Paul, you were telling John:

<<<< "Dress code" may be only one small facet, but it is a facet nevertheless.
It deserves to be considered, in the same way that we might consider
catechisms, or Lodge programs, or basic courtesy to visitors, or length of
State Communications, or frequency of outside-of-Lodge activities (both family
and "members only"), or Masonic education, etc., etc., etc.  The list is
enormous.

     I also happen to believe that the trend of slow decline in Lodges in
particular and Freemasonry in general will never be reversed until a full-
scale "attack" on *all* the problems, whether considered "real" or merely
"perceived", is undertaken at the Lodge level (and since "perception" may
actually represent "reality" in the mind of the "perceiver", we cannot brush
off things which don't particularly bother us and perhaps even seem
inconsequential).  We must attack the problems of Freemasonry simultaneously
and "across the board," in the same way that a physician might attack a case
of rabies in a person.  People have survived rabies, but only when the doctors
recognized attacked all of the problem areas, not just the one or two which
seemed to be most visible.  I think that's how we should "attack" the problems
in a Lodge.

     Does this mean that there is an "answer" or a "solution" to every
problem?  There may not always be a solution, but there is definitely always
an answer.  Regarding the manner of dress, if a Brother questions the need for
more formal attire, the Lodge officers must be prepared to address that in a
"most friendly manner" and with a good answer.  Mind you, the Brother may not
*agree* with the answer, but he deserves an explanation.  The same is true for
every other issue.  The worst mistake (and the one we're most guilty of) is
that we simply ignore some problems until too late, and some we never address
at all. >>>>>>

   This gives me a perfect lead into what I have been pushing (without
success) for years.  I hope my thoughts are taken without argument
from the readers of this list.

   We all know that Masonry as is practiced today in Virginia (and the
USA, Webb Ritual) is out of step with the rest of the world.

   Especially, after reading the new book that was sold at Grand Lodge
this year, The History of the Grand Lodge of Virginia, I am more than
convinced that our problem is within. What is American Masonry other
than 'Opening, minutes , scanty business, closing with the same
monotonous ritual, then Coffee, cake Etc.' Sure the brothers are
exposed to our principal tenants 'Friendship, Morality and Brotherly
Love' and they take their obligations seriously, and are very moral
men. All well and good, but something vital is missing. The quest for
further learning is mainly learning more ritual in the upper
degrees.  Again all well and good for those who have an actors bent.
I feel that the adoption of the Webb in 1815 was, in its time, good, but
not in today's world. The way that our Grand Lodges have grown to today's
legal conundrum IS the problem that we face today.

   If you read the Constitutions of Freemasonry, you will see a clause
in Chapter II, Section 1, Item 8 " As every Lodge has a right to keep
itself an entire body, they ought never to interfere in the business
of another Lodge". This begs a question. What do you call it when
those who are voting for changes that effect all lodges, demand that
THEIR opinion be forced upon you and your lodge?  These zealots make
it impossible for a forward thinking lodge to forge ahead and adopt
methods that have proven positive in both membership growth and
knowledge. There Lodges in other countries that are growing 10% or more
a year and have an attendance of better than 80% of their membership.
These Lodges conduct business on the EA, EAs and FCs stay in their
rank for a year or more each and present an original paper before
advancing. There are NO catechisms to be learned, and the opening and
closing is about 1 minute, and business is done by a committee.
(who will fight this harder that the SR and Shrine)

   Furthermore. it is my opinion that the paragraph around the word
clandestint is not in agreement with the constitutions of Freemasonry.
It was added in the 1800s to prevent their Brethren from fraternal
relations with was then perceived to be an undesirable race.

I could go further, but it might just dig my hole deeper. <VBG>

(Remember, The Catholic Church did not forgive Galilio on their charge
of heresy until after WWII, and he only claimed the world was round)


Preston Burner  PM, MPS
Concord 307, Vienna  VA
A.D.Smith  LOR

