Don't know the specific background or events that led to this decision, but I can attest that this kind of struggle between GMs and online Masons has been going on for at least a quarter century now. On the one hand, there are brethren who believe it's their emphatic, GAOTU-given right to unfettered free-speech, no matter what. On the other hand, when do the privacy rights prevail for our fellow Freemasons – to whom we are obligated to "whisper good counsel in his ear, and in the most tender manner possible, remind him of his faults, aid in his reformation, and ward off all approaching danger" – if we as individuals think their privacy violates our own free speech?
As Masons, like it or not, grand masters do get to swing their weight around and make those decisions for us at times. But then the question arises: is a grand master – acting from a position of responsibility and authority on behalf of his members – entitled to those self-same privacy rights? After all, we are all ultimately taught to respect the men we elevate to officer positions and to abide by their decisions, until such time as the next grand lodge meeting in which his actions, rulings, decisions, and edicts are reviewed and approved by us. And a GM is generally the ultimate authority in all matters of Masonic jurisprudence until such a review occurs.
As Masons, like it or not, grand masters do get to swing their weight around and make those decisions for us at times. But then the question arises: is a grand master – acting from a position of responsibility and authority on behalf of his members – entitled to those self-same privacy rights? After all, we are all ultimately taught to respect the men we elevate to officer positions and to abide by their decisions, until such time as the next grand lodge meeting in which his actions, rulings, decisions, and edicts are reviewed and approved by us. And a GM is generally the ultimate authority in all matters of Masonic jurisprudence until such a review occurs.
Then comes the third question: can a GM's decision or action be hidden from the membership by a misguided or improperly abused demand for 'secrecy'? We've all seen damage done to individual Masons or lodges when a GM yanks dues cards or charters, destroying decades of Masonic careers or years of lodge rebuilding. Reviewing his actions 11 months later doesn't undo the damage.
I'm sure this seems comically ironic on this website that has at times shared not exactly flattering Masonic stories online. Or possibly just plain hypocritical. In my own case, I hold myself solely responsible for selectively deciding stories to report or withhold here. It's my own little fiefdom here, and if I wind up suffering another suspension penalty at some point in my future, I'll lick my wounds and take a bit of time on a beach to contemplate my virtues, my sins, and my place in the Cosmos. All I can say in defense of my own mercurial role as occasional public tattler of injustices is that I follow the Justice Potter theory of decision justification: "I know it when I see it."
I'm sure this seems comically ironic on this website that has at times shared not exactly flattering Masonic stories online. Or possibly just plain hypocritical. In my own case, I hold myself solely responsible for selectively deciding stories to report or withhold here. It's my own little fiefdom here, and if I wind up suffering another suspension penalty at some point in my future, I'll lick my wounds and take a bit of time on a beach to contemplate my virtues, my sins, and my place in the Cosmos. All I can say in defense of my own mercurial role as occasional public tattler of injustices is that I follow the Justice Potter theory of decision justification: "I know it when I see it."
At least a decade or so ago, I somehow got handed the keys to a new "Iowa Freemasonry" Facebook page as a moderator. This was likely because I had a VP of Content role in Big Media at a publicly traded company, so I must know a thing or two. While not an "official" outlet of the Grand Lodge, the Page was nonetheless intended as an experiment in reaching out to guys in those heady earlyish days of social media. I posted all kinds of stuff. Not original content, because who has time for that except Chris? Mostly reposts of national news articles and other long form content that had something or anything to do with Freemasonry. This Freemasonry for Dummies blog was likely linked quite a bit because no other outlet does what Chris does for our Craft on such a regular and consistent basis. Somewhere along the line I must have re-posted something from a national source that possibly cast light on some unsavory doings, which as a media guy is OF COURSE what you look for to draw eyeballs. What it actually drew was a personal phone call from the GMOM himself, calling from within the Grand Secretary's office, and who proceeded to LIGHT ME UP over the post. He strongly suggested I remove it, and questioned just what the heck I was thinking. Of course I took whatever it was down immediately. I grumbled about it and thought the whole thing was short sighted, but over time I have learned to appreciate where he was coming from and how his old-school perspective was entirely different than mine. I now consider him a friend and a mentor. I now recall fondly what it was like to get my butt chewed by a sitting Grand Master and to live to tell the tale. But I also immediately appreciated that the GMOM handled it personally, and directly, and immediately, and not by a letter invoking an edict or a legalistic interpretation of the Code, or some more mysterious transgression of a dreaded Unwritten Rule. I learned something that day, that we both cared about the same thing, we just came at it differently. Perhaps we are lucky in Iowa that we are small enough to know each other and to talk about things instead of trying to legislate behavior. Either way, it seems there is much more to this particular Florida story than can appear here today. Hopefully everyone is now on notice to "behave" and that is the end of it. While hope is not a strategy, here's to hoping anyway.
ReplyDelete