Masonic Funeral Service

[Torence]

Unfortunately, it has been a busy month for Masonic services from
our lodge. I do the Master’s work and in Illinois this speech has to
be included on the list as some of our best work.
Each time that I do it, though, I am reminded of the Official
Services that have gone before it. Our current recitation is from the
Emerson Grand Mastership, 1928. The Burnap version, 1915, is word for
word identical with the exception of the opening paragraph which
starts “The solemn notes that betoken the dissolution of this earthly
tabernacle have again alarmed our outer door…” His era saw the
introduction of orchestrated music and the Masonic eulogy was often
preceded by an appropriate dirge.
Three years earlier, however, the Edward Cook version was the
standard. In it, the various officers took a part with the Senior
Warden lamenting:
“In the midst of life we are in death. Of whom may we seek for
succor but of Thee, O Lord, who for our sins are justly displeased.
Thou knowest the secrets of our hearts; shut not thy merciful ear to
our prayer.”
And the Junior Warden replied:
“Lord, let me know my end and the number of my days that I may be
certified how long I have to live. Amen.”
The Chaplain, along with our current prayers gave the Christian
Lord’s prayer. This was omitted in 1915, not for any great
philosophical reasoning; but because of brevity. Most Masonic services
were done then with a Brother’s clergy; and it was deemed By Grand
Master Alex Darrah that the prayer was redundant. His era, 1914, saw
the introduction of shorter forms for Illinois FreeMasonry and the
graduation from the entire lodge taking part, to a singular Master
executing the funeral work. As we approach that centennial, I would
like to see the acceptance of the reintroduction of this old work at
the discretion of individual lodges who may elect to show it.
Question: Are there jurisdictions where the Christian Lord’s prayer
is used in this or any other Masonic work? How appropriate or
inappropriate do you think its use as a twenty-first century
FreeMason?

Fraternally,
Torence Evans Ake
Secretary – Auburn Park Lodge No. 789 – Crete, Illinois
PM – Arcadia Lodge No. 1138 – Lansing, Illinois

[Dave Vick, PM]

In article

Question: Are there jurisdictions where the Christian Lord's prayer
is used in this or any other Masonic work?

Not in Michigan.

How appropriate or inappropriate do you think its use as a
twenty-first century FreeMason?

Enh... They're just words. Words are non-denominational. I'm not any
more or less offended by them as words as any of my Gentile Brethren are
with the words of the Kaddish.

[jack Wise]

Question: Are there jurisdictions where the Christian Lord’s prayer
is used in this or any other Masonic work? How appropriate or
inappropriate do you think its use as a twenty-first century
FreeMason?
Fraternally,
Torence Evans Ake
Secretary – Auburn Park Lodge No. 789 – Crete, Illinois
PM – Arcadia Lodge No. 1138 – Lansing, Illinois

Why do you call this prayer a "Christian" prayer?

It was authored by a Hebrew as a guide for the prayers of other
Hebrews. Nothing in the prayer is Christian specific. The prayer can
be used as a model prayer by Christians, Jews and Muslims alike.

I agree that it is most used by follower's of Christ, but there is no
copyright limiting its use to Christians only.

[Alex]

Post by jack Wise

Question: Are there jurisdictions where the Christian Lord’s prayer
is used in this or any other Masonic work? How appropriate or
inappropriate do you think its use as a twenty-first century
FreeMason?
Fraternally,
Torence Evans Ake
Secretary – Auburn Park Lodge No. 789 – Crete, Illinois
PM – Arcadia Lodge No. 1138 – Lansing, Illinois

Why do you call this prayer a "Christian" prayer?
It was authored by a Hebrew as a guide for the prayers of other
Hebrews. Nothing in the prayer is Christian specific. The prayer can
be used as a model prayer by Christians, Jews and Muslims alike.

It cannot be used by Muslims, because of the opening phrase ("Our
Father...). And no Jew will use it, because of the fact that it it is
regarded as a Christian prayer....

Post by jack Wise
I agree that it is most used by follower's of Christ, but there is no
copyright limiting its use to Christians only.

No copyright perhaps, nut if someone tried to use it at my funeral, I'd want
to climb out of my coffin and slap him upside the head. I'm not a follower
of any of the Abrahamic faiths, but the prayer itself is so tied to
Christian practise that its use anywhere but in a Christian ceremony would
be quite offensive.
- --
Alex Fisher
Lodge Caledonian No. 14
United Grand Lodge of Queensland

[Torence]

Post by jack Wise
I agree that it is most used by follower's of Christ, but there is no
copyright limiting its use to Christians only.

At the funeral service that our Lodge did on Saturday (the sixth
one I am afraid in four weeks), the Brother’s Pastor spoke first, the
Navy performed their flag folding ceremony; and then we did our bit at
the end. The memorial was also extraordinary in another way. Our
Brother had passed away on December 19th and the body had been
cremated. At the points in the service that I usually touch the
remains, I held up Brother’s photograph and presented his apron along
with the obituary and the Widow’s pin to the deceased’s wife with the
help of our Master and the Brother’s son who is our Tyler.
My father, back in the seventies, was a year away from being Grand
Master in Maryland. He stepped out of line over several disputes with
the Past Grand Masters one of which involved the funeral service.
Maryland at that time did not do services, evidently, without a body
such as in the case of cremation; and it was their rule that the
Master must be the last person to speak before the body was interred.
My father felt that the Brother’s Pastor should be the last person to
speak in those circumstances. Evidently, then, if a Brother was lost
at sea there was discussion about whether or not a Masonic memorial
could be held. These arguments seem incongruous to me these days; and,
I hope that no modern jurisdictions have such prohibitions.
The Pastor on Saturday, of course, led us in three prayers, the last
being the Lord’s Prayer. And as I have been sneaking some of the old
1912 and 1915 service elements into our modern presentation I wonder
what the reaction should this 1912 element be reintroduced at least on
occasion, perhaps by request.
Your point that it was an appropriate prayer for Jews, Christians
and Muslims alike probably covers 99% of our membership. But there are
1% in Illinois who are none of those things. We also have Master
Masons who are agnostic; and I know a few who have lost their faith
all together; and yet retain their membership and are active here. In
some lodges in some areas, such as Oklahoma, Utah, California or
Japan, perhaps even more align themselves with none of these big three
faiths.
Is this prayer better left out? Are there jurisdictions that employ
it? Can it be included at the request of a Brother or his family? Like
our degree work and openings, I am in favor of flexibility and would
open our tyled doors, so to speak, to the reintroduction of lost
historical ritual or even well written pieces from other
jurisdictions.
When I am Grand Master, I will allow it.

Fraternally,
Torence Evans Ake
Secretary – Auburn Park Lodge No. 789 – Crete, Illinois
PM – Arcadia Lodge No. 1138 – Lansing, Illinois

[Doug Freyburger]

Post by Torence

Post by jack Wise
I agree that it is most used by follower's of Christ, but there is no
copyright limiting its use to Christians only.

I get that if you can view a prayer as non-denominational you should,
but viewing a prayer first spoken by Jesus as other than Christian is
beyond what most folks can pull off on the front of treating prayers
as non-denominational. I get your point but I think you're stretched
it to the breaking point in calling the Lord's Pray non-denominational.

Post by Torence
My father, back in the seventies, was a year away from being Grand
Master in Maryland. He stepped out of line over several disputes with
the Past Grand Masters one of which involved the funeral service.

Wow. I'm flabbergasted that there would even be a battle over who gets
to do a funeral service in what order and if there has to be a body or
open casket at the service. What are the family's wishes? What
arrangments did the Brother make before his death? What about a spirit
of cooperation among fraterneties in a case like a Legion post doing a
service in addition to us? What about honoring service to country in a
case of the military itself performing a service? What about honoring
the faith of the candidate in a case of the pastor performing a service?
I would go in the order assigned and by happy to do the service.

Post by Torence
Your point that it was an appropriate prayer for Jews, Christians
and Muslims alike probably covers 99% of our membership. But there are
1% in Illinois who are none of those things.

Before petitioning I was very careful to check that there are Masons of
many non-JCI religions to make sure that freedom of religion is
something Masonry actually practices rather than just talking about it.

Post by Torence
We also have Master Masons who are agnostic;

Depending on how you define that word an agnostic would not be able to
get his petition accepted. But we do have Masons who are not
comfortable with human churches or even human religions but who still
accept the existance of a surpreme being. It's the Deist stance rather
than the agnostic stance.

Post by Torence
and I know a few who have lost their faith
all together; and yet retain their membership and are active here.

A brother in our district recently demitted because he lost his faith.
I get that in the letter of the law once he's been Raised it's not
required for him to continue to believe. I repect his decision that it
was an issue of the spirit of the law for him to demit. Should his
spiritual crisis resolve itself back towards faith I'm sure he would be
welcomed back for the asking.

Post by Torence
In
some lodges in some areas, such as Oklahoma, Utah, California or
Japan, perhaps even more align themselves with none of these big three
faiths.

I'm not quite certain which ones are the Big Three. Christianity and
Islam are the two largest population faiths. Buddhism and Hindu are the
next two but I don't know which of them is larger. Maybe the term "Big
Four" would work better when discussing the large population world
religions.

I know Buddhist Masons in California. My first degree was a double and
the other brother is a practicing Buddhist. One of my obligations was
conducted by a practicing Buddhist. I know Hindu Masons in Illinois.
Our Organist of several years ago for example.

I also know plenty of members of other smaller population faiths who are
Masons. So far no Zoroastrians.

Post by Torence
When I am Grand Master, I will allow it.

A funeral service is not a time to deny requests by family.

[David Simpson]

[Default] On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 12:57:38 CST, Doug Freyburger
<***@yahoo.com> typed:

[...]

Post by Doug Freyburger
A funeral service is not a time to deny requests by family.

This is the most important item which has come to the forefront in
this thread.

[Rob Sandilands]

Post by David Simpson
[Default] On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 12:57:38 CST, Doug Freyburger
[...]

Post by Doug Freyburger
A funeral service is not a time to deny requests by family.

This is the most important item which has come to the forefront in
this thread.

... I concur ...

... over here, a 'Masonic funeral' is merely a brief observance which
can be added to any funeral service ... an acknowledgement that the
deceased was a Freemason who 'lived respected and died regretted' ...

... then there is a 'Lodge of Sorrow' which can be held at either a
stated or emergent meeting ... and which, as of some years ago, can also
be open to the family and members of the public ...

[Stuart H.]

Post by David Simpson
[Default] On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 12:57:38 CST, Doug Freyburger
[...]

Post by Doug Freyburger
A funeral service is not a time to deny requests by family.

This is the most important item which has come to the forefront in
this thread.

My curiosity causes me to ask about who is eligible to have a Masonic
Funeral in the different jurisdictions.

Our Grand Lodge, here in Alberta, Canada, recently extended that
privilege to *ALL* Masons from EA through to MM, since we recognize an
EA as a Mason upon their Initiation.

EAs may vote in their own Lodge, but only MMs may vote at Grand Lodge
communications. Of course, we open and do our business in the 1st
degree in the Canadian Rite Lodges, and even the York Rote Lodges can do
their business in the 1st.

S&F,

Stuart H.
Spruce Grove, AB

[Torence]

Post by Stuart H.
Our Grand Lodge, here in Alberta, Canada, recently extended that
privilege to *ALL* Masons from EA through to MM, since we recognize an
EA as a Mason upon their Initiation.

In Illinois, a Masonic service is available only to members in good
standing. As EAs and FCs are not members of any particular lodge until
they become MMs and sign the By-Laws, lodges cannot perform the
service for them.


Fraternally,
Torence Evans Ake
Secretary
Auburn Park Lodge No. 789 - Crete, Illinois
PM - Arcadia Lodge No. 1138 - Lansing, Illinois

[David Simpson]

[Default] On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 23:59:16 CST, Torence

Post by Torence

Post by Stuart H.
Our Grand Lodge, here in Alberta, Canada, recently extended that
privilege to *ALL* Masons from EA through to MM, since we recognize an
EA as a Mason upon their Initiation.

In Illinois, a Masonic service is available only to members in good
standing. As EAs and FCs are not members of any particular lodge until
they become MMs and sign the By-Laws, lodges cannot perform the
service for them.

Yet you tell him that he is a Brother among Masons after his
obligation in the first do you not?

In my jurisdiction every member of a lodge from EA to GM is entitled
to a Masonic service at his funeral. If you are in good standing even
though not a member of a particular lodge I believe you are still
entitled to a Masonic service.

Part of Masonic teaching is to be non-discriminatory. Any refusal of a
Masonic service to any Brother is a denial of those teachings in my
opinion.

[Chris H]

Post by Torence

Post by Stuart H.
Our Grand Lodge, here in Alberta, Canada, recently extended that
privilege to *ALL* Masons from EA through to MM, since we recognize an
EA as a Mason upon their Initiation.

In Illinois, a Masonic service is available only to members in good
standing. As EAs and FCs are not members of any particular lodge until
they become MMs and sign the By-Laws, lodges cannot perform the
service for them.

What a crock! The fact they have not paid money yet is an administrative
irrelevant. The become Freemasons when initiated and take the
obligation.

Remember where were you first prepared to be a Freemason?

[Stuart H.]

Post by Torence

Post by Stuart H.
Our Grand Lodge, here in Alberta, Canada, recently extended that
privilege to *ALL* Masons from EA through to MM, since we recognize an
EA as a Mason upon their Initiation.

In Illinois, a Masonic service is available only to members in good
standing. As EAs and FCs are not members of any particular lodge until
they become MMs and sign the By-Laws, lodges cannot perform the
service for them.
Fraternally,
Torence Evans Ake
Secretary
Auburn Park Lodge No. 789 - Crete, Illinois
PM - Arcadia Lodge No. 1138 - Lansing, Illinois

Then, I ask, into what have they been Initiated, if not the Masonic
Fraternity? At their Initiation, in our jurisdiction, they sign the
Historic Register and receive the copy of our Constitution and Bylaws.
Why not in Illinois? Is an EA *NOT* a Brother? Was an Operative EA not
considered a member of the Guild?
Does what you say apply in all US jurisdictions?
And our EAs and FCs pay their dues like any other Brother, are they then
not entitled to the same acceptance?
To what do they belong, if not to a Lodge?

Stuart H.
Treasurer and PM
Baseline Lodge #198
Spruce Grove, Alberta

[Torence]

Post by Stuart H.
Is an EA *NOT* a Brother? Was an Operative EA not
considered a member of the Guild?

Your outrage was shared here in Illinois by a fellow named Edmond
Ronayne. Secretary of Keystone Lodge No. 639 at the time of the
Chicago Fire, he chaired the committee that distributed the relief
funds sent here from other jurisdictions to assist Master Masons,
their Widows and Orphans recovering from the disaster. Aside from the
general lack of accountability, he detested how donations were spent
appointing new lodges with luxuries. When he complained about the
details to Edward Cook, who was a Grand Lecturer at the time (later
GM), he found his concerns answered by being summarily suspended
without due process.
Ronanyne then further complained that the ciphers then common,
ownership of which required expulsion by Illinois Masonic Code at the
time, had been authored by Cook and distributed via Brother Cook’s
book selling business and in secret partnership with his non-Mason
cousin, Ezra. That complaint earned Ronayne summary expulsion; but
also, curiously, he was given a publishing contract by Ezra.
So Ronanyne, like Captain Morgan fifty years earlier, tested the
fraternity further by publishing “the work” on his own as a
“handbook.” His argument for the need for it being that Masonry was to
him a money making sham. Our club then charged in the 1870’s $65
(equivalent in 2010 buying power to that of around $1100) for the
degrees the details of which could be had by purchasing his book for
75¢. He complained that lodges sold their degrees and indeed most
lodges at that time and up through the twentieth century were built by
degree fees rather than dues, investment or other Masonic methods.
The unfortunate perspective that in too many cases a candidate for
the degrees represents to others, income, and not much else is a
disease that we should be careful to cure. But it is also a chronic
one that seems to require more than a singular suppression.
As for the prohibition on performing the Masonic service for EAs and
FCs, like the illness that I just mentioned, when I am Grand Master I
will end it. :-)

Fraternally,
Torence Evans Ake
Secretary – Auburn Park Lodge No. 789 – Crete, Illinois
PM – Arcadia Lodge No. 1138 – Lansing, Illinois

[Alan Schwartz]

Post by Torence
In Illinois, a Masonic service is available only to members in good
standing. As EAs and FCs are not members of any particular lodge until
they become MMs and sign the By-Laws, lodges cannot perform the
service for them.

Yep. In my opinion, this is a regrettable situation from many standpoints.

For a somewhat fuller expression of my opinion (which didn't
consider funeral services, but that's an excellent point), see:

http://www.berwynlodge.org/2009/10/october-temple-topics-2/

This year, I hope to begin work on a proposal to change the by-laws
of the Grand Lodge to return our definition of "membership" to the
traditional (and widely practiced outside the US) concept that it begins
at initiation.

[Doug Freyburger]

Post by Alan Schwartz

Post by Torence
In Illinois, a Masonic service is available only to members in good
standing. As EAs and FCs are not members of any particular lodge until
they become MMs and sign the By-Laws, lodges cannot perform the
service for them.

In California if a request for a Masonic funeral is made by the family
of a sojourning Mason time is of the essence should lodges tend to
take the family's word that the deceased is in good standing. Better
that than wait for confirmation of standing at death - By that time it
will be too late. Taking the family's word for it is the pragmatic
answer to funerals for EAs and FCs as well. Getting their standing
takes even longer - Most US jurisdictions keep records of standing at
the GL level for MMs but at the local lodge level for EAs and FCs.

Post by Alan Schwartz
Yep. In my opinion, this is a regrettable situation from many standpoints.
For a somewhat fuller expression of my opinion (which didn't
http://www.berwynlodge.org/2009/10/october-temple-topics-2/
This year, I hope to begin work on a proposal to change the by-laws
of the Grand Lodge to return our definition of "membership" to the
traditional (and widely practiced outside the US) concept that it begins
at initiation.

When Illinois was moving towards allowing EAs and FCs at business
meetings to match the worldwide standard I wrote several articles on the
topic in Temple Topics. Would you like me to similarly start beating
the drums in support of dues paying membership for EAs and FCs? There
are more reasons for it than just "it's the worldwide standard".

My next two articles are already assigned subjects - The discourses I
did at Lombard's table lodge this month and the one I will do at yours
next month. After that I have months with open topics.

[Chris H]

Post by Doug Freyburger

Post by Torence
In Illinois, a Masonic service is available only to members in good
standing. As EAs and FCs are not members of any particular lodge until
they become MMs and sign the By-Laws, lodges cannot perform the
service for them.

In California if a request for a Masonic funeral is made by the family
of a sojourning Mason time is of the essence should lodges tend to
take the family's word that the deceased is in good standing. Better
that than wait for confirmation of standing at death - By that time it
will be too late. Taking the family's word for it is the pragmatic
answer to funerals for EAs and FCs as well. Getting their standing
takes even longer - Most US jurisdictions keep records of standing at
the GL level for MMs but at the local lodge level for EAs and FCs.

Where were you first prepared to be a mason? It does not mention money
except in the NE...

[Chris H]

Post by Alan Schwartz

Post by Torence
In Illinois, a Masonic service is available only to members in good
standing. As EAs and FCs are not members of any particular lodge until
they become MMs and sign the By-Laws, lodges cannot perform the
service for them.

Yep. In my opinion, this is a regrettable situation from many standpoints.
For a somewhat fuller expression of my opinion (which didn't
http://www.berwynlodge.org/2009/10/october-temple-topics-2/
This year, I hope to begin work on a proposal to change the by-laws
of the Grand Lodge to return our definition of "membership" to the
traditional (and widely practiced outside the US) concept that it begins
at initiation.

You say "widely practised outside the US". I thought in many parts of
the US when you are initiated you are a Freemason, just like the rest of
the world. In fact apart from some parts of the US is there anywhere
where an EA is not considered a full Freemason?

[Janet Wintermute]

Think by "Big Three" the original poster meant Christianity, Islam, and
Judaism and "big 3" refers to the three major *monotheistic* religions.

Buddhism doesn't speak to a Supreme Being at all. Hindus worship many
gods/goddesses, but I don't *think* they view any one as "Supreme."
Very willing to hear more from a Hindu on that subject, however!!

I too was surprised, earlier on this thread, to learn that the use of
cremation somehow makes a masonic burial impossible in some
jurisdictions. This policy, if widespread, should probably be
revisited. What could it possibly be about if not somehow entailed into
the Christian belief that at some future moment in time, the trumpet
will sound and the dead will be raised (i.e., right up out of their
caskets), incorruptible, to paraphrase Handel's Messiah and the Bible.

The Craft's de-Christianization process begun under Anderson evidently
isn't over yet. As long as the "no body? no services" rule is in
effect....

I have been to only two masonic funerals--one for a beloved Northern
Virginia brother who died about 7 years ago and the other being the 1999
bicentennial reenactment of George Washington's masonic funeral at Mount
Vernon. Now *that* was impressive, complete with costumes, horses, a
catafalque, a procession, and all the gorgeous ritual language of the
time. At least 500 people stood in the coooold to watch it, and Roger
Mudd narrated a TV special for the History Channel capturing all the action.

It would be a shame to create obstacles for a masonic funeral when
family members wanted it, and I can't imagine that any mason now living,
including myself, would prefer not to have a masonic ceremony to mark
his or her passing.

It would be interesting to find out, here in sof, how many other GLs
have the body-in-the-casket requirement.

--Janet Wintermute
Eastern Order of International Co-Freemasonry
[and speaking, as always, for herself and not her obedience]

[Chris H]

Post by Janet Wintermute
Think by "Big Three" the original poster meant Christianity, Islam, and
Judaism and "big 3" refers to the three major *monotheistic* religions.
Buddhism doesn't speak to a Supreme Being at all. Hindus worship many
gods/goddesses, but I don't *think* they view any one as "Supreme."
Very willing to hear more from a Hindu on that subject, however!!

I will ask my WM... he is a Hindu.

[Doug Freyburger]

Post by Janet Wintermute
Think by "Big Three" the original poster meant Christianity, Islam, and
Judaism and "big 3" refers to the three major *monotheistic* religions.

Sure. It's an educational tactic when I discuss them by population.
It's to remind the brethren that Masonry is a worldwide fraternity and
that the local demographics do not apply in all parts of the world. We
are everywhere.

Post by Janet Wintermute
Buddhism doesn't speak to a Supreme Being at all.

Which makes belief in a Supreme Being a matter of personal conscience
for the individual Buddhist. Exactly. It leads to very interesting
discussions with Buddhist brothers on how they came to their decision to
petition. When discussing the topic with the Buddhist brother who
conferred one of my obligations I got the impression that addressing
deity is more common in some sects than in others. I read mention of
heaven and hell in The Writings of Buddha aka The Dhamapada. That may
point the way for some Buddhists.

Post by Janet Wintermute
Hindus worship many
gods/goddesses, but I don't *think* they view any one as "Supreme."
Very willing to hear more from a Hindu on that subject, however!!

At my most recent visit to a Hindu temple there was a sign on the wall
that claimed that to be a Hindu one needs to be a monotheist. I'm
pretty sure what most mean by that word isn't what they mean. There's
the discussion of all deities being aspects of the one devine. The
closest I could ever figure out is there there are many Humans but there
is one Humanity. If there are Hindu brother around who want to explain
better than my book learning please do so!

Polytheists tend to put a lot of thought into what the word Supreme
means. Nova Roma folks don't have much of a struggle thinking in terms
of Jupiter. For pantheons that meet in a counsel of equals it ends up
being a question of a personal focus or a parallel to many humans but
one humanity. Consider that there's a FAQ file on alt.freemasonry that
discusses Wiccan Masons yet Wiccan is easily seen as duo-theist. It
takes a lot of meditation or prayer or pondering to become comfortable
with answering yes to the question.

Post by Janet Wintermute
I have been to only two masonic funerals--one for a beloved Northern
Virginia brother who died about 7 years ago and the other being the 1999
bicentennial reenactment of George Washington's masonic funeral at Mount
Vernon. Now *that* was impressive, complete with costumes, horses, a
catafalque, a procession, and all the gorgeous ritual language of the
time. At least 500 people stood in the coooold to watch it, and Roger
Mudd narrated a TV special for the History Channel capturing all the action.

Only two - You've missed out. I've been to Masonic funerals for
long term friends, and for Brothers I never met. I've been to Masonic
funerals with a couple of hundred brothers where several lodges ran
out of gloves and aprons to hand out, and to ones where it was only a
few of us and the Brother's immediate family. In either case the
family draws a great deal of solice from the proceedings.

[Torence]

Post by Janet Wintermute
Hindus worship many
gods/goddesses, but I don't *think* they view any one as "Supreme."
Very willing to hear more from a Hindu on that subject, however!!

Like the principle Prophets of the faiths of “The Book”, i.e. Moses,
Jesus, or Mohammed (Peace Be on them), Hindus have Krishna or Vishnu.
One would think that the world’s oldest continually practiced religion
would account that success to being the most preserved, rigid and
static. But Hinduism is all about change. By it, the entire universe
has changed many times and its fundamental teaching is that everything
that we are experiencing now will too decay and be altered.
The “Gods” are better described as Avatars with Krishna’s first
appearance being sea foam. In the tale a Great Monster kept the world
in chaos and could not be destroyed by any of the four elements, air,
fire, water or earth. Sea foam being none of those things was swept up
and used to destroy the dragon. A famous Avatar commonly found is the
Trimurti consisting of Shiva, Krishna and Brahma. Shiva being the
destroyer of worlds, Brahma the creator of new worlds, two forces kept
in check by Krishna. For many, the last incarnation of Krishna was
Buddha and this world is awaiting the final incarnation to affect the
next change.
As you know there are many sects in Hinduism with some giving
Krishna the weight of the Supreme Being rather than the weight of one
of His Prophets; and while to many in the West it all seems as storied
and confusing as the lessons taught those cultures by the Roman and
Greek Gods or Norse legends, this religion is very much alive with
many devoting their time here in this earth to understanding the
forces conceptually represented by these Avatars.
Because Hinduism isn’t Evangelical, IMHO, the many Hindus among us
are poorly understood. I do not know how it has been going in your
club, Janet , but in recent surveys of active members in whatever you
call my club, (by the way what do you call our side of this thing of
ours?) the general trend for this new generation of twentieth century
Masonry is to introduce more candidates from the professions, i.e.
medicine, law or education.
My bill paying job has been to work just about every incarnation of
retail and I have spent the last decade working for 7-Eleven. If you
want to glimpse my occupational world tune in to Oprah on Monday and
watch our CEO go to work on her new “reality” show “Undercover Boss.”
A perk of the business is that here in Chicago we are more diverse
than the United Nations. I assist the Franchise Owners in 432
locations in and around town and statistically 123 different countries
of origin are represented. We take the time to have great discussion
and I have also gone to church on occasion in the middle of the day
with some of their staff.
Why other folks do not avail themselves to get to know their
neighbors this way is beyond my comprehension.

Fraternally,
Torence Evans Ake
Secretary – Auburn Park Lodge No. 789 – Crete, Illinois
PM – Arcadia Lodge No. 1138 – Lansing, Illinois

[Torence]

A correction was sent to me by my Grand Master. The modern
interpretation is that we can and should do services in Illinois if
asked to do so for EAs and FCs.

Fraternally,
Torence Evans Ake
Secretary - Auburn Park Lodge No. 789 - Crete, Illinois
PM - Arcadia Lodge No. 1138 - Lasning, Illinois
=======
The following paragraph from your blog has been forwarded to me for
comment:

" In Illinois, a Masonic service is available only to members in good
standing. As EAs and FCs are not members of any particular lodge
until
they become MMs and sign the By-Laws, lodges cannot perform the
service for them."

Brother Ake,

Although the first sentence in your paragraph above is correct the
remainder is not.

For as long as I can remember, and certainly the most recent five Past
Grand Masters in Illinois, have determined that "in good standing"
includes all Entered Apprentice and Fellowcraft Masons as well as
Master Masons whenever Masonic Last Rites are requested - Code 274. I
concur with this interpretation.

And even the first sentence could be discussed further. If a family
asks for Masonic Last Rites to be conducted and within three days his
"standing" can not be determined it would be my opinion to err (?) on
the side of doing the service.

Common sense ought to apply.

Fraternally,

Richard Swaney
Grand Master
Illinois

[David Simpson]

[Default] On Sun, 31 Jan 2010 20:01:34 CST, Torence

Post by Torence
A correction was sent to me by my Grand Master. The modern
interpretation is that we can and should do services in Illinois if
asked to do so for EAs and FCs.
Fraternally,
Torence Evans Ake
Secretary - Auburn Park Lodge No. 789 - Crete, Illinois
PM - Arcadia Lodge No. 1138 - Lasning, Illinois
=======
The following paragraph from your blog has been forwarded to me for
" In Illinois, a Masonic service is available only to members in good
standing. As EAs and FCs are not members of any particular lodge
until
they become MMs and sign the By-Laws, lodges cannot perform the
service for them."
Brother Ake,
Although the first sentence in your paragraph above is correct the
remainder is not.
For as long as I can remember, and certainly the most recent five Past
Grand Masters in Illinois, have determined that "in good standing"
includes all Entered Apprentice and Fellowcraft Masons as well as
Master Masons whenever Masonic Last Rites are requested - Code 274. I
concur with this interpretation.
And even the first sentence could be discussed further. If a family
asks for Masonic Last Rites to be conducted and within three days his
"standing" can not be determined it would be my opinion to err (?) on
the side of doing the service.
Common sense ought to apply.
Fraternally,
Richard Swaney
Grand Master
Illinois

It is good to see some common sense for a change.

[Stuart H.]

Post by Torence
A correction was sent to me by my Grand Master. The modern
interpretation is that we can and should do services in Illinois if
asked to do so for EAs and FCs.
Fraternally,
Torence Evans Ake
Secretary - Auburn Park Lodge No. 789 - Crete, Illinois
PM - Arcadia Lodge No. 1138 - Lasning, Illinois
=======
The following paragraph from your blog has been forwarded to me for
" In Illinois, a Masonic service is available only to members in good
standing. As EAs and FCs are not members of any particular lodge
until
they become MMs and sign the By-Laws, lodges cannot perform the
service for them."
Brother Ake,
Although the first sentence in your paragraph above is correct the
remainder is not.
For as long as I can remember, and certainly the most recent five Past
Grand Masters in Illinois, have determined that "in good standing"
includes all Entered Apprentice and Fellowcraft Masons as well as
Master Masons whenever Masonic Last Rites are requested - Code 274. I
concur with this interpretation.
And even the first sentence could be discussed further. If a family
asks for Masonic Last Rites to be conducted and within three days his
"standing" can not be determined it would be my opinion to err (?) on
the side of doing the service.
Common sense ought to apply.
Fraternally,
Richard Swaney
Grand Master
Illinois

I am happy and impressed for our Brothers in Illinois!
Thank you Brother Ake for the update.

Fraternally,

Stuart H.
Baseline Lodge #198 AF & AM
Spruce Grove, Alberta

[Doug Freyburger]

Post by Torence
A correction was sent to me by my Grand Master. The modern
interpretation is that we can and should do services in Illinois if
asked to do so for EAs and FCs.
For as long as I can remember, and certainly the most recent five Past
Grand Masters in Illinois, have determined that "in good standing"
includes all Entered Apprentice and Fellowcraft Masons as well as
Master Masons whenever Masonic Last Rites are requested - Code 274. I
concur with this interpretation.

In some governments the court system sets precedent and that precedent
forms a type of law. Written constitutions then legislative law then
court case precedents then bureau regulations are the various layers
that determine seniority of laws and thus which one is in effect, sorta
and with exceptions.

In both of my my jurisdictions past and present rulings of the GM form a
type of precedent similar to the system of court case precedent. When
a question of interpretation comes up the current GM can issue a
ruling on how to interpret the situation. That interpretation is
binding until the annual communication when it's voted for
confirmation. Until confirmed and once confirmed that interpretation
is binding except a new GM can change it by edict.

The statement by our current WM GM is that there is existing precedent
in Illinois that EAs and FCs are in good standing and thus qualify for a
Masonic funeral. It's good to know and I'd like that fact to be better
known.

But Bro Torence is quite fastidious about studying the annual
Proceedings books. What we have here is a case where the sitting GM
thinks there's an existing precedent, so there is one by definition, and
where a brother doing careful study of the proceedings can not find
any evidence for such a precedent. Sounds to me like it's time for the
matter to appear in this year's legistation as a GM's decision for
confirmation. It's nice that it would be supporting material if Bro
Alan Schwarz submits his proposal to make EAs and FCs members (to
conform to worldwide standards among other reasons).

Post by Torence
And even the first sentence could be discussed further. If a family
asks for Masonic Last Rites to be conducted and within three days his
"standing" can not be determined it would be my opinion to err (?) on
the side of doing the service.

This is as I learned in California. Time is of the essence so err on
the side of generousity.

Post by Torence
Common sense ought to apply.

We can't have that! ;^) Letter of the law stuff is so we can debate
about stuff with resort to sectarian battles.

[Torence]

Post by Doug Freyburger
In some governments the court system sets precedent and that precedent
forms a type of law. Written constitutions then legislative law then
court case precedents then bureau regulations are the various layers
that determine seniority of laws and thus which one is in effect, sorta
and with exceptions.

The proper application for American Masonic jurisprudence which is
decidedly different than that experienced in Dominion or European
Masonic settings, is to weigh each of the sources for law that you
named, equally. But there are others which you do not cite; but have
for us, thankfully, an even more substantial and lasting influence.
Something of what you said can be stated of civil law, but with one
important difference, and which unfortunately, our Masonic
Constitutions lack. In the US, the Madison design was corrected by
George Mason. Whereas Madison and Jefferson saw that these three areas
of government checked one another, George Mason insisted upon and saw
to it that a Bill of Rights would be included before the design was
ratified so that our civil Constitution defined an individual’s
relationship to his government rather than simply represent a set of
rules for one department to work with another. I find it incongruous
that American Masonic Constitutions do not contain a Bill of Rights
for its members; and I think that we should go to work to build one
here in Illinois as soon as we can muster the energy to do so.

Post by Doug Freyburger
That interpretation is
binding until the annual communication when it's voted for
confirmation.

You are describing here, in my words, the 2% plan. For the
generation of Masons that has immediately preceded us; and for whom
“discipline” and “repetition” constituted virtues rather than, say,
humanity and creativity, a process whereby tyranny for 98% of the year
suited them. But how well has this modus operendi ever worked? Was it
ever reasonable to expect an annual 2% effort to produce a “balanced”
result to the law? I can point to more than my fair share of
alterations to our modern Illinois Book of Constitutions; but I do not
from these changes feel any better enfranchised. More has been
achieved in the last decade simply by raising vexatious questions and
letting the “Rightful” Grand Lodge go to work on them.

Post by Doug Freyburger
The statement by our current WM GM is that there is existing precedent
in Illinois that EAs and FCs are in good standing and thus qualify for a
Masonic funeral. It's good to know and I'd like that fact to be better
known.

That is where discourse in a semi-public setting such as this one
comes in handy, sorta-kinda like, oh. um. what do you call it, oh yeah
that 1st Amendment doo-hickey. Few of the Pst or Future Grand Masters
with whom I discuss such matters ever care for the responsibility of
holding the monopoly on usage. By hosting free forums, we have good
catalysts for renewal, growth, and those things that keep us Masons
and yet also will make our club into something more suitable for this
generation. While not a source of law, by it we can measure up an
invaluable resource for substantial law, i.e. the de facto source.

Post by Doug Freyburger
But Bro Torence is quite fastidious about studying the annual
Proceedings books.

Stare decisis, “look at the decisions.” Here is an example (Caveat
the topic is likely to offend the sensitive.)
Over a century ago, we removed, say ,the old Illinois Codes 80, 81
& 82 which specifically prohibited “Negroes and Mulattoes” from
joining our club; but we can not say that FreeMasonry in any
particular US State has been cured of this disease or even loosened
this old chain, while certain “de facto” conditions persist. However,
in order to graduate from the Neanderthal, would any of us American
FreeMasons accept abandoning our right to ballot secretly, or have
those particular votes counted equally with our peers in order to make
the change? I cannot think of anything more degrading for a
jurisdiction then to turn their Grand Master or any of his Officers
into Mercenaries. Let us not put on them that that which we should do
for ourselves.
What works for us best; and I know that I have stated this here many
times before, is to have a “Rightful” Grand Lodge, one consisting of
the sitting Masters and Wardens of the constituent lodges and no
others, be the primary and most heavily weighted source of law in our
jurisdictions. What an improvement it would be if we could agree to
accept our Masters and Wardens as the proper authority to resolve
situations like the touchy point that I brought up here. My intent
being to illustrate from what source any new and improved design
should be posted upon our trestle boards. To accomplish true growth
against this nagging and weak minded choice, we would only need then,
to elect Principle Officers who are color-blind.
And what a further improvement it would be, IMHO, if this little
club of ours was founded on Logic, rather than Geometry. But, W. Bro.
Doug, you have heard me complain of this condition before.

Fraternally,
Torence Evans Ake
Secretary – Auburn Park Lodge No. 789 – Crete, Illinois
PM – Arcadia Lodge No. 1138 – Lansing, Illinois

[Torence]

Post by Doug Freyburger
Wow. I'm flabbergasted that there would even be a battle over who gets
to do a funeral service in what order and if there has to be a body or
open casket at the service.

Brother Doug, I believe that you have enough experience in our
little club to recognize the mentality. The old prohibition on putting
our work in print form was designed to avoid that weakness in men,
especially that certain breed of Mason, who would puff themselves up
even to the point of abusing others quibbling over minutia. Or have
you forgotten our October discussion as to whether we employ
“investigating” or “interviewing” committees? :-)
Last night, I was conducting a school with our guys prepping them
for our DDGM’s official visit. Our WM announced that he was opening
“for business and the introduction of the RWDDGM.” The Grand Lecturer
who was assisting me got quite hung up over the fact that the book
does not state it that way; and that our WM was only allowed to open
his lodge “for business.”
Now, as I think the world of this GL; and am going through his CLI
school tonight, tomorrow night and Saturday, I would not and will not
argue the point with him. But guess what, when the time comes, our WM
will open his lodge for what ever Masonic business that he deems
prudent. IMHO, it is his right.

Post by Doug Freyburger
What are the family's wishes? What
arrangments did the Brother make before his death? What about a spirit
of cooperation among fraterneties in a case like a Legion post doing a
service in addition to us?

Those are twenty-first century values. When the prohibition against
ciphers was skirted and Grand Lodges began to publish Monitors, Books
of Ceremonials, and later Standard Work Books and Floor Manuals, which
were twenty-first innovations to Masonry, the mentality became drastic
that unless a lodge could do the work instruction by instruction, that
it should decline service to the Brother and his family. In the 1912
Illinois Manual under #5 “Mixed Processions.” The rule was that “A
Masonic Lodge should not take part in funeral services when conducted
by other organizations.”
So, a service like the one that we did with the Navy on Saturday,
then, would not have been allowed. I believe that such restrictions
still exist in places such as West Virginia; and dissatisfaction with
such anachronisms is fundamental to why most jurisdictions have lost
more than half their number in lodges and in memberships. They simply
went marching toe to toe and heel to heel right out of existence.

Post by Doug Freyburger
I repect his decision that it
was an issue of the spirit of the law for him to demit. Should his
spiritual crisis resolve itself back towards faith I'm sure he would be
welcomed back for the asking.

How can you be so sure? While those may be your thoughts, can you
guarantee that lurking in the heart of one of your peers is not some
doubt or self righteousness that would lead him to employ his ballot
to stop him? The better practice, IMHO, is that he stay among us, that
we need not abandon him while he works out the details of life and in
the hopes that someday T.G.A.O.T.U. will restore in him that essential
relationship. After all, He promised us that when two or three are
gathered together in His Name, He will be present. Don’t we owe it to
our Brother that room for him with such august company be always made?
The only way to guarantee it, then, is that he stay with us.

Post by Doug Freyburger
I'm not quite certain which ones are the Big Three. Christianity and
Islam are the two largest population faiths. Buddhism and Hindu are the
next two but I don't know which of them is larger. Maybe the term "Big
Four" would work better when discussing the large population world
religions.

Oy vey is meir. I have managed to offend half a world of believers.
I apologize.


Fraternally,
Torence Evans Ake
Secretary – Auburn Park Lodge No. 789 – Crete, Illinois
PM – Arcadia Lodge No. 1138 – Lansing, Illinois