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.
My most serious regret from my time as Grand Master was that I was not able to figure out a solution to this that would stick. But I have not given up hope that it will be figured out.
WB Bailey. I am curious how we can claim to follow the charge given to us at the end of the first degree, while simultaneously permitting the circumstances outlined by Brother Gebhart.
How do we as Masons carry out our obligations and ensure this sacred tradition is not in violation to the very tenets it stands upon?
I am hopeful we can learn from history, rather than continue to repeat it.
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!
It is true, the Grand Lodge of Washington was the first Grand Lodge in the United States to recognize Prince Hall Masonry as legitimate. That was a very long time ago under Grand Master Upton.
And promptly upon that recognition, the Grand Lodge of Washington was deemed irregular by a huge number of Grand Lodges. (I am assured that our Brothers to our north in BC&Y stood by us.)
We held out for a time, but eventually bowed to pressure.
And it took around a century for us to be able to recognize Prince Hall Masonry and have it actually stick.
GM Upton declared that upon his death he wanted no tombstone until it could be laid by the Brothers of both Jurisdictions. That eventually did happen, I saw a video of the ceremony once.
An interesting thing is to read the Proceedings of other Grand Lodges when we did that. They are filled with the most vile vitriol imaginable as hate and shade was thrown our way.
The author of Black Square and Compass suggests territorial exclusivity was just another excuse, as it was in fact necessary given our failings as mainstream Masons.
The Grand Lodge of Japan is in amity with four other Grand Lodges operating in Japan. And recently New York recognizes more than one jurisdiction in one of the provinces of Brasil ( or was it Mexico, I forget). Especially in colonial times (globally), it was expected to have Lodges from English, Scottish, and other jurisdictions in the same territories.
That's why I reject the notion of exclusivity except by mutual agreement, rather than consider mutual agreements the exception to be made for non-exclusivity.
There is no real difference between Japan as a country having 4 different grand lodges, here in the USA we have 50. In Japan I am sure they are divided by lines on a map just like ours.
I've been led to believe that part of the issue in at least a few southern states is that the desire to not recognize each other goes both ways. That does complicate things, if that is the case.
EDIT: Even here in Washington, the Grand Lodge of Prince Hall masons don't allow plural memberships, thus, The members of the Grand Lodge of Washington and the Prince Hall Lodges can't join each other's lodges. One PH lodge here had to make a local GLofW member an honorary member, to get around that issue. Not sure the reasoning behind the PHs restrictions for that.
It is my understanding that the MWPHGL of Washington and Jurisdiction doesn't allow plural memberships period. You can only belong to one single Lodge. When I got to know my counterpart GM, I noticed that he had been a member of and demitted from a number of Lodges as he had moved around in the Jurisdiction. That struck me as I've maintained my old memberships as I've moved. Someone explained to me that his GL doesn't allow that. One Lodge per man.
In Puerto Vallarta, Mexico two Lodges share a single building. Puerto Vallarta Lodge and Liberty, Fraternity, and Equality Lodge. Both of those Lodges are from different Jurisdictions. One from the York Grand Lodge of Mexico, one from the Western Mexico Grand Lodge (I'm translating things here for clarity.) One works using the Preston-Webb Standard Work, the same as ours almost word for word, the other works using a Scottish Rite Craft Ritual received from Louisiana long ago. The Grand Lodge of Washington Recognizes both.
Regarding Japan, that is not correct. These Grand Lodges operate across ALL of Japan, which is NOT divided into states or provinces. Only a few nations, such as the Unites States, Australia, Canada, Mexico, and Brazil, have multiple geographically divided jurisdictions.
Since I have a fairly public job, but I'm really open about being a Mason, I often get questions about Freemasonry from non-Masons.
One of the things people seem to have a really hard time understanding is the fact that we are divided by States, but have no overarching national body.
So, I explain that while today what we call States are effectively Provinces of a country called the United States, in the early days of Masonry the States that made up the United States were actually their own little countries, joined together in a loose confederation. We have State Grand Lodges because our States (at least the early ones) were in fact countries, and we do not have a national Grand Lodge because our Country was in fact nothing more than a confederation.
But, this goes back to the fact that we don't really teach anything about our government prior to the signing of the Constitution and George Washington assuming the Presidency. We forget all of the men who acted as and held the title President of the United States prior to Washington.
Switching gears here, Mexico is an interesting case.
It does, as you mention, have State Grand Lodges as we do here. Western Mexico that I mentioned earlier is for example the Grand Lodge for the State of Jalisco.
But Mexico also has two Grand Lodges with a nationwide scope. One of which all or really close to all US Grand Lodges Recognize, and one which no or really close to no US Grand Lodges Recognize.
The older I get, the less impressed I am with the “invading foreign grand lodge” argument. Here in New York City, it is hardly a secret that the Grand Orient of France, for example, has a lodge here. French citizens in NYC on business, in the diplomatic corps, pursuing education, or just traveling have a lodge. I can’t imagine it costs the GLNY anything.
I think we are going to have to eventually change the way we look at recognition. We are still functioning by arbitrary rules set a century or more ago. Grand Lodge relationships, even the way Grand Lodges function will need to be brought into the modern world at some point.
Do you think we'll see Grand Lodges consolidate in the US?
I rather envisioned a time when Lodges might go off on their own, particularly really successful ones that might feel their GL to be hampering their ability to thrive. But, I rather figured that the GL's themselves would hang on until the last man. Their financial resources allowing them to theoretically continue forever.
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.
My most serious regret from my time as Grand Master was that I was not able to figure out a solution to this that would stick. But I have not given up hope that it will be figured out.
WB Bailey. I am curious how we can claim to follow the charge given to us at the end of the first degree, while simultaneously permitting the circumstances outlined by Brother Gebhart.
How do we as Masons carry out our obligations and ensure this sacred tradition is not in violation to the very tenets it stands upon?
I am hopeful we can learn from history, rather than continue to repeat it.
Indeed my Brother, it is a serious failing.
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!
It is true, the Grand Lodge of Washington was the first Grand Lodge in the United States to recognize Prince Hall Masonry as legitimate. That was a very long time ago under Grand Master Upton.
And promptly upon that recognition, the Grand Lodge of Washington was deemed irregular by a huge number of Grand Lodges. (I am assured that our Brothers to our north in BC&Y stood by us.)
We held out for a time, but eventually bowed to pressure.
And it took around a century for us to be able to recognize Prince Hall Masonry and have it actually stick.
GM Upton declared that upon his death he wanted no tombstone until it could be laid by the Brothers of both Jurisdictions. That eventually did happen, I saw a video of the ceremony once.
An interesting thing is to read the Proceedings of other Grand Lodges when we did that. They are filled with the most vile vitriol imaginable as hate and shade was thrown our way.
The author of Black Square and Compass suggests territorial exclusivity was just another excuse, as it was in fact necessary given our failings as mainstream Masons.
The Grand Lodge of Japan is in amity with four other Grand Lodges operating in Japan. And recently New York recognizes more than one jurisdiction in one of the provinces of Brasil ( or was it Mexico, I forget). Especially in colonial times (globally), it was expected to have Lodges from English, Scottish, and other jurisdictions in the same territories.
That's why I reject the notion of exclusivity except by mutual agreement, rather than consider mutual agreements the exception to be made for non-exclusivity.
There is no real difference between Japan as a country having 4 different grand lodges, here in the USA we have 50. In Japan I am sure they are divided by lines on a map just like ours.
I've been led to believe that part of the issue in at least a few southern states is that the desire to not recognize each other goes both ways. That does complicate things, if that is the case.
EDIT: Even here in Washington, the Grand Lodge of Prince Hall masons don't allow plural memberships, thus, The members of the Grand Lodge of Washington and the Prince Hall Lodges can't join each other's lodges. One PH lodge here had to make a local GLofW member an honorary member, to get around that issue. Not sure the reasoning behind the PHs restrictions for that.
I believe that I can shed some light on this:
It is my understanding that the MWPHGL of Washington and Jurisdiction doesn't allow plural memberships period. You can only belong to one single Lodge. When I got to know my counterpart GM, I noticed that he had been a member of and demitted from a number of Lodges as he had moved around in the Jurisdiction. That struck me as I've maintained my old memberships as I've moved. Someone explained to me that his GL doesn't allow that. One Lodge per man.
In Puerto Vallarta, Mexico two Lodges share a single building. Puerto Vallarta Lodge and Liberty, Fraternity, and Equality Lodge. Both of those Lodges are from different Jurisdictions. One from the York Grand Lodge of Mexico, one from the Western Mexico Grand Lodge (I'm translating things here for clarity.) One works using the Preston-Webb Standard Work, the same as ours almost word for word, the other works using a Scottish Rite Craft Ritual received from Louisiana long ago. The Grand Lodge of Washington Recognizes both.
So we can figure out a way to share territory.
Regarding Japan, that is not correct. These Grand Lodges operate across ALL of Japan, which is NOT divided into states or provinces. Only a few nations, such as the Unites States, Australia, Canada, Mexico, and Brazil, have multiple geographically divided jurisdictions.
Since I have a fairly public job, but I'm really open about being a Mason, I often get questions about Freemasonry from non-Masons.
One of the things people seem to have a really hard time understanding is the fact that we are divided by States, but have no overarching national body.
So, I explain that while today what we call States are effectively Provinces of a country called the United States, in the early days of Masonry the States that made up the United States were actually their own little countries, joined together in a loose confederation. We have State Grand Lodges because our States (at least the early ones) were in fact countries, and we do not have a national Grand Lodge because our Country was in fact nothing more than a confederation.
But, this goes back to the fact that we don't really teach anything about our government prior to the signing of the Constitution and George Washington assuming the Presidency. We forget all of the men who acted as and held the title President of the United States prior to Washington.
Switching gears here, Mexico is an interesting case.
It does, as you mention, have State Grand Lodges as we do here. Western Mexico that I mentioned earlier is for example the Grand Lodge for the State of Jalisco.
But Mexico also has two Grand Lodges with a nationwide scope. One of which all or really close to all US Grand Lodges Recognize, and one which no or really close to no US Grand Lodges Recognize.
I wasn't aware of Black Square and Compass. Thank you for mentioning it. I see that it is published by Macoy, I'll pick up a copy.
We do need to find a solution. The fruit of the tree is not good.
A copy was loaned to be my Prince Hall mentor and friend, RW/ Kermit Petty. It is the seminal work on the subject.
Thanks!
The older I get, the less impressed I am with the “invading foreign grand lodge” argument. Here in New York City, it is hardly a secret that the Grand Orient of France, for example, has a lodge here. French citizens in NYC on business, in the diplomatic corps, pursuing education, or just traveling have a lodge. I can’t imagine it costs the GLNY anything.
Jay
I think we are going to have to eventually change the way we look at recognition. We are still functioning by arbitrary rules set a century or more ago. Grand Lodge relationships, even the way Grand Lodges function will need to be brought into the modern world at some point.
We are approaching the point when grand lodges will become fewer in number, which will simplify a number of things.
Do you think we'll see Grand Lodges consolidate in the US?
I rather envisioned a time when Lodges might go off on their own, particularly really successful ones that might feel their GL to be hampering their ability to thrive. But, I rather figured that the GL's themselves would hang on until the last man. Their financial resources allowing them to theoretically continue forever.