Exclusive Territorial Jurisdiction
What are the fruits of this Common Masonic Law?
In a Volume of Sacred Law we read:
“…every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Therefore by their fruits you will know them.”
-Matthew 7: 17-20
The concept of “Exclusive Territorial Jurisdiction” is held by M.W. Roscoe Pound in the book Grand Lodge Recognition,1 to be a Common Law of Masonry.
A Common Law instituted and observed in order to prevent disharmony and ill feelings between Grand Lodges. But M.W. Pound makes it very clear that this doctrine is not a Landmark of Masonry. As such, it is subject to change, if future Masons see wisdom in doing so.
Last week saw the Most Worshipful Prince Hall Grand Lodge of South Carolina in the news, and I was again reminded that my own Grand Lodge (and all other so called mainstream Grand Lodges in the United States) is precluded from recognizing the MWPHGL of South Carolina because of this Common Law.
Likewise with three other legitimate Prince Hall Grand Lodges in the United States.
Undoubtedly, the doctrine of Exclusive Territorial Jurisdiction has achieved its goal of preserving harmony between the Grand Lodges of the world. Things would be mighty rough if the Grand Lodges of Oregon, Idaho, and British Columbia & The Yukon were all here in Washington, setting up Lodges in competition to our own.
But as with most things in life, the good is tinged with bad. It is undoubtedly bad that my Grand Lodge can not recognize these four clearly legitimate Grand Lodges. And that goes against what I believe to be the overwhelming majority opinion of the Masons in my Jurisdiction.
I have pondered this situation for quite literally years now. I’ve discussed it with many Brothers, Past Grand Masters, and sitting Grand Masters from inside and outside of my Jurisdiction.
But I’ve not come up with an answer.
I’ve not figured out a way of preserving harmony by preventing invasion of Jurisdiction while at the same time making recognition non-dependent upon a Grand Lodge being willing to officially share territory.
I can only hope that those who come after me can solve this problem for the good of all.
All the good stuff from last week:
Published by The Commission On Information For Recognition of the Conference Of Grand Masters Of Masons In North America in 1956, and still utilized today.
MW, you and I have touched on this before so you know where I stand. In the most friendly manner I'll say that it's totally messed up (there's another term that's a lot less friendly) that we recognize a Grand Lodge that perpetrates a racist tradition. By going along to get along we're aiding and abetting the preservation of that racist tradition. Some might say that's not Masonic.
Some traditions serve a purpose, and some are repulsive. This one is in the latter category.
What's keeping the Most Worshipful Grand Lodge of Washington from terminating recognition of any Grand Lodge that refuses to recognize Prince Hall Grand Lodges? And while we're at it, let's stop recognizing any Grand Lodge that expels Brothers found to be gay. Seems to me that the outcome will be that a few more Grand Masters from Prince Hall will show up at our Annual Communication to thank and congratulate our Grand Master and we'll lose a few visits by Grand Masters from bigoted jurisdictions. That would be a step in the right direction.
I approve of the current policy of "recognizing" other Grand Masonic Lodges. I heard that when the State of Washington first "gave recognition" to Prince Hall Masonic Grand Lodge, several State Grand Lodge dropped "recognition" of WA State Grand Lodge. Shame on those other States who dropped "recognition" of WA State Grand Masonic Lodge!