>
The reasons you give mean that you have actually answered your own
questions.
They boil down to why join? Do they not?
Each to his own reason and you have stated yours, which are broadly
those of many, if not most.
All I would add is that Charity should be thought about a bit further.
Yes, Internationally we give Millions of whatever currency you care to
name. But is that all Charity is?
Many can think no further and it is easily quanifiable by bean
counters.
What about the free giving of time and even less quanifiable,
expertise?
I think that you will find both in abundance as part of our giving and
would suggest that often they are more important than just the money.
Keith J Chesworth W Master Burton Court lodge 3864 London UGLE
(Hoping that his peak work season will soon be over!!)
Web sites:-
Dunstable - http://www.geocities.com/TheTropics/Paradise/8227/home.htm
Warships of WW1- http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Congress/6728/index.html
Oil Tankers - http://www.telinco.co.uk/boilerbill/
Masonic Musings - http://www.masonry.telinco.co.uk/
Animal Style Gene Goldman.·.
<hayes...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> > Masonry is similar. All Master Masons are equally Masons. None
> > higher ranking than another (aside from any office they may hold at
> > any given moment). Some join other, ancillary organizations which
> > serve some special interest. The Shrine, the Rites, and hundreds of
> > other such organizations are all around. But within the scope of
> > *Masonry*, they are ALL Master Masons. That's it and that's all.
>
> Somehow I always associate "more" with higher. Like more school means
> higher education... That type of thing... Sometimes I fail to express myself
> clearly. Gets me in a lot of trouble... :-)
More fuel in a tank doesn't allow the airplane to fly higher.
> > No. Most Masons are extremely poorly researched in Masonic history.
>
> Why is that? This makes me wonder why do majoroty of people find it
> sufficient to perfom at the minimum of their abilities?
Because most people are lazy.
> Freemasonry is like a puzzle and if you
> are one, then why not learn all you can?
It seems to be a normal part of being human to strive to fulfil a
need, but not to go much further than that fulfillment. For some
people, I have observed that having a membership card in their wallet,
and the memory of their Degrees is all they need. For others,
learning about themselves is an eternal quest.
I guess that is why Baskin Robins is so popular.
> > > Thanks again,
> >
> > Thank YOU.
>
> :-)
>
> Thank you, Sir!
No, thank YOU!
<s>
> THE FOLLOWING IS CLEAR TO ME.
> There are two reasons for which I am certain that I will try my best to
> join:
> 1) Joint charity! Together my little donation becomes bigger means more.
> 2) Freemasons I meet are very nice and gentle people! It would
> be a benefit to be able to pick their brains from time to time.
Well, you can pick brains as a non Mason, but I agree (and sense that
you were trying to say) that joining in company with men of good moral
character, such as are found in a Masonic Lodge, is a great way to
spend time, and form new friendships.
Newsgroups are pretty neat, too.
Mike Martin
Why did you have to go and stir that up again. I seem to remember much
consternation from our American brethren the last time you mentioned that.
--
Yours Sincerely & Fraternally
Mike, (A.K.A. mike...@my-deja.com), Mersey Lodge, No 5434 (London),
Lodge of Ideal Endeavour, No 7379 (W.Kent), Quator Coronati Correspondence
Circle.
A moderator and member of www.thefreemason.com/
"Keith Chesworth" <keith.c...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:vsm0mtkh1n6tpt830...@4ax.com...
jaqueira2
>> > No. Most Masons are extremely poorly researched in Masonic history.
>>
>> Why is that? This makes me wonder why do majoroty of people find it
>> sufficient to perfom at the minimum of their abilities?
>
>Because most people are lazy.
I don't think it is lazyness as much as interest. A lot of Masons just aren't
that interested in Masonic History. I am a Jew, I understand my religion but
not as thoughly as if I became a Talmidic scholar. Why? because it is not one
of my inerests. I think Masons today are more interested in current Masonry
then what may have happened 300 years ago. You and I do have that curiosity of
course but I think the vast majority just don't. It's not really lazyness when
you see that same brother that knows nothing of the events that happent in 1717
sits in the East with a full room.
Sam Schwarzman, AGL, GLNY
Treasurer; Metropolitan Assistant
Grand Lecturers Association (MAGLA)
Animal Style Gene Goldman.·.
Sam.
I should have known better than to use such an emotionally-charged
word as "lazy". I think we mean the same thing. Most people can't be
bothered to learn much history - about anything. They are so wrapped
up in today, and worried about tomorrow, they have no time or energy
or whatever for yesterday.
I never meant it in a negative sense, just as an observation.
Keith Chesworth
<mich...@martin118.fsnet.co.uk> wrote:
>Bro. Keith,
>
>Why did you have to go and stir that up again. I seem to remember much
>consternation from our American brethren the last time you mentioned that.
??Whatever that was?? :-)
Maybe a good thing to stir up a bit more Masonic discussion again. Go
off dragging a couple of Californians about the UK for a couple of
weeks and then spend another couple catching up with work and come
back to find the NG full of (incert Ho Hum).
Mind you after taking them over Moel Famau by the 'old road' to Ruthin
and later over Hard Knott Pass via some of the more interesting lanes
and then hitting some of the less well known passes in the Lake
district, there are at least two Californians who now appreaciate that
our small cars (in this case - Astra) have some uses over their two
Caddys and Chevvy 4x4 :-)
Keith J Chesworth W Master Burton Court Lodge 3864 London UGLoE
Animal Style Gene Goldman.·.
<keith.c...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> Maybe a good thing to stir up a bit more Masonic discussion again.
Discussion of Masonry?
HERE?
In alt.freemasonry??
I'll believe it when I see it.
Mike Martin
> ??Whatever that was?? :-)
The fact that an EA is a much a part of the Lodge as an MM here in the UK.
Sounds like you gave them a class tour. Next thing it will be the
"Anglo-American Masonic Tour Assoc." :-))
Mike
KIV11
>
>Discussion of Masonry?
>
>HERE?
>
>In alt.freemasonry??
>
>I'll believe it when I see it.
>
You've got it all wrong, serious discussion of Masonic related topics hardly
brings the laughter that topics like; pro/anti gun, space flights to the sun,
the star chart of Lenin or the reverse page of a magazine picture of Heidi
Klumm.
It is so much easier this way, I just mark everything read and move on. Why
clutter up my day with a serious discussion where I might actually spend a few
minutes in serious thought? Even better, I might even be inclined to look
something up so that I can respond intelligently.
Please, don't force me to actually read this NG again for its' content, let me
just laugh along with the rest of the lurkers!
Fraternally,
George K.
Mike Martin
"KIV11" <ki...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010727120944...@ng-cu1.aol.com...
> You've got it all wrong, serious discussion of Masonic related topics
hardly
> brings the laughter that topics like; pro/anti gun, space flights to the
sun,
> the star chart of Lenin or the reverse page of a magazine picture of Heidi
> Klumm.
>
> It is so much easier this way, I just mark everything read and move on.
Why
> clutter up my day with a serious discussion where I might actually spend a
few
> minutes in serious thought? Even better, I might even be inclined to look
> something up so that I can respond intelligently.
>
> Please, don't force me to actually read this NG again for its' content,
let me
> just laugh along with the rest of the lurkers!
Dear Bro. George,
This is one of those rare times where I wont say you should come and visit
www.thefreemason.com as you obviously wouldn't like it!
--
Yours Sincerely & Fraternally
Mike, (A.K.A. mike...@my-deja.com), Mersey Lodge, No 5434 (London),
Lodge of Ideal Endeavour, No 7379 (W.Kent), Quator Coronati Correspondence
Circle.
A moderator and member of www.thefreemason.com/
erik
: On Fri, 27 Jul 2001 16:01:11 +0100, Keith Chesworth
: <keith.c...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
: > Maybe a good thing to stir up a bit more Masonic discussion again.
: Discussion of Masonry?
It does happen, frequently when in good company.
: HERE?
Anything is possible.
: In alt.freemasonry??
If that is where the 'here' is for you, then yes.
: I'll believe it when I see it.
Is that a promise?
--
ttfn
------------
Erik J. Meyer
Constellation Lodge AF&AM (no, we don't have numbers)
Hermann-Dexter Lodge IOOF #133 Dedham, MA
www.mychip.org are you a turtle?
Animal Style Gene Goldman.·.
> : Discussion of Masonry?
>
> It does happen, frequently when in good company.
True enough. Just the other night, at practice (third Degree coming
up next week), we discussed Masonry.
<s>
> : HERE?
>
> Anything is possible.
Anything? You have never tried convincing a certain self-appointed
myrtar that he made an error, have you?
> : In alt.freemasonry??
>
> If that is where the 'here' is for you, then yes.
Depends on what you mean by "if", doesn't it?
> : I'll believe it when I see it.
>
> Is that a promise?
No, just a prediction.
erik
: > Anything is possible.
: Anything? You have never tried convincing a certain self-appointed
: myrtar that he made an error, have you?
Good Evening Br Gene,
For the sake of simplicity I will guess that was 'martyr'. I have
no idea what a 'myrtyr' is. Anycase, my answer is to refer you to Jacob's
Ladder, having three principal rounds, denoted Faith, Hope and Charity. I
have Faith in Human Nature, Hope that they will live up to Faith and
Charity to wait till they do. No point in me jumping the gun and trying
to force someone to evolve their soul faster than they are ready. The old
adage of bringing a horse to water, but not making it drink applies here.
Jim Bennie
news:Y2r77.694$Ip4.4...@nntp1.onemain.com...
> Congratulations, Anon! I found nothing in your article that could not
be
> true. BTW, that trial was (I believe) started in 1991. What was the
outcome,
> or is the trial still in progress?
Hi, Mike. As you might expect, the FULL story of this little piece of
"journalism" wasn't posted at the outset of the thread by Mr. St. John.
The "story" seems to have eminated from, not the Associated Press,
but from..
http://forbiddenpolitics.i8.com/mediacenter/Shriners/initiationitem.htm.
Now, that site doesn't have the story any more, but Google has a cache
of it, which opens with the following statement..
> FP MEDIA CENTER
> Cult news from around the globe.
> FP EDITOR COMMENTS:
> I think this is a plant, trying to reinforce the idea that secret
> societies are more like harmless fraternities than mind-control
> cults. Nice that they sealed all the evidence though, we'll never know
> now.
> FP RATING:
> READ BETWEEN THE LINES
It's a plant. In other words, the story is a fake. Someone made it
up. It's not from the AP wire. Never was.
Interesting the above caveat was left out of the original post. Pretty
sloppy research by someone .. yet AGAIN. A beginners course at BCIT or
Langara can fix that.
John Rutherford
John Rutherford
Hurst Lodge 1004
Bryan Hayes
Dear Sirs,
I am glad this thread still lives.
I just finished looking for the old charge of Freemasonry
that is witness to my belief that a Would-Be-Shriner would
never file a law suit against Shrine. It is the charge "Of Behavior"
To all who said I was wrong about it, please read this and then
visit the web page this can be found among other charges:
"
If any Complaint be brought, the Brother found guilty shall stand to the
Award and Determination of the Lodge, who are the proper and competent
Judges of all such Controversies (unless you carry it by Appeal to the GRAND
LODGE), and to whom they ought to be referr'd, unless a Lord's Work be
hinder'd the mean while, in which Case a particular Reference may be made;
but you must never go to Law about what concerneth Masonry, without an
absolute necessity apparent to the Lodge."
Here is the web page:
http://www.freemasonry.bc.ca/Writings/anderson_charges.html
Bryan Hayes
Mike Martin
Shrine is NOT Freemasonry so this charge does not cover it. Also the charge
is referring to masonic conduct not illegal activities etc, i.e. not paying
your dues or drunk in the Lodge etc.
When Anderson wrote the Rules in 1725, Freemasonry was what existed here in
Britain. there was no such thing as appendant bodies/orders just Craft
Freemasonry or what you would call "Blue".
--
Mike, (A.K.A. mike...@my-deja.com), Mersey Lodge, No 5434 (London),
Lodge of Ideal Endeavour, No 7379 (W.Kent), Quator Coronati Correspondence
Circle.
A moderator and member of www.thefreemason.com/
"Bryan Hayes" <hayes...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:X%V87.3147$Q13.1...@news20.bellglobal.com...
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.265 / Virus Database: 137 - Release Date: 18/07/01
Bryan Hayes
Shriners must be first Freemasons.
Shriner's initiation is in essence a Masonic activity.
"but you must never go to Law about what concerneth Masonry, without an
absolute necessity apparent to the Lodge."
If I were him, deriving from this charge, I would first take it with my blue
lodge for a council.
Bryan Hayes
"Mike Martin" <mich...@martin118.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:9k1hob$b4t$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
Jim Bennie
<hayes...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> Dear Sirs,
> I am glad this thread still lives.
> I just finished looking for the old charge of Freemasonry
It's all very nice, Bryan, but Anderson's Charges are not binding
on anyone. The rules of one's Grand Lodge are. The same as if you
quoted "Mackey's Landmarks" as was done here several months ago.
They're Mackey's opinion only about what the landmarks are, and
he's completely wrong about some of them.
Bryan Hayes
But I saw these charges being featured on GL of BC web site...
Wouldn't you, Sir, accept these charges as guidance of conduct?
My initial interest with this thread was curiosity--I had a feeling
the story was a fabrication, so I offered a reason for my opinion...
Bryan Hayes
"Jim Bennie" <jgbe...@vcn.bc.ca> wrote in message
news:9k1kp0$lat$1...@vcn.bc.ca...
Mike Wells
Bryan Hayes <hayes...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:X%V87.3147$Q13.1...@news20.bellglobal.com...
>
Bryan,
I never doubted your reference to Anderson's Charges but there is a
difference between the ideal and reality, the then and the now. Was it last
year or the year before that a suit was filed for head injuries received
during the Third Degree in Florida or Georgia? Anyway, the case involved a
supposed "Grand Lodge" whose initiatory practices are, obviously, dangerous
hazing. To me, that constitutes "an absolute necessity apparent to the
Lodge."
Ever hear of "riding the goat?" Some would say that the reference is myth.
I, for one, believe it to be an actual practice in bygone days. There is a
Mason (I can't remember who right now) that bought at auction a primitive
mechanical goat, which gave a ride similar to a mechanical bull, that was
used in Lodge. If "riding the goat" was not real, why did that functional
machine exist? Surely not as a mantle piece.
Anderson's Charges referred to a different society than now. Members of a
Lodge tend to be a cross-section of their community making a lawsuit more
probable.
There is another body of thought that the Shrine is not masonic in nature
but has been attached to Freemasonry to give that appearance. While I have
the deepest respect for Shriners and their endeavors, the Shrine is not the
equal of Blue Lodge for which the Old Charges were written.
Mike Martin
The fact that Shrine recruits only Freemasons makes it quasi-masonic (not
masonic) in that it has similarities to Freemasonry. If it was a bona-fide
part of Freemasonry it would be a World-wide organisation and recognised by
Grand Lodges as a part of Freemasonry.
I shall state again Anderson's Constitutions pertain to Craft Freemasonry,
as when they were written there wasn't any of these quasi masonic
organisations in existence.
Now I am not quite sure you think that my statement is not fact but I can
assure you that it is.
--
Mike, (A.K.A. mike...@my-deja.com), Mersey Lodge, No 5434 (London),
Lodge of Ideal Endeavour, No 7379 (W.Kent), Quator Coronati Correspondence
Circle.
A moderator and member of www.thefreemason.com/
"Bryan Hayes" <hayes...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:x4Y87.1063$F16.2...@news20.bellglobal.com...
Edward Sjolinder
>
> All I wanted to say was that a Mason of good standing would not sue
> his own, because no matter how inconvinienced he would be by the
> initiation, he wouldn't sue, becouse he believes in the charges of
> Freemasonry!
>
Bryan, at the time of initiation, most new Masons probably have never
heard of the "Old Charges." In fact, many will go to their death never
having heard of them, and many more will never have read them.
> Why don't I get any support here? Anybody???
Probably because no one who agrees with you has read your posts yet. <?>
Bryan, the Shrine is a separate organization from Freemasonry. Even a
Grand Lodge cannot, directly, impose its will on the Shrine. It can only
deal with Shrine members who happen to be Masons. Not unlike a Masonic
Lodge, or Grand Lodge, trying to impose its will on the Toastmaster's
Club. Bringing the Shrine up on charges in a Masonic Lodge would be an
exercise in futility.
S&F,
Ol'Dad
--
Mike Wells
>
> All I wanted to say was that a Mason of good standing would not sue his
own,
> because no matter how inconvinienced he would be by the initiation, he
> wouldn't
> sue, becouse he believes in the charges of Freemasonry!
>
Isn't that a Rodney Dangerfield line? <g> Btw, nice postcard in very good
condition.
> > Anderson's Charges referred to a different society than now.
>
> With all due respect, I disagree. Here is why:
>
> "Freemasonry consists of a body of men banded together to preserve the
> secrets, customs and ceremonials handed down to them, from time
immemorial,
> and for the purpose of mutual intellectual, social and moral improvement."
>
> Your thoughts, Sir?
No disagreement on that sentiment from me, except for the time immemorial
part. It is my belief that Freemasonry was invented during the Reformation
as a fraternity for the advancement of society and was, as such, an
exclusive organization. As in other social movements, Freemasonry adopted
the trappings of an earlier intellectually exclusive society (stonemasons)
in an effort to claim greater antiquity than was its due.
During the 17th Century, the Seven Liberal Arts and Sciences were truly
mysteries to the masses; and those were some of the closely guarded Masonic
secrets. Now, anyone who can read may avail themselves of those earlier
"mysteries."
There have been many innovations in the body of Masonry since its inception.
The existence of a Third Degree is an example of a later invention. The
American Doctrine of Exclusive Jurisdiction is another. Few Grand Lodges
agree on the Ancient Landmarks, and some admit the AL's existence but do not
define them. Perhaps a Brother will inform us whether the UGLE has adopted
specific Ancient Landmarks? I know my GL has not.
> > Members of a
> > Lodge tend to be a cross-section of their community making a lawsuit
more
> > probable.
>
> Why do you say this? I am not sure I understand this... Please, Sir,
> clerify.
Society has changed. Earlier a personal transgression might have been met
with a glove slap and ended in a duel. We no longer have that leniency so
lawsuits abound. There is also the perception that one has entitlement to
benefits without contribution. But don't get me started on that.
While the Age of Chivalry is dead some of its remnants remain embodied in
Freemasonry. In essence, Freemasonry has, due to its member's perspectives,
evolved.
> > There is another body of thought that the Shrine is not masonic in
nature
> > but has been attached to Freemasonry to give that appearance. While I
have
> > the deepest respect for Shriners and their endeavors, the Shrine is not
> the
> > equal of Blue Lodge for which the Old Charges were written.
>
> Shriners must first be Freemasons. Do you claim Old Charges are only
> to be followed inside of Blue Loges?
The "Old Charges" are a guide from an earlier time, and some of it is still
valid today. However, some parts are not: i.e., of the qualifications of
Apprentices "and unless he be a perfect youth, having no Maim or Defect in
his Body, that may render him uncapable of learning the Art,..."
Further on it is stated that the Grand Master need not be a Master Mason
because a nobly born Fellowcraft, or a Gentleman of the best fashion, or
some eminent scholar. In every Jurisdiction with which I am aware, the
Grand Master must be a Master Mason and a Past Master.
Concerning Lawsuits, one is to submit the problem to the advise of the
Master and Fellows. However, "if that submission is impracticable, they must
however carry on their Process, or Law-Suit, without Wrath and Rancor (not
in the common way) saying nothing which may hinder Brotherly Love, and good
Offices to be renew'd and continu'd..." The preceding applies to legal
relationships with Fellow Masons and not to those with the general public.
But, to answer your question most directly, ideally each person regardless
of whether s/he is a Mason should emulate the uniting and conciliatory
admonitions in the Old Charges. As I have written before, the Shrine
organization is not Blue Lodge but rather an Appendant Body. Yes, Shriners
are Masons. However, the disagreement seems to be between a Mason and a
quasi-masonic organization rather than a Mason and a Mason.
> I am 26, so I have to ask, why am I the most conservative and
old-fashioned
> in this newsgroup?
I'm quite a bit older than that, Friend. Somewhere along this journey, the
idealistic dreamer in me was waylaid. I do wish that hadn't happened.
Having not followed all the introductory discussion, are you a Mason?
> Bryan Hayes
Sincerely,
Mike Wells
Edward Sjolinder <old...@willowtree.com> wrote in message
news:3B64A5...@willowtree.com...
>
> Bryan, the Shrine is a separate organization from Freemasonry. Even a
> Grand Lodge cannot, directly, impose its will on the Shrine. It can only
> deal with Shrine members who happen to be Masons. Not unlike a Masonic
> Lodge, or Grand Lodge, trying to impose its will on the Toastmaster's
> Club. Bringing the Shrine up on charges in a Masonic Lodge would be an
> exercise in futility.
Brother Ed, I most respectfully offer my opinion. The Shrine has chosen to
exist as an Appendant Body of Freemasonry. The Grand Lodge is the only
authorized representative of Freemasonry within its own Jurisdiction. The
Grand Lodge may and can impose its will on the Shrine until the Shine
chooses to no longer be an Appendant Body within that Grand Lodge's
Jurisdiction.
F&S,
Jim Bennie
wrote:
We've been through this poor old discussion before, Mike. I agree
with Ed. Our GL Constitution has authority only those bodies which
it charters (Craft Lodges, not Shrine Clubs). It has authority over
no other, and would be presumptuous to do so.
The Shrine can not choose to be an appendant or concordant body of
anything, any more than a stamp club can. That designation has to
be invested by a GL. And even if it is, it gives the GL no more
authority over it than the stamp club, unless there's some kind
agreement to that effect. I don't recall the Shrine ceding power to
any Grand Lodge. Nor do I know of any GL where you can bring "the
Shrine" up on charges. You can bring Masons up on charges as
individuals. That's it.
Of course, I'll concede things are done differently in the USA.
Lee Duncan
Dear Bro. Jim,
Mackey's Landmarks may possibly be "wrong" in your jurisdiction, but
here in South Carolina, they apply.
Fraternally,
Lee Duncan
Judson Lodge No. 319 AFM
Greenville, SC
Lee Duncan
> Bryan Hayes <hayes...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:X%V87.3147$Q13.1...@news20.bellglobal.com...
> >
> I, for one, believe it to be an actual practice in bygone days. There is a
> Mason (I can't remember who right now) that bought at auction a primitive
> mechanical goat, which gave a ride similar to a mechanical bull, that was
> used in Lodge. If "riding the goat" was not real, why did that functional
> machine exist? Surely not as a mantle piece.
>
> Normal #673 AF&AM Illinois
> Collector of old Masonic books
Dear Bro. Mike,
According to a pamphlet issued by the Masonic Service Association of
North America ( "The Masonic Goat", available from MSA ) the myth is
derived from the more superstitious anti-Masons of the early 19th
century, who believed that Masons summoned the devil during Masonic
ceremonies, who appeared in the form of a goat. Mackey also mentioned
this in his "Encyclopedia of Freemasonry."
Jim Bennie
(Lee Duncan) wrote:
> Mackey's Landmarks may possibly be "wrong" in your jurisdiction, but
> here in South Carolina, they apply.
I find it a little odd that the landmarks about the third degree can
"apply" when the landmark is incorrect. We can easily trace when
the third degree approximately originated, therefore it is hardly a
"landmark". Mackey has several others which fall into such a category.
We can find when they first started, and as they were begun AFTER the
first Grand Lodge was formed, it's a stretch for anyone to consider
them landmarks. Of course, Mackey likely didn't know any better when
he concocted his list.
Just for the record, my jurisdiction has no defined set of landmarks.
Jim Bennie
> here in South Carolina, they apply.
I find it a little odd that the landmarks about the third degree can
"apply" when the landmark is incorrect. We can easily trace when
the third degree approximately originated, therefore it is hardly a
"landmark". Mackey has several others which fall into such a category.
We can find when they first started, and as they were begun AFTER the
first Grand Lodge was formed, it's a stretch for anyone to consider
them landmarks. Of course, Mackey likely didn't know any better when
he concocted his list.
Just for the record, my jurisdiction has no defined set of landmarks.
Jim Bennie, IPM No. 44, Vancouver
Bryan Hayes
Dear Sir,
> But, to answer your question most directly, ideally each person regardless
> of whether s/he is a Mason should emulate the uniting and conciliatory
> admonitions in the Old Charges. As I have written before, the Shrine
> organization is not Blue Lodge but rather an Appendant Body. Yes, Shriners
> are Masons. However, the disagreement seems to be between a Mason and a
> quasi-masonic organization rather than a Mason and a Mason.
Shriners are Masons. Our would be-Shriner is going to sue an
organazation made by Masons for Masons. I don't understand
how is he right to go ahead and sue. This seems to be the sentiment
of the entire newsgroup minus me.
The conduct learned in Blue Lodge shoud NOT seaze being followed
outside Blue Lodge. If our would-be Shriner felt wronged by the initiation
protocol, he should not file a lawsuit, but think about seeking a demerit
and forgetting about Freemasonry altogether.
> > I am 26, so I have to ask, why am I the most conservative and
> old-fashioned
> > in this newsgroup?
>
> I'm quite a bit older than that, Friend. Somewhere along this journey,
the
> idealistic dreamer in me was waylaid. I do wish that hadn't happened.
>
> Having not followed all the introductory discussion, are you a Mason?
No Sir, I am not. I have only completed my application last Saturday and
hope to become EA sometimes in November this year. I proud to say
that I have actually "recognized" my Freemason contact on the public
transport. I approached him and two months down the road he called
me to meet him to fill in the application. I have read a few books, saw
videos (Bro. to Bro. Friend to Friend) on the topic, visited numberless
official and unofficial
websites and see Masonry as a fraternity of men of nothing but good morals
whose company I would enjoy tremendously. I also see that I have
a great deal to learn about it, but I am ready, willing and able. A man of
good morals
doesn't change his views as the wind blows. Would-be Shriner wanted
to become a Shriner, an accident happened, table broke and he hurt
his head-----BIG DEAL!!! For me, that would be just a funny story
to tell to people once we sit and talk about our experiences regarding
initiations. Never would I consider making a lawsuit out of hoping
for some quick cash. I am mindboggled; however, as to why is that the
entire newsgroup is almost approving of would-be Shriner's actions...
Bryan Hayes
Toronto, Canada
Animal Style Gene Goldman.·.
> Animal Style" Gene Goldman.·. (br_...@pacbell.net) wrote:
> : On Fri, 27 Jul 2001 19:14:17 +0000 (UTC), er...@tiac.net (erik ) wrote:
> : > Anything is possible.
> : Anything? You have never tried convincing a certain self-appointed
> : myrtar that he made an error, have you?
>
> Good Evening Br Gene,
> For the sake of simplicity I will guess that was 'martyr'. I have
> no idea what a 'myrtyr' is.
It HAS been a while since I posted my "Ode", hasn't it?
> Anycase, my answer is to refer you to Jacob's
> Ladder, having three principal rounds, denoted Faith, Hope and Charity. I
> have Faith in Human Nature, Hope that they will live up to Faith and
> Charity to wait till they do. No point in me jumping the gun and trying
> to force someone to evolve their soul faster than they are ready. The old
> adage of bringing a horse to water, but not making it drink applies here.
Insofar as advisability and likelihood, I agree. But I was addressing
the issue of "Impossible".
KLSNOW2
that is for sure, but I am proud of my membership, despite the organization
having some problems.
K. Snow
Animal Style Gene Goldman.·.
<hayes...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> Dear Sir,
>
> Shriners must be first Freemasons.
> Shriner's initiation is in essence a Masonic activity.
Not at all. The Shrine is a completely and utterly separate
organization from Masonry. The ONLY tie between the two, AFAIK, is
the *Shrine's* requirement that to join *them* you must be a Mason.
Masonic activities are those that take place within Masonry.
Activities that take place within Shrinedom are Shrine activities.
> "but you must never go to Law about what concerneth Masonry, without an
> absolute necessity apparent to the Lodge."
>
> If I were him, deriving from this charge, I would first take it with my blue
> lodge for a council.
And your Lodge would undoubtedly tell you to take the matter to the
Shrine, or civil court. Masonry only has jurisdiction over it's own
activities and members. Whatever happened in this (possibly mythical)
case, it did not happen within Masonry. Just because Masons were
present does not make it a Masonic event, any more than the presence
of Catholics at the Super Bowl make a football a Catholic function.
Additionally, while the old Charges and Ancient Landmarks are
fascinating, and of historical interest, they are not legally binding
on anyone.
Lee Duncan
Dear Bro. Jim,
I am assuming Bro. Mackey listed the Legend of the Third Degree as a
Landmark because he believed it to be a descendant of the Egyptian
Osirian Rite. The Monitor and Book of Constitutions of the Grand Lodge
of Ancient Free Masons of South Carolina is the Ahiman Rezon of Dr.
Mackey, based on the 1807 version by Dr. Frederick Dalcho ( although
the latter version was originally prepared for the Grand Lodge of
Ancient York Masons of South Carolina, that body having united with
the Grand Lodge of Free and Accepted Masons in 1817, giving birth to
the present Fraternity in the state ). Mackey hints at his idea of the
antiquity of the Master Mason Degree on page 158, while, discoursing
on the 47th Problem of Euclid, he writes," He (Pythagoras) who, in his
travels through Asia, Africa, and Europe, was initiated into several
orders of priesthood, and raised to the Sublime Degree of a Master
Mason. "
Regardless of what we may think of the above, I tend to agree with
Pike, who said that any rite or body who neglected the Legend of the
Builder, would, by virtue of that neglect, cease to be a Masonic rite.
Even though you are probably correct that the premiere Grand Lodge of
1717 did not work this Degree, it has become so intricately woven into
the Masonic framework ( and, it could be said, is the "crowning jewel"
of Speculative Masonry ), that I must indeed consider it a Landmark.
Sincerely and Fraternally,
Lee Duncan
Judson Lodge No. 319 AFM
Greenville, SC
( Disclaimer concerning the Albert Pike quote: Pike spoke for himself
alone: his words do not necessarily represent the personal opinions of
any other Mason. In fact, we don't like Pike at all: we just name
lodges, highways, churches, libraries, bridges, orphanages, hospitals,
ranches, and supermarkets after him! )
"The internal, not the external..."
Mike Martin
"Bryan Hayes" wrote in message
> Shriners are Masons. Our would be-Shriner is going to sue an
> organazation made by Masons for Masons. I don't understand
> how is he right to go ahead and sue. This seems to be the sentiment
> of the entire newsgroup minus me.
Bryan it may be because we are already Freemasons and we already understand
the ACTUAL standing of the Shrine with regard to Freemasonry and you don't,
yet. Please do not ignore the information that we are offering you freely,
because you think you know better. At every stage in life we ALL require
someone who has gone before to show us the way, you are in this position
now.
> The conduct learned in Blue Lodge shoud NOT seaze being followed
> outside Blue Lodge. If our would-be Shriner felt wronged by the initiation
> protocol, he should not file a lawsuit, but think about seeking a demerit
> and forgetting about Freemasonry altogether.
If you joined a golf club made up of Freemasons and one of those other
members assaulted you on the course, you would not go to your lodge to try
and sort it out. You would go to the Police! Freemasons are not sworn to
defend each other to the death as some would have you believe, however we do
promise to help a brother in time of need EXCEPT when he has broken the law
or a masonic rule.
> me to meet him to fill in the application. I have read a few books, saw
> videos (Bro. to Bro. Friend to Friend) on the topic, visited numberless
> official and unofficial
> websites and see Masonry as a fraternity of men of nothing but good morals
Here you are being given first hand information, why do you believe these
books and videos written to "sell" rather than us who are just trying to
help?
> doesn't change his views as the wind blows. Would-be Shriner wanted
> to become a Shriner, an accident happened, table broke and he hurt
> his head-----BIG DEAL!!! For me, that would be just a funny story
> to tell to people once we sit and talk about our experiences regarding
> initiations. Never would I consider making a lawsuit out of hoping
> for some quick cash. I am mindboggled; however, as to why is that the
> entire newsgroup is almost approving of would-be Shriner's actions...
What we are trying to illustrate is that this was not a masonic incident
despite the presence of Freemasons and therefore is not covered by the
rules.
Mike
Animal Style Gene Goldman.·.
<hayes...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> All I wanted to say was that a Mason of good standing would not sue his own,
> because no matter how inconvinienced he would be by the initiation, he
> wouldn't sue, becouse he believes in the charges of Freemasonry!
>
> Why don't I get any support here? Anybody???
Because we don't agree. At least, I don't agree.
First, in the (possibly hypothetical) example being discussed, it is
not a case of a Mason suing Masons. It is a Mason suing the Shrine.
The Shrine is an organization, not an individual, particularly an
individual Mason.
Second, Masons DO sue one another, usually over matters of business.
This matter WAS, indeed, business - Shrine business.
In general, I agree that for one Mason to sue another, or anyone for
that matter, is unusual. Masons (as a rule) usually work long and
hard to find more "gentlemanly" means of settling disagreements.
Openness, Honesty, Sincerity and Plain Dealing do distinguish us, and
as a rule these characteristics allow for more amiable means of
resolution. But, that is, unfortunately, not always the case.
If the story is true, that is probably why it made the papers -
because it IS so unusual.
> > Anderson's Charges referred to a different society than now.
>
> With all due respect, I disagree. Here is why:
>
> "Freemasonry consists of a body of men banded together to preserve the
> secrets, customs and ceremonials handed down to them, from time immemorial,
> and for the purpose of mutual intellectual, social and moral improvement."
>
> Your thoughts, Sir?
Well, that describes us pretty well. Problem is - that is theory. In
theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In
practice, however, theory and practice vary greatly.
> > Members of a Lodge tend to be a cross-section of their community
> > making a lawsuit more probable.
>
> Why do you say this? I am not sure I understand this... Please, Sir,
> clerify.
For example, I live in California, the single most litigious state in
the union. Just as an example, my wife got sued for NOT being
involved in an automobile accident.
Members of a society or culture that is prone to sue, will be more
likely to be involved in law suits. It is really that simple - a
matter of demographics.
> Shriners must first be Freemasons. Do you claim Old Charges are only
> to be followed inside of Blue Loges?
Not even there. The Old Charges are of historical interest,
certainly. But they are no more legally binding than the Ten
Commandments. They are guides for living as Masons, not laws
governing our actions.
> I am 26, so I have to ask, why am I the most conservative and old-fashioned
> in this newsgroup?
<LOL>
Maybe the rest of us are just realists? I dunno. I live in
California, remember?
Animal Style Gene Goldman.·.
<hayes...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> Shriners are Masons. Our would be-Shriner is going to sue an
> organazation made by Masons for Masons. I don't understand
> how is he right to go ahead and sue. This seems to be the sentiment
> of the entire newsgroup minus me.
Apparently he felt that that was the best way to resolve the issue.
Beats throwing rocks at the building.
> The conduct learned in Blue Lodge shoud NOT seaze being followed
> outside Blue Lodge. If our would-be Shriner felt wronged by the initiation
> protocol, he should not file a lawsuit, but think about seeking a demerit
> and forgetting about Freemasonry altogether.
Absolutely. If the Shrine is not for him, then he would be wise to
remain a non member. Perhaps that was not satisfying to him, however.
Perhaps he wanted to effect a change.
> No Sir, I am not. I have only completed my application last Saturday and
> hope to become EA sometimes in November this year. I proud to say
> that I have actually "recognized" my Freemason contact on the public
> transport. I approached him and two months down the road he called
> me to meet him to fill in the application. I have read a few books, saw
> videos (Bro. to Bro. Friend to Friend) on the topic, visited numberless
> official and unofficial
> websites and see Masonry as a fraternity of men of nothing but good morals
> whose company I would enjoy tremendously. I also see that I have
> a great deal to learn about it, but I am ready, willing and able. A man of
> good morals
> doesn't change his views as the wind blows. Would-be Shriner wanted
> to become a Shriner, an accident happened, table broke and he hurt
> his head-----BIG DEAL!!! For me, that would be just a funny story
> to tell to people once we sit and talk about our experiences regarding
> initiations. Never would I consider making a lawsuit out of hoping
> for some quick cash. I am mindboggled; however, as to why is that the
> entire newsgroup is almost approving of would-be Shriner's actions...
Probably because we trust that he is doing what he believes to be
right - and completely within the law. And that we trust in the legal
system to resolve the matter equitably.
Even if none of us would make the same choice, we respect him for
making his choice in a mature manner, and for the greater good.
Mike Wells
to
> > exist as an Appendant Body of Freemasonry. The Grand Lodge is the only
> > authorized representative of Freemasonry within its own Jurisdiction.
The
> > Grand Lodge may and can impose its will on the Shrine until the Shine
> > chooses to no longer be an Appendant Body within that Grand Lodge's
> > Jurisdiction.
>
> We've been through this poor old discussion before, Mike. I agree
> with Ed. Our GL Constitution has authority only those bodies which
> it charters (Craft Lodges, not Shrine Clubs). It has authority over
> no other, and would be presumptuous to do so.
We have? Oh well, some say memory is the first to go. What did I decide?
> The Shrine can not choose to be an appendant or concordant body of
> anything, any more than a stamp club can. That designation has to
> be invested by a GL.
To reiterate: "The Shrine has chosen to exist as an Appendant Body of
Freemasonry." At some point in the Shrine's history (I did not get to the
library today as planned), a request was made to be recognized as a
Appendant Body of Freemasonry in the United States. That, to me, renders the
stamp club analogy null.
>And even if it is, it gives the GL no more
> authority over it than the stamp club, unless there's some kind
> agreement to that effect. I don't recall the Shrine ceding power to
> any Grand Lodge.
IMO, Appendant Body status does restrict the Shrine. Does a Grand Lodge have
the right to intervene in the affairs of the Order of DeMolay? How about
Eastern Star? Again, I believe that the Grand Lodge is the definer for all
Masonry and quasi-Masonic organizations within its Jurisdiction.
>Nor do I know of any GL where you can bring "the
> Shrine" up on charges. You can bring Masons up on charges as
> individuals. That's it.
Of course the Shrine may not be tried because it is an organization.
Theoretically though, the Shrine could have its Appendant Body status
revoked which could be equated to censure.
> Of course, I'll concede things are done differently in the USA.
Jim, I don't know how things are done in the U.S. either. Just offering an
opinion where no case law exists.
Jim Bennie
(Lee Duncan) wrote:
> I am assuming Bro. Mackey listed the Legend of the Third Degree as a
> Landmark because he believed it to be a descendant of the Egyptian
> Osirian Rite.
Lee, I don't like assuming, but you quite possible could be correct
about what he thought. We know today this legend is a comparatively
recent ritual development and other legends were employed at one time.
> Even though you are probably correct that the premiere Grand Lodge of
> 1717 did not work this Degree, it has become so intricately woven into
> the Masonic framework ( and, it could be said, is the "crowning jewel"
> of Speculative Masonry ), that I must indeed consider it a Landmark.
Which is your right, Lee. I personally consider things landmarks if
they stem from antiquity. If you can trace something to a starting
point, it can't be a landmark .. because at one time, it obviously
wasn't. But that's just my take on it.
Jim Bennie
wrote:
> To reiterate: "The Shrine has chosen to exist as an Appendant Body of
> Freemasonry." At some point in the Shrine's history (I did not get to the
> library today as planned), a request was made to be recognized as a
> Appendant Body of Freemasonry in the United States. That, to me, renders the
> stamp club analogy null.
If such a "request" went in, then it didn't "choose" anything. It
requested the right and had to have it given to them. That's the point
I was trying to make.
> Does a Grand Lodge have
> the right to intervene in the affairs of the Order of DeMolay? How about
> Eastern Star?
In both cases, no. It's business is restricted to Craft Masonry. It
charters Craft Lodges which make Masons.
However, I realise in the United States, you view things differently
and Grand Lodges have butted in (I'm thinking of the Star in one
particular state).
> Of course the Shrine may not be tried because it is an organization.
> Theoretically though, the Shrine could have its Appendant Body status
> revoked which could be equated to censure.
Which would mean nothing, afaik, other than some guys won't be able
to parade around at Grand Lodge like bigwigs. The Shrine would carry
on as it always has.
> Jim, I don't know how things are done in the U.S. either. Just offering an
> opinion where no case law exists.
Fair enough, Mike. In a roundabout way, a similar issue came up at
our GL this past year and it was reiterated that the GL's authority
rests ONLY with bodies it charters and the members made under them
(though as Masons only, not as PTA members, billiard players or Royal
Arch members). The GL has no authority elsewhere.
Jim Bennie, IPM No.44, Vancouver
Lee Duncan
>
> Which is your right, Lee. I personally consider things landmarks if
> they stem from antiquity. If you can trace something to a starting
> point, it can't be a landmark .. because at one time, it obviously
> wasn't. But that's just my take on it.
>
> Jim Bennie, IPM No. 44, Vancouver
Dear Bro. Jim,
I do indeed see your point, and perhaps our difference of opinion is
due to our different interpretations of "landmark." I agree that many
of what one could consider a landmark are of venerable age: however,
my definition is simply something that cannot ( or, at least, "should"
not ) be removed. Therefore, even in the Jurisdictions that do not
consider the Legend, nor the division of Symbolic Masonry into 3
degrees, Landmarks, these two points are strenuously adhered to,
perhaps more than anything else. In this sense, I consider them
Landmarks at least through universal usage, and not necessarily by
antiquity.
Of course, discussion concerning Landmarks have launched many
interesting debates in the Fraternity, and it is unlikely that the
Craft will ever accept a universal standard. However, as long as the
issue promotes study, thinking, and consideration of the great
principles of our beloved institution, I believe that both Bro.
Mackey, and his critics, have done their jobs well.
Sincerely and Fraternally,
Lee Duncan
Judson Lodge No. 319 AFM
Greenville, SC
"The internal, and not the external..."
Jim Bennie
> due to our different interpretations of "landmark."
Yes, Lee, I think that's what it boils down to.
> I agree that many
> of what one could consider a landmark are of venerable age: however,
> my definition is simply something that cannot ( or, at least, "should"
> not ) be removed.
Hmm. I don't know if I agree in Mackey's case. I think his
"landmark" of Grand Masters making Masons at sight is very
unwise policy (one which we don't have in my jurisdiction).
> Of course, discussion concerning Landmarks have launched many
> interesting debates in the Fraternity, and it is unlikely that the
> Craft will ever accept a universal standard. However, as long as the
> issue promotes study, thinking, and consideration of the great
> principles of our beloved institution, I believe that both Bro.
> Mackey, and his critics, have done their jobs well.
I'd agree here, too. As long as people don't start spouting
"*These* are the landmarks of Freemasonry" because there is no
universal standard.
Edward Sjolinder
>
> Edward Sjolinder <old...@willowtree.com> wrote in message
> news:3B64A5...@willowtree.com...
> >
> > Bryan, the Shrine is a separate organization from Freemasonry. Even a
> > Grand Lodge cannot, directly, impose its will on the Shrine. It can
> > only deal with Shrine members who happen to be Masons. Not unlike a
> > Masonic Lodge, or Grand Lodge, trying to impose its will on the
> > Toastmaster's Club. Bringing the Shrine up on charges in a Masonic
> > Lodge would be an exercise in futility.
>
> Brother Ed, I most respectfully offer my opinion. The Shrine has chosen
> to exist as an Appendant Body of Freemasonry.
Huh? Not in Iowa!
> The Grand Lodge is the only authorized representative of Freemasonry
> within its own Jurisdiction.
True!
> The Grand Lodge may and can impose its will on the Shrine
Only on individual Shriners, who happen to be Masons.
> until the Shine chooses to no longer be an Appendant Body within that
> Grand Lodge's Jurisdiction.
>
I repeat: The Shrine does not have that choice!
> F&S,
>
> Mike Wells
> Normal #673 AF&AM Illinois
> Collector of old Masonic books
Ed S.
--
Ed King
> Sam.
> I should have known better than to use such an emotionally-charged
> word as "lazy". I think we mean the same thing. Most people can't be
> bothered to learn much history - about anything. They are so wrapped
> up in today, and worried about tomorrow, they have no time or energy
> or whatever for yesterday.
I was about to write a post agreeing fully with Sam until I saw this and felt it
appropriate to comment here. In many cases, it's not that they "can't be bothered"
or "have no time or energy" but rather that they're unprepared for the task. They
have no idea where to begin and if they do start, they have no way of judging what
is relevant or not.
Beyond that, Masonic research (as I've learned over my tenure as a Mason) is rife
with contradiction and interpretation. There is SO much there and it's so
interrelated with not only the organization and the outside world that it becomes
an ENORMOUS task to 'get a handle' on even the most simple appearing thing. I'm
writing a work on 'redemptionists' now and am finding myself absorbed in the
Protocols and the Morgan affair, trying to get that 'perfect piece' in order to tie
the story together. And then there are those who write what can best be described
as 'op-ed' pieces that new Masons interpret as 'Masonic research'. It's all a VERY
confusing soup and can be very discouraging to the budding researcher.
Are some Masons lazy about research? Yep.
Are some Masons too busy or can't be bothered? Yep.
On the other hand, a LOT of those can be found at the fund raiser for the Shrine
hospital or the scholarship fund.... <shrug> I'll take a million more like 'em -
and that comes from somebody who has gone both routes!
> I never meant it in a negative sense, just as an observation.
"can't be bothered" is still a bit emotionally charged, I'm afraid....
Fraternally,
Ed King
http://www.masonicinfo.com -- Anti-Masonry: Points of View
Ed King
> Dear Sir,
>
> Shriners must be first Freemasons.
That's correct - but there have been several moves afoot to eliminate that
requirement.
> Shriner's initiation is in essence a Masonic activity.
Absolutely disagree - and frankly, the Masons here who are Shriners are
certainly in a better position to assess this than you are. Meaning no
disrespect to you but certainly you must defer to OUR experiences in this
regard since we have experienced both and you have experienced neither.
> "but you must never go to Law about what concerneth Masonry, without an
> absolute necessity apparent to the Lodge."
That was written 275 years ago and was written about affairs of the LODGE. It
was written when lodges had been in the public knowledge for less than a
decade! It could certainly not have foreseen things like Grotto, Tall Cedars
of Lebanon, Triangles and others NOR was it intended to include civil matters
about which this person in 1991 thought, apparently, there was some issue.
> If I were him, deriving from this charge, I would first take it with my blue
> lodge for a council.
And they'd shake their heads wondering what you expected THEM to do about it.
If you have a problem with Shrine activities, you have three remedies: take it
to the Shrine, file charges of unMasonic conduct or take it to court. Unless
the acts are such that the charges of unMasonic conduct would 'stick' then
that avenue is fruitless. Further, if someone feels that they have been
violated in some way, civil action is ALWAYS an appropriate avenue of redress.
We don't give up our civil rights when we become Masons, Bryan, NOR do we haul
out Anderson's Constitutions to figure out what to do when we've been wronged.
Mike Martin is absolutely correct in his assessment even though he has not
experienced Shrine, there being no Shrine units there in the UK.
Ed King
<snip>
> I am mindboggled; however, as to why is that the
> entire newsgroup is almost approving of would-be Shriner's actions...
I haven't seen one single person _approve of_ that action. What I HAVE seen
were people disputing your presumption that just because one is a Mason, they
somehow lose their civil rights. I think we all agree that the suit was
frivolous. I think too that we all feel - like you do - that had something
similar happened we too would laugh about it at a later point. Where we
disagree is on whether the individual had the _RIGHT_ to sue.
I hope this clarifies.
Ed King
> Mackey's Landmarks may possibly be "wrong" in your jurisdiction, but
> here in South Carolina, they apply.
Of course, considering the fact that Mackey was FROM South Carolina, one might have
some clue as to the reason for that, eh? <BWG>
The fact is, though, acceptance of them is FAR from universal - as can be seen on
the list at www.bessel.org/landmark.htm
Fraternally,
Mike Wells
> Mike Wells wrote:
> > Brother Ed, I most respectfully offer my opinion. The Shrine has chosen
> > to exist as an Appendant Body of Freemasonry.
>
> Huh? Not in Iowa!
The Shrine is not an Appendant Body of Freemasonry in Iowa?
> > The Grand Lodge is the only authorized representative of Freemasonry
> > within its own Jurisdiction.
>
> True!
It is encouraging that we can agree, Brother.
> > The Grand Lodge may and can impose its will on the Shrine
>
> Only on individual Shriners, who happen to be Masons.
At present, all Shriners are Masons. Consequently, a Grand Lodge has the
authority to intervene in Shrine decisions because that affects only Masons.
If the Shrine ever admits non-Masons as equal members, then the Shrine will
cease to be an Appendant Body and will be free of potential Grand Lodge
interference.
> > until the Shine chooses to no longer be an Appendant Body within that
> > Grand Lodge's Jurisdiction.
> >
> I repeat: The Shrine does not have that choice!
Well, now I am confused. Are you saying that the Shrine does not have the
right to choose whether or not it is an Appendant Body of Freemasonry?
Hypothetically, then, if the Shrine stated that it no longer wanted to a
part of Masonry, and a Grand Lodge did not agree with that decision, then
the Shrine must remain within the Masonic family in that Jurisdiction?
Evidently, I am missing a very important point in the Grand Lodge/Shrine
relationship. What is it?
Animal Style Gene Goldman.·.
wrote:
> In article <0k11mtoj27mlcsjjn...@4ax.com>, Animal Style wrote:
>
> > Sam.
> > I should have known better than to use such an emotionally-charged
> > word as "lazy". I think we mean the same thing. Most people can't be
> > bothered to learn much history - about anything. They are so wrapped
> > up in today, and worried about tomorrow, they have no time or energy
> > or whatever for yesterday.
>
> I was about to write a post agreeing fully with Sam until I saw this and felt it
> appropriate to comment here. In many cases, it's not that they "can't be bothered"
> or "have no time or energy" but rather that they're unprepared for the task. They
> have no idea where to begin and if they do start, they have no way of judging what
> is relevant or not.
Absolutely. Not prepared, not inclined, not equipped and many other
issues can - and do - stand in the way.
> Beyond that, Masonic research (as I've learned over my tenure as a Mason) is rife
> with contradiction and interpretation. There is SO much there and it's so
> interrelated with not only the organization and the outside world that it becomes
> an ENORMOUS task to 'get a handle' on even the most simple appearing thing. I'm
> writing a work on 'redemptionists' now and am finding myself absorbed in the
> Protocols and the Morgan affair, trying to get that 'perfect piece' in order to tie
> the story together. And then there are those who write what can best be described
> as 'op-ed' pieces that new Masons interpret as 'Masonic research'. It's all a VERY
> confusing soup and can be very discouraging to the budding researcher.
>
> Are some Masons lazy about research? Yep.
>
> Are some Masons too busy or can't be bothered? Yep.
>
> On the other hand, a LOT of those can be found at the fund raiser for the Shrine
> hospital or the scholarship fund.... <shrug> I'll take a million more like 'em -
> and that comes from somebody who has gone both routes!
You bet. IMHBCO, historical research is an indulgence. I love to
read autobiographies - when I have the time - but I read them to
further my OWN knowledge, or to gratify some interest *I* have in the
individual. OTOH, there are SO many demands on a person's time these
days, that are just more pressing than self-indulgence. Consequently,
I do most of my recreational reading in the early morning hours,
shortly after I wake up. We have a room in the house that is
specially equipped for the task. <s>
Again, I don't mean any of this in a negative sense. It just seems to
be the way it IS.
> > I never meant it in a negative sense, just as an observation.
>
> "can't be bothered" is still a bit emotionally charged, I'm afraid....
Too involved with higher-priority tasks?
--
|O| Be well. Travel with a light heart.
Brother Gene .*.
H.M.S.H.
Q.P.H.D.
Give me [Backspace] or give me death.
http://www.calodges.org/no442
http://www.blackmountainlodge.net
http://www.freemason.org
MBBFMN #387
ICQ #503060
They can have my [Backspace] key when they pry it from my cold, dead, fingers.
Internet newsgroup posting. Copyright 2001. All rights reserved.
[Backspace]: use it or lose it.
Lee Duncan
> Internet newsgroup posting. Copyright 2001. All rights reserved.Ed King <edk...@masonicinfo.com> wrote in message news:<VA.0000213...@mint.net>...
> In article <1bfe0d70.01072...@posting.google.com>, Lee Duncan wrote:
>
> > Mackey's Landmarks may possibly be "wrong" in your jurisdiction, but
> > here in South Carolina, they apply.
>
> Of course, considering the fact that Mackey was FROM South Carolina, one might have
> some clue as to the reason for that, eh? <BWG>
LOL, there is little doubt to that. However, the following Grand
Jurisdictions also accept Mackey's Landmarks: Colorado, Delaware,
District of Columbia, Georgia, Illinois, Kansas, Maine, Maryland, New
Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Vermont,
Wisconsin, and Wyoming.
I must agree with Jim that the wisdom of making Masons at sight is
rather questionable. However, if the Grand Master possesses the
authority to grant dispensations to organize occasional lodges,
dispensations to confer degrees at irregular times, and has a right to
preside over the Craft wherever he goes in his Grand Jurisdiction,
then he must by virtue of these rights be able to exercise them
simultaneously: that is, organize a lodge with at least 6 other
Brothers, take the gavel, initiate, pass, and raise a man, then
dissolve the lodge he created under dispensation, effectively making a
Brother at sight. The newly made Mason would be, however,
unaffiliated, and would have to petition a regular Lodge for
membership. I do not necessarily support the expediency of such an
action, but I do support the Grand Master's right. And, as an aside,
many notable Brothers were made at sight, including Douglas MacArthur
and Andrew Johnson.
> The fact is, though, acceptance of them is FAR from universal - as can be seen on
> the list at www.bessel.org/landmark.htm
>
> Fraternally,
> Ed King
I very much agree ( and had actually written to Jim pretty much the
same thing ). And by the way, I've been reading your website, and have
thoroughly enjoyed it. Keep up the good work.
Sincerely and Fraternally,
Lee Duncan
Judson Lodge No. 319 AFM
Greenville, SC
MasonTruth
>Rites
>From: "Bryan Hayes" hayes...@sympatico.ca
>Date: 7/25/2001 7:39 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <7LA77.11407$A4.13...@news20.bellglobal.com>
>
>
>Few questions:
>
>A Shriner initiate must be a high ranking Freemason. Or at least a MM.
>Right?
One must be a Master Mason. There is no
such thing as a High Ranking Mason in regards to becoming a Shriner or member
of an Appendant Body. Once a man is a Master Mason that is as "high" as it
gets.
He is on the same level with even a Grand Master...They are both Master Masons.
>Isn't it a fact that Freemasons don't believe in prosecution by law?
Not the case Bryan. If a person commits a crime they should be prosecuted. One
thing we teach as Masons and show by example is to obey the laws of the land..
>Why would someone who believes in Freemasonry and its teachings
>file a lawsuit against his own?
>
Bryan, I am not sure of the situation or the case. My joining the Shrine was a
lot of fun and a good experience. It strengthened my bond with Brethren, I made
new friends and
learned more about what it means to be a Shriner and what they do regarding the
kids and the hospitals. Have a good day...
S & F,
>...but soon. :-)
>Isn't it a fact that Freemasons don't believe in prosecution by law?
MasonTruth
Bro. Manny Blanco (S.W.) Finally
Moreno Valley Lodge # 804
Moreno Valley, CA
"Behold how good and pleasant it is for Brethren to dwell together in unity."
Mike Wells
Lee Duncan <musicm...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1bfe0d70.01080...@posting.google.com...
> LOL, there is little doubt to that. However, the following Grand
> Jurisdictions also accept Mackey's Landmarks: Colorado, Delaware,
> District of Columbia, Georgia, Illinois, Kansas, Maine, Maryland, New
> Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Vermont,
> Wisconsin, and Wyoming.
Brother Lee,
It is my understanding that the Grand Lodge AF&AM of the State of Illinois
does not have defined Landmarks. In that vein, while it is recognized that
Landmarks exist, they are not enumerated here. Am I incorrect on the
matter?
F&S,
Keith Chesworth
>>Subject: Re: Would-Be Shriner Says He Was Subjected to Painful Initiation
>>Rites
>>From: "Bryan Hayes" hayes...@sympatico.ca
>>Date: 7/25/2001 7:39 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>>Message-id: <7LA77.11407$A4.13...@news20.bellglobal.com>
>>
>>
>>Few questions:
>>
>>A Shriner initiate must be a high ranking Freemason. Or at least a MM.
>>Right?
>
>One must be a Master Mason. There is no
>such thing as a High Ranking Mason in regards to becoming a Shriner or member
>of an Appendant Body. Once a man is a Master Mason that is as "high" as it
>gets.
>He is on the same level with even a Grand Master...They are both Master Masons.
>
>
>
snip
Little sideline on this:
In my Lodge(s) we are taught that we are on the level all the time.
All MM are also FC and EAs.
All FCs are also EAs.
This is because these degrees were confered on the way up.
Now when opening in a higher degree we are taught as Masters to say
something like 'I must now ask all those below the rank of .. to leave
the Lodge for a short period of time'.
Never 'I must now ask all EAs (FC) to leave the Lodge ...'
This is because taken literally all present should leave if the latter
mode is used, they are all EAs (FC).
I have seen cases both in my Lodges and when visiting of members
standing up and making to leave when the Master has maded the boo boo
of using the later form just as a bit of fun and to make the point.
Keith J Chesworth W Master Burton Court Lodge 3864 London UGLoE
Web sites:-
Dunstable - http://www.geocities.com/TheTropics/Paradise/8227/home.htm
Warships of WW1- http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Congress/6728/index.html
Oil Tankers - http://www.telinco.co.uk/boilerbill/
Masonic Musings - http://www.masonry.telinco.co.uk/
Lee Duncan
Dear Bro. Mike,
You are probably much more familiar with the policy of the MW Grand
Lodge of Illinois than myself; I based my previous comment from a
statement on page 365 of the 1995 Revised Edition of "Coil's Masonic
Encyclopedia" by Henry Wilson Coil, which says, in listing Grand
Jurisdictions in the US and their positions on Landmarks, " Illinois:
No action but Mackey's list accepted."
If this is erroneous, please let me know, so that I can make a note of
it.
MasonTruth
>Rites
>Date: 8/3/01 1:04 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <s7mkmt8u94bloj938...@4ax.com>
>
>Little sideline on this:
>
Thanks Brother Keith. Have a great weekend...
S & F,
Michael Higgins
rites to be considered for membership in the Shrine. By the way, the term "high
ranking Freemason" is something of a misnomer--all Master Masons have allready
achieved the highest actual rank in Freemasonry. All these other "ranks" are in
groups that are affiliated with Freemasonry but not required of anyone. It is
sort of the same as if you joined a neighborhood social club and then joined an
allied club that was made up of people who liked to play chess as well.
Anyway, to even be considered for a legitimate Shrine group in 1989 you would
have had to become a Master Mason, worked your way through the requirements of
the Scottish or York Rites, become a highly ranked member of either of those two
groups and THEN be allowed to petition for membership in the Shrine, which
itself is another affiliated group and not, properly speaking, part of
Freemasonry itself, though it is made up exclusively of men who are Master
Masons.
How this guy would try to enter the Shrine beleiving it held some sort of devine
secrets of the universe is a question that defies a rational answer. The
committee that allowed his petition to go forward should have a lot to answer
for, IMHO.
Assuming, of course, this story is in any way true as reported.
Bryan Hayes wrote:
> Few questions:
>
> A Shriner initiate must be a high ranking Freemason. Or at least a MM.
> Right?
> Isn't it a fact that Freemasons don't believe in prosecution by law?
> Why would someone who believes in Freemasonry and its teachings
> file a lawsuit against his own?
>
> Bryan Hayes
> Toronto, Canada.
> Not a Mason yet... :-(
> ...but soon. :-)
>
> "Mike Wells" <mgwb...@fgi.net> wrote in message
> news:Y2r77.694$Ip4.4...@nntp1.onemain.com...
> > Congratulations, Anon! I found nothing in your article that could not be
> > true. BTW, that trial was (I believe) started in 1991. What was the
> outcome,
> > or is the trial still in progress?
> >
> > Mike Wells
> > Normal #673 AF&AM Illinois
> > Collector of old Masonic books
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Nomen Nescio <nob...@dizum.com> wrote in message
> > news:3e2431c2a89f3561...@dizum.com...
> > > Would-Be Shriner Says He Was Subjected to Painful Initiation Rites"
> > > The Associated Press
> > > Domestic News
> > > PM Cycle
> > > November 20, 1991
> > >
> > > LEXINGTON, Ky. - Michael G. Vaughan says he went to the Shrine temple to
> > learn
> > > the secrets of the universe. What he learned, he says, is that the
> > Shrine's
> > > initiation rites involve electric shocks and the humiliation of having
> > one's
> > > underwear filled with strawberries and whipped cream.
> > >
> > > Now his lawsuit against the fraternity has become cloaked in nearly as
> > much
> > > secrecy as the rites themselves.
> > >
> > > A judge has ordered all participants in the lawsuit not to divulge
> details
> > > of the case. The case file has been sealed. And only those directly
> > involved
> > > with the lawsuit know when and where to meet for the trial Dec. 9.
> > >
> > > The lawsuit was filed last year by Vaughan, a 44-year-old brick mason
> who
> > claims
> > > he was knocked unconscious and suffered other injuries during initiation
> > rites
> > > in 1989 at the Oleika Shrine Temple in Lexington. He seeks an
> unspecified
> > amount
> > > for medical bills, lost income and punitive damages.
> > >
> > > Before Circuit Judge George Barker issued a gag order last summer,
> Vaughan
> > > said in interviews that he wanted to become a Shriner because the group
> > promised
> > > spiritual and emotional fulfillment.
> > >
> > > The Ancient Arabic Order of the Nobles of the Mystic Shrine has about
> > 725,000
> > > members in the United States, Canada and Mexico. The group is renowned
> for
> > > its philanthropy: Its charitable foundation runs 19 orthopedic and three
> > burn
> > > hospitals where needy children are treated free of charge.
> > >
> > > But Shriners also are famous for their love of fun. Temples hold
> circuses
> > and
> > > football games, and Shriners driving miniature cars and boats and
> wearing
> > Arabian
> > > costumes, turbans and fezzes are familiar sights at parades across
> > America.
> > >
> > > "I assumed that the Shrine, as the word would imply, was like (God's)
> > highest
> > > secret order, where a great secret would be learned once you got it,"
> > Vaughan
> > > said.
> > >
> > > So, in 1989, he and about three dozen other initiates stood before an
> > audience
> > > of Shriners and began a series of tests, which included walking on an
> > electrified
> > > mat, sitting on an electrified bench and getting a jolt of electricity
> to
> > their
> > > bare buttocks, the lawsuit says.
> > >
> > > At one point, the lawsuit says, Vaughan's shorts were taped to his legs
> > and
> > > he suspected a nearby sinkful of strawberries, whipped cream and ice
> cream
> > > was to be poured into them.
> > >
> > > This last humiliation was not carried out, he says, because a table fell
> > over
> > > and took him with it. The lawsuit says Vaughan hit his head on the floor
> > and
> > > was knocked unconscious.
> > >
> > > Vaughan did not pay his dues and never returned to the temple.
> > >
> > > His lawsuit claims that the activities were painful and harmful and that
> > he
> > > needed medical treatment because of them. He accuses the supervising
> > Shriners
> > > of assault and fraud.
> > >
> > > A court-ordered videotape of the temple's initiation devices confirmed
> > much
> > > of Vaughan's story, including the existence of the electrified bench and
> > mat.
> > >
> > > Lawyers on both sides of the case and officials of the Oleika Shrine
> > Temple
> > > refused to comment this week, citing the court order. Vaughan has an
> > unlisted
> > > telephone number and could not be reached.
> > >
> > > In court documents, the temple denied several of the allegations but
> > acknowledged
> > > that shocks "of less than one second" are administered during
> initiation.
> > The
> > > Shriners denied Vaughan was knocked unconscious.
> > >
> > > Theodore Corsones, lawyer for the national Shriners' organization, said
> he
> > > could not comment on the case but that his own initiation as a Shriner
> was
> > > spiritually uplifting. He said he toured a Shriners hospital for
> crippled
> > children.
> > >
> > > "As for what went on in Lexington, I haven't the foggiest because I
> wasn't
> > > there," Corsones said.
> > >
> > > Rules are issued each year on proper initiation techniques, he said.
> > >
> > > Robert E. Manley, whose Cincinnati law firm specializes in fraternity
> law,
> > > said at least 35 states, including Kentucky, have laws that ban hazing.
> > Manley
> > > is not involved in Vaughan's lawsuit.
> > >
> > > Manely said he wasn't sure if Kentucky's hazing law would apply to the
> > Shrine
> > > case. But if the allegations are true, Vaughan could file an assault and
> > battery
> > > complaint, he said.
> > >
> > > http://freemasonwatch.freepress-freespeech.com/
> > >
> > >
> >
> >