Talk:Masonic Lodge Officers

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Freemasonry, a project to improve all Freemasonry-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Freemasonry-related articles, please join the project.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
Freemasonry To-do:


I started creating this article just after Christmas 2006, but ran out of steam. Another editor encouraged me to finish the work a couple of days ago - so here it is. I hope people will agree that it helps clarify things, and is better than the collection of small individual articles (most of which now redirect to here) and the rather messy 'officers' section of Masonic Lodge. Timothy Titus 20:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] British slant

I fully understand how this can occur, but the list has a distinct British slant. It leaves out some positions that are very common in the US (such as Senior and Junior Masters of Ceremony - who are in charge of preparing the candidates in the outer room, assist in escorting the candidates during the degree work, and escort potential cowains out of the room should they not have an apron or the password or something... amoung other duties). Even then, I doubt all 50 states do things the same. One way to deal with this would be to have several charts showing the officers common under several traditons, and then a fairly open text list to describe anyone we left out and what they do. Still... a good beginning. Blueboar 21:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

That may be true (I can't be certain as I'm also British!), but this article certainly includes all the offices that were listed on the old "officers" part of the Masonic Lodge article, including all the entries made by Americans. I think this new version by Timothy Titus is a big improvement. But yes, an American table could be added as well. JCDomm 22:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Well, in my jurisdiction (the emphasis is there on purpose), the SD and JD take the the MC work, so I think it might be better to chop the table down a bit, or add alternate titles here and there. Our lines work differently, too, as the Inside Sentinel comes below the JS and SS. I'm going to try something, and remove the table. Revert it if you think it;s bad. MSJapan 04:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
After doing the edit, let's not replace the table. I've done some heavy editing, such as removing "private", as I think it unnecessarily complicates matters, and removing a bunch of HTML breaks that we don't need. On another note, I know for sure we have a Grand Pursuivant, so I'll find out what he does (I don't know who he is, so I don't know what he does), and add it in, because I don't think he's the flag bearer. MSJapan 05:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

What about other office bearers like Jeweller and Bible Bearer, which also feature in craft lodges of the GL of Scotland? I feel that these should be mentioned. Additionally in Scottish Lodges it is Worshipful Senior Warden and Worshipful Junior Warden. Perhaps this should also be included also. Aquizard 23:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

These offices are probably unique to Scotland, but that's why section 3 exists "Other (less common) offices". Why don't you enter them there, assuming you know enough about the offices to write them up? Timothy Titus 02:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
I can see it now... rename article to "Regular Blue Lodge Masonic Officers", etc &/or list every rite & version of "Freemasonry's" officers too...;~D But yeah, maybe an italicized small line below office saying it's UK/USA/whatevs-centric?

[edit] Senior and Junior Masters of Ceremony

found mostly in US Lodges

[edit] Senior and Junior Masters of Ceremony

Not found in many/any UK Lodges

etc... Grye 02:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Marshal

Very common in US lodges (usually a "Line" office), not common in UK etc, etc, etc.

I really think we need to re-think how this article is organized .... We have to account for the huge variations that exist between different jurisdictions. Perhaps one section for "Elected Officers - common to all jurisdictions" (ie Worshipful Master, Wardens, Secretary and Treasurer... at least I assume these are common to all). Then a section on "Appointed Officers - common to all jurisdictions" (Deacons and Stewards?) And then final catch all section for "Other Officers - appointed in some jurisdictions but not in all" Blueboar 15:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New Organization

I have re-organized the sections and moved some of the offices around. I think this is correct, but if you notice any errors, please correct them. Essentially the structure is as follows:

  • Elected Officers - common to all jursidictions
Master, Wardens, Secretary, Treasurer
  • Appointed Officers - common to all jurisdictions
Deacons, Stewards, and Tyler
  • Appointed Officers - in some jurisdictions but not all
This contains almost everyone else
  • Other Officers
Things like Poet, or Historian that are rare.
  • Officers Unique to Grand Lodge

(do we really need this?)

Comments? Blueboar 16:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the revision. It doesn't appear to improve either clarity or the problems of different systems. In England the only elected officers are the Master, Treasurer and Tyler. This therefore puts both Wardens, the Secretary, and the Tyler into the 'wrong' category from an English perspective. Timothy Titus 03:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
It sounds like there is no logical way to organize this stuff... There are simply too many permutations and variations - too many different Masonic jurisdictions with different officers and different ways to organize them. Given that, I have to question whether we should actually HAVE an article on Lodge Officers. Blueboar 15:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] UGLE elections

No, the UGLE does not elect the wardens - they are appointed by the WM. Under UGLE bye-laws, the WM treasurer and tyler are elected, the rest of officers are appointed. It is generally expected, especially after reaching the wardens chair, that you will progress through the chair, but this is not writ in stone. Blueboar, I would revert to Baldricks Mum's version. --docboat 00:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Interesting... In most, if not all, US Jurisdictions the Master, Wardens, Treasurer and Secretary are all elected (as are, in most jurisdictions, a group of "Trustees" as required by tax law)... the Tyler is appointed (and often is not even a brother of the lodge, but a hired brother from another lodge). Different strokes. Blueboar 01:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
In Hong Kong we have 3 constitutions under one roof. As a member of 2 (English and Scottish) I see the differences immediately. In the Scottish constitution (not Scottish rite!) the officers are all elected. Usually we see the RWM and the senior officers voted for individually. After that is done, the rest are voted for en bloc. docboat 06:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
As we say in NY... Oy veh! If we start getting into every variation, this is going to end up as a very confusing article. As I see it, we have two options... 1) not talk about who is elected vs. appointed at all (with the possible exception of mentioning that the Master is always elected) or 2) Start with a strong caveat explaining that traditions over who is elected vs appointed will be different from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, but the most common variations are as follows... (etc.).
At this point, I am leaning towards the first option. Blueboar 12:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Ooooh ... yes please, option 1 sounds good. docboat 07:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
OK... I have cut the references to being elected vs. appointed for everyone except the Master (I do think it is important to mention that it is an elected position).

[edit] Pictures

First, I have no problem with having pictures in this article... but do the ones that are currently being added (pictures of the Chairs) really help explain or demonstrate what is being dicsucces? Does it really tell us anything about the officer to see a picture of an empty chair where that officer sits? On a related note... if we are going to add pictures of empty chairs... could we find better ones? In the picture of the Worshipful Master's chair, for example, the actual chair can barely be seen. Blueboar 22:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Given that no one has responded in over a month... I am going to delete the pictures. I just don't see what they add to the article. If you disagree... please do me the courtesy of explaining why you think they belong in the article. Blueboar (talk) 01:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
As I uploaded the pictures, and obviously thought they added to the article, perhaps you should have done me the courtesy of letting me know you planned to delete them. As no one responded to your message is it possible that no one agreed with you? Jack1956 (talk) 09:32, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Please don't get upset. I assumed you added them in good faith. Please assume I deleted them with equal good faith. People disagree about additions and deletions to articles all the time... The standard practice on Wikipedia is: edit, revert, discuss. So let's discuss...
Could you explain what you think the pictures add to the article? What does a picture of an empty chair tell about the officer who sits in that chair? If such pictures do add something to the article, why not include pictures of where all the other officers sit... why not include pictures of the Secretary's or Treasurer's desk, or the Junior Steward's chair?
I do understand that pictures can add something to an article... I just don't see what these pictures add to this article. As a suggestion, what about using pictures or drawings of each officers badge or emblem of office instead of their chairs... at least that would reflect something mentioned in the text. Blueboar (talk) 14:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

If it helps, I can arrange for the relevant officers, in their regalia, to sit in the chairs and photograph them again. My reason for adding the pictures as they were was because the chairs show the emblems of the respective Officers,and some of the objects connected with their Office in the Lodge, ie columns, ashlars, levels, plumb rules, etc. Jack1956 (talk) 14:45, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

OK... I understand your reasoning... and can even agree with what you were trying to do - as a concept. But that raises another issue about these particular pictures... it is nearly impossible to make out the details you wanted to show. Perhaps you are trying to show too much in one picture? If you went with a well framed close up of the emblems that might work better (I would have to see the end result... carvings in wood are hard to photograph well). That's why I suggested using a drawing of the emblems (square, level, plumb, crossed keys, cornocopia, etc.) instead. I know there are several websites that have such drawings under Free Licience for download. Blueboar (talk) 16:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Problem is, having seen the photos, are we going to see the people, or are we going to see the emblems? My thought is that the regalia itself is going to detract from what the pictures are supposed to show, and I personally don't believe that the chairs are that useful, especially since there's no standard of Lodge room design. Just something to consider. MSJapan (talk) 18:04, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
I really am not trying to be obstructionist here, my brothers. I very much approve of the idea of illustrating this article... just not the attempts that have been presented so far. Perhaps someone could take some nicely lit close up shots of the various jewels/emblems/aprons of office (if using the collars, focus on the jewel and place it against a dark background, so the details really stand out... and don't show it being worn by anyone, otherwise the eye is distracted by seeing a person and does not focus on the regalia). Alternatively we could use clip art type drawings. Blueboar (talk) 00:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sources for this article

We really need to find some sources for this article - at minimum internal documents like "Stations and Places", but preferably something external to Masonry. Without such sources the article risks being nominated for deletion for not meeting the criteria of WP:ORG. Blueboar (talk) 12:49, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] confused

How can "every lodge have a Chaplain, but this is not universal"? Either every Lodge has a Chaplain, in which case it is universal, or every Lodge does not have a Chaplain, in which case it is not universal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.3.197.249 (talk) 05:13, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I think there is a missing phrase that got dropped somewhere along the way. I think the section used to say "every lodge has a Chaplain, often a clergyman but this is not universal" (or something like that). However, I am not sure if that is correct. It may vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Certainly if a given jurisdiction calls for having Chaplains, then every lodge within that jurisdiction will have one. Indeed MOST jurisdictions require the lodges to have Chaplains... but a few might not. I have reworded a bit, so hopefully the situation is clearer. Blueboar (talk) 13:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Senior Warden

An IP editor keeps adding the following to the section on the SW: "He cannot, however, act as the master of lodge while open, unless he is a past master and has been asked by the master to do so." I suspect that this may be a Jurisdictional thing, but I know for sure that under GLoNY the exact opposite is true ... the SW automatically becomes "Acting Master of the Lodge" in the absence of the Worshipful Master, and has full authority to open the lodge, conduct business, confer degrees, etc. (The same is true for the JW if both the SW and the WM are absent). Blueboar (talk) 12:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll look into it, but I can't imagine that it's jurisdictional in nature. MSJapan (talk) 17:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
So under GLMA the SW presides in the Master's absence as well? I was not sure.
It seems to be a UK vs US difference (see the IP editor's most recent edit). Or perhaps it is a miscommunication as to what "acting as Worshipful Master" means. Blueboar (talk) 18:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, if you think about it, if the SW and JW succession was not in place, the absence of the Master would cause a violation of GL bylaws and revocation of charter, as the Lodge could not hold its stated communication as required. Furthermore, this duty is stated in the installation of the officers as well. I can actually find out what the UK ruling is and see if that really is the case, though I'd lean towards a misunderstanding someplace.
Additionally, even though I could go look first, do we have anything in the article regarding bylaws and charters? Those are pretty fundamental as far as Lodge governance is concerned. MSJapan (talk) 19:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Under UGLE, in the event of the WM not being present the IPM takes the chair, followed by any subscribing PM present, only when you've run out of PMs does the SW take the chair. It's not prevented, but it's unlikely.
Similarly in GLoS although in the first instance the Substitute Master would take the chair.
ALR (talk) 08:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Emblems/Jewels of Office

Given that different jurisdictions seem to use different emblems for the same office (for example, the Deacons have doves in the UK while they have a S&C with either sun or moon in the US), do we really need to mention them? I am wondering if we just confuse our readers by going into all the differences.

Purely as a point of interest while we are on the subject of Jewels (and not to go into the article)... I took a look at the Officers' Jewels used in my lodge... while the Deacons' staffs have the traditional US emblems on top (A S&C with a blazing sun for the SD and with a crescent moon for the JD)... the jewels that hang on large collars around their necks are different... the SD has what looks like a pick axe, and the JD has what looks like a sledge hammer. The lodge is quite old by US standards (founded 1787) ... and our regalia seems to date from at least the mid-Victorian era ... so these may be archaic emblems. Just wondering if anyone knows something about this? Blueboar (talk) 19:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

First of all, I concur that we should not go into emblems unless there's a generic way to do it - not only do they differ lodge ot lodge, but the GL equivalents aren't always the same either (for example, our GL's JD jewel is a dove, despite it being a US jurisdiction). However (and this may answer your question as well as solve issue number one), I've got a QCCC book on regalia that might help, and might in fact be a good generic resource for emblems. I'll peruse it at some point eithin the next few weeks. MSJapan (talk) 19:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)