Dimits/Demits....
Ed King
vis-a-vis the GRC Masonic Code vis-a-vis multiple opinions, there seem
to have been a couple of things ignored. The first is that all GL
codifications have a general basis in Masonic history and etiquette and
the second is that they are created with the purpose of keeping harmony
rather than sowing the seeds of dissent.
Mackey's 'Jurisprudence of Freemasonry' has not been quoted to date but
it is surely a basis on which many (if not most) present US GL codes
are derived. Mackey says:
============
THE RIGHT OF DEMISSION
<snip definition> A Freemason is said "to demit from a Lodge" when he
withdraws from all connection with it. It is, in fact, the act which in
any other society would be called a resignation.
The right of demission is, then, an important right in its reference
not only to the Freemason who applies for it, but also to the Lodge
which grants it, since its operation is to dissolve all Masonic
connection between the two parties. It is not, therefore, surprising
that it has been made the topic of ernest discussion, and elicited
various opinions among Masonic jurists. <EK Note: Has Mackey been
reading this newsgroup?>
Does the right exist, and if so, under what restrictions and with
what effects? These are the questions that naturally suggest
themselves, and must be thoroughly discussed before we can expect to
obtain a clear comprehension of the subject.
<snip>
The only question of Masonic jurisprudence on this subject which has
given rise to any discussion is, whether a member can demit from a
Lodge for the distinct purpose of severing all active connection with
the Order, and becoming an unaffiliated Freemason. And it may be
observed, that it is only within a few years that the right to do even
this has been denied.
The Grand Lodge of Connecticut, in 1853, decided "that no Lodge
should grant a demit to any of its members, except for the purpose of
joining some other Lodge; and that no member shall be considered as
having withdrawn from one Lodge until he has actually become a member
of another."
The Grand Lodge of Texas, governed by a similar view of the subject,
has declared that "it does not recognize the right of a Mason to demit
or separate himself from the Lodge in which he was made and may
afterwards be admitted, except for the purpose of joining another
Lodge, or when he may be about to remove without the jurisdiction of
the Lodge of which he is a member."
p. 160-161
===================
Let me skip around to a couple of other comments:
P. 131 "Unaffiliated Freemasons should receive none of the honors of
the Craft."
p. 184 ""The Special Committee on Jurisprudence of the Grand Lodge of
Virginia said, in 1856, with great truth, that 'it cannot be concealed
that this class of drones in the hive of Masonry, now numbered by
thousands in America, are exerting a very unwholesome influence on the
position which our time-honored Institution is entitled to hold before
the world.'"
P. 185 "The obligation that every Freemason should thus labor is
implied in all the subsequent Constitutions, which always speak of
Freemasons as _working members_ of the Fraternity, until we come to the
Charges approved in 1722, which explicitly state that "every Brother
ought to belong to a Lodge, and to be subject to its By-Laws and the
General Regulations.""
Explicitly, however, as the law has been announced, it has
not, in modern times, been observed with that fidelity which should
have been expected, perhaps, because no precise penalty was annexed to
its violation. The word "ought" has given to the regulation a simple
declaratory form; and although we are still compelled to conclude that
its violation is a neglect of Masonic duty, and therefore punishable by
a Masonic tribunal, Masonic jurists have been at a lost to agree upon
the nature and extent of the punishment that should be inflicted."
Mackey on page 188 states that the way to cut the gordian knot is to
expel all unaffiliated Freemasons....
On page 189, he states "Having taken his demit from one Lodge, he has
of course lost its protection; and, having united with no other, he can
claim protection from none."
I would specifically call attention to the many statements in Mackey
(both 'Jurisprudence' and the 'Encyclopedia' relative to unaffiliation
being a direct violation of Masonic law.
Hopefully this will add some information to the present discussion!
Fraternally,
Ed King
http://www.masonicinfo.com -- Anti-Masonry: Points of View
Internet newsgroup posting. Copyright 2000. All rights reserved.
fran...@soltec.net
As a lodge secretary, I have this input on the issue of dimits/demits:
If a lodge under the rules of Connecticut or Texas won't give a brother
a dimit when requested, that brother could then decide to stop paying
his annual dues. After a specified time (usually 2 or 3 years), that
brother could be suspended for nonpayment of dues. So he ends up out of
the lodge anyway, but with the stigma of having been suspended. Not a
great way to depart the Craft.
One of the things we have prided ourselves on--and used to counter
certain claims by anti-masonics--was that a brother could leave the
Craft at any time, without encumbrance or impediment. Yet now I see
that certain Grand Lodges are saying that a brother remains a lodge
member whether he wants to or not. Hmmmmmm. Sounds like their not
willing to let him go just to keep the numbers up.
Here in Illinois a dimit is good for one year; the brother is a Mason
in good standing the Fraternity during that year and may petition
another lodge for affiliation.
In article <VA.00001af...@mint.net>,
edk...@masonicinfo.com wrote:
> As the discussion has ensued regarding the California Masonic Code
> vis-a-vis the GRC Masonic Code vis-a-vis multiple opinions, there
Sincerely and fraternally,
Frederick W. Randall
Secretary
Rantoul, Lodge No. 470
Rantoil, Illinois
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Jack Wise
Ed King wrote:
>
<<< S N I P > > >
> Mackey's 'Jurisprudence of Freemasonry' has not been quoted to date but
> it is surely a basis on which many (if not most) present US GL codes
> are derived. Mackey says:
>
< < < M O R E S N I P > > >
> The Grand Lodge of Texas, governed by a similar view of the subject,
> has declared that "it does not recognize the right of a Mason to demit
> or separate himself from the Lodge in which he was made and may
> afterwards be admitted, except for the purpose of joining another
> Lodge, or when he may be about to remove without the jurisdiction of
> the Lodge of which he is a member."
>
> p. 160-161
>
>
> Fraternally,
> Ed King
>
> http://www.masonicinfo.com -- Anti-Masonry: Points of View
>
> Internet newsgroup posting. Copyright 2000. All rights reserved.
--
Brother Ed:
Mackey's is sorely out of date.
Current Texas Regulations (Article 369) state:
"The right of a member, clear on the books as to dues and no
charges pending against him, to withdraw from membership in a
Lodge thereby becoming an unaffiliated Mason is inalienable. In
such a case, the member may present his application to the Lodge
in writing, requestin a dimit. If all dues have been paid to the
date of his application and no charges are pending aganst hi, the
Lodge may grant the dimit at once.
Jack Wise
PM, Jacques DeMolay Lodge No. 1390, AF & AM
Houston, TX
Mike Wells
Grand Lodges in States that were previously Territories. An historically
fascinating period in U.S. Masonry, IMO. The influx of unaffiliated Masons
resulted in the Grand Lodge of Illinois declaring that unaffiliated Masons
could remain in that status within the Jurisdiction of Illinois for a
maximum of one year. Illinois was not unique in that respect as other
Jurisdictions took similar action.
In Illinois, after one year, the resident unaffiliated was to be served a
summons by the Lodge closest to his residence compelling affiliation. In the
event affiliation was voluntarily declined, the unaffiliated was required to
pay dues equal to that paid by a member of the Lodge that served the
summons. If dues were not paid, a second summons was issued by the Lodge
notifying the sojourner of pending suspension. One month later, action on
the suspension was taken, and the suspension was reported to the Grand
Secretary. From that illustration, regarding Illinois only, one discerns
that the unaffiliated is subject to the rules of regulations of the Grand
Lodge Jurisdiction in which he resides.
Currently, an Illinois Mason (except present Masters or the Grand Master)
may be disciplined for any moral or Masonic offense by his Lodge regardless
of where he resides. Responsibility for discipline of both the affiliated
and unaffiliated are equally subject to the Lodge's discretion. The
unaffiliated or sojourning Mason may be suspended or expelled by an Illinois
Lodge in whose Jurisdiction he resides.
From those circumstances, I infer but cannot unequivocally prove, evolved
the current regulations regarding a demitted Mason in this Jurisdiction,
i.e., that further restrictions are imposed on the demitted after one year.
Mike Wells
Normal #673, A.F.& A.M., Illinois
Ed King <edk...@masonicinfo.com> wrote in message
news:VA.00001af...@mint.net...
> As the discussion has ensued regarding the California Masonic Code
> vis-a-vis the GRC Masonic Code vis-a-vis multiple opinions, there seem
> to have been a couple of things ignored. The first is that all GL
> codifications have a general basis in Masonic history and etiquette and
> the second is that they are created with the purpose of keeping harmony
> rather than sowing the seeds of dissent.
>
> Mackey's 'Jurisprudence of Freemasonry' has not been quoted to date but
> it is surely a basis on which many (if not most) present US GL codes
> are derived. Mackey says:
>
> should grant a demit to any of its members, except for the purpose of
> joining some other Lodge; and that no member shall be considered as
> having withdrawn from one Lodge until he has actually become a member
> of another."
>
> The Grand Lodge of Texas, governed by a similar view of the subject,
> has declared that "it does not recognize the right of a Mason to demit
> or separate himself from the Lodge in which he was made and may
> afterwards be admitted, except for the purpose of joining another
> Lodge, or when he may be about to remove without the jurisdiction of
> the Lodge of which he is a member."
>
> p. 160-161
>