OK, so we know what Tennessee stands for. What does the Grand Lodge of Washington stand for if it continues to recognize the Grand Lodge of Tennessee? Unless the Tennessee Masons (and I use the term "Masons" loosely in this case) get a clear and unequivocal message of disapproval they have every right to believe that what they're doing is OK
I am explicitly going to avoid making a personal statement for or against what these foriegn Grand Lodges do or support, or what I believe our Grand Jurisdiction should do or support. I prefer to have that conversation in person, not via social media.
That said, in response to your question(s) and statements, if you feel strongly that the MWGL of Wash. should withdraw recognition of another Grand Lodge (for whatever reason), a simple avenue is available to you to comence that action; namely, the Grand Lodge resolution process. Draft a resolution, according to process set forth in the Washington Masonic Code, and submit it to the Grand Secretary. And voila, you've started the process to withdraw recognition. If the resolution is in proper form, as determined by the Code Commission, it will be "evaluated" by the Committee on Jurisprudence as to the Masonic legality and wisdom of said proposal, and will then be published to all Lodges for their consideration at the annual Grand Lodge communication. It really is just that simple.
Even if there "defects" in the form or reasoning of the proposal, these Committees will, within reason, assist the submitting Lodge to correct those so that the resolution may have the opportunity to receive Consideration by the deliberative body of Grand Lodge.
So, don't stand by and do nothing if you feel strongly that the Grand Lodge should (or should not) take some particular action. Let your voice and your heart be heard.
May 23, 2022·edited May 23, 2022Liked by Cameron M. Bailey
Brother Mark, I'm familiar with the process. And I'm sure you're familiar with what happens when a properly submitted resolution makes its way to the floor. Three up, three down, arguments about the fact that we've never done it that way before, tradition, yada yada yada. With a strong tail wind maybe, and only maybe, the resolution is carried over to next year. And what do we do if the Grand Master of Tennessee is invited that year to join the parade of visiting Grand Masters who have come all this way to say thank you and congratulations to our outgoing Grand Master?
This situation does not call for a code revision. It calls for leadership. I'm pretty sure that someplace in our bloated bloated WMC there's something that says a Grand Master can simply make it so.
I'll never be Grand Master, but if I am that will be my first action.
I agree, the GM making it so would be the most elegant and easiest path forward.
I will tell you that I have considered this in great detail. On both the 'recognition' side, and the 'unrecognition' side. Action could be taken either direction.
I have discussed the GM taking unilateral action on this with our Jurisprudence Committee, in great detail, over the past year. As a result of those discussions, I am not confident that I have the power under our WMC to simply 'make it so' through unilateral action.
If I was confident that I could do so, and that the decision would 'stick' I would have done so this year regarding Prince Hall Recognition in those few States where it does not exist.
I believe however, after very significant debate, that it needs to be voted on by the body as a whole at an Annual Communication.
Assuming that we approve our Fraternal Correspondent's Report at the Annual Communication, we will be making good progress on recognition this year.
Additionally, it is my intention to continue working on this issue after my term as GM ends. We will get where we need to be, but we are, I think, going to need to use the Lodge resolution process in order to do so. We will have to lobby all of those around us in order to see it pass. I remain committed to continue doing all that I can on this issue moving forward, and to continue raising the issue until we get where we need to be.
I think VW John Gebhart makes a valid point. Why do we continue to recognize jurisdictions that insist in maintaining code provisions based on narrow sectarian and/or political beliefs that are unequally applied and inconsistent with the values of our society at large? What are the arguments for continued recognition and amity? For myself, I’m personally disinclined from visiting Lodges in those jurisdictions (Tennessee, Georgia) even if we are currently officially in amity.
It's also quite interesting how Tennessee was such a huge part of the expansion of freemasonry in the United States, issuing charters to other states at a rapid pace. Even Washington State can trace it's masonic roots back to Tennessee.
As others have said, discriminating based on antiquated immoral beliefs, along with the color of someone's skin should not be part of any masonic lodge. What is even more surprising to me is how this rule was instituted only 35 years ago, and not some old garbage from the 1800s, or that it still remains to this day codified within their laws in spite of repeated attempts to repeal it.
I also ask, why hasn't our grand jurisdiction broken off relations with states like that? Publishing a strongly worded letter doesn't do anything except absolve us, much like Pontius Pilate, of the sins of others.
I agree with the opinions expressed by others here. I know that the GL of California revoked their amity with these Grand Jurisdictions over these points and when my own GL of Oregon did nothing in response, it was felt. Inaction, can be it’s own form of action. Then again, I believe it took my jurisdiction till the 1990s to recognize Prince Hall Masons, so it’s hard to wag the finger at others.
My brother that I helped through the degrees was stuck at FC at the start of the pandemic and has since moved to Nashville. He will come back to Oregon to finish his MM as he refuses to be in a Tennessee lodge. Understandably so.
This topic reminds me of a question I posed a few years back regarding the issue of transexuals. The story I posed was, you a the Tyler and a woman walks in who you don't know and asks to be admitted into the lodge stated meeting. You responds stating that it is for male members only. The woman responds that she is a Past Master of this lodge and point to the photo on the wall of a past master and says that is her when she was a man but she went through the transgender surgery and is now a woman. But she also shows you her current life membership card for this lodge. There are no letters of explusion on file. Do you admit her?
It saddens me that our Fraternity, in any jurisdiction, would do such a thing. What would we be today if our English fraternal ancestors had taken a similar position on Royalist or Parlamentrian? Christian versus other religons? You'd think the historically recent shame or institutional racial prejudice would better inform our brethren. Once again, the West Gate seems wide open, in my opinion. As a Mason, i my instinct is to reach out to Brethren in these jusirdictions and offer fraternal comfort, and invite them to affiliate here, so they are not removed from the bidy of Masonry.
How about the MWGLWA announces that we no longer recognize GL of Tennessee, and in the same announcement we make it clear that we'll make whatever time is necessary to have a civil conversation with them about it. People change when the status quo is no longer comfortable, and unless the GL of Tennessee is uncomfortable with its stance then no amount of time or civil conversation will lead to a change.
I assume all nasons must pledge an oath to the Grand Lodge wherein they reside.. The oath must pledge allegiance to God and governance to state he lives. We should not impose our morality on another jurisdiction, but we should be exemplar and expose the difference
OK, so we know what Tennessee stands for. What does the Grand Lodge of Washington stand for if it continues to recognize the Grand Lodge of Tennessee? Unless the Tennessee Masons (and I use the term "Masons" loosely in this case) get a clear and unequivocal message of disapproval they have every right to believe that what they're doing is OK
I am explicitly going to avoid making a personal statement for or against what these foriegn Grand Lodges do or support, or what I believe our Grand Jurisdiction should do or support. I prefer to have that conversation in person, not via social media.
That said, in response to your question(s) and statements, if you feel strongly that the MWGL of Wash. should withdraw recognition of another Grand Lodge (for whatever reason), a simple avenue is available to you to comence that action; namely, the Grand Lodge resolution process. Draft a resolution, according to process set forth in the Washington Masonic Code, and submit it to the Grand Secretary. And voila, you've started the process to withdraw recognition. If the resolution is in proper form, as determined by the Code Commission, it will be "evaluated" by the Committee on Jurisprudence as to the Masonic legality and wisdom of said proposal, and will then be published to all Lodges for their consideration at the annual Grand Lodge communication. It really is just that simple.
Even if there "defects" in the form or reasoning of the proposal, these Committees will, within reason, assist the submitting Lodge to correct those so that the resolution may have the opportunity to receive Consideration by the deliberative body of Grand Lodge.
So, don't stand by and do nothing if you feel strongly that the Grand Lodge should (or should not) take some particular action. Let your voice and your heart be heard.
I could have used a little help with my own defects... it should have read "Even if ther ARE defect...." D'hoh. MDS
Brother Mark, I'm familiar with the process. And I'm sure you're familiar with what happens when a properly submitted resolution makes its way to the floor. Three up, three down, arguments about the fact that we've never done it that way before, tradition, yada yada yada. With a strong tail wind maybe, and only maybe, the resolution is carried over to next year. And what do we do if the Grand Master of Tennessee is invited that year to join the parade of visiting Grand Masters who have come all this way to say thank you and congratulations to our outgoing Grand Master?
This situation does not call for a code revision. It calls for leadership. I'm pretty sure that someplace in our bloated bloated WMC there's something that says a Grand Master can simply make it so.
I'll never be Grand Master, but if I am that will be my first action.
Brother:
I agree, the GM making it so would be the most elegant and easiest path forward.
I will tell you that I have considered this in great detail. On both the 'recognition' side, and the 'unrecognition' side. Action could be taken either direction.
I have discussed the GM taking unilateral action on this with our Jurisprudence Committee, in great detail, over the past year. As a result of those discussions, I am not confident that I have the power under our WMC to simply 'make it so' through unilateral action.
If I was confident that I could do so, and that the decision would 'stick' I would have done so this year regarding Prince Hall Recognition in those few States where it does not exist.
I believe however, after very significant debate, that it needs to be voted on by the body as a whole at an Annual Communication.
Assuming that we approve our Fraternal Correspondent's Report at the Annual Communication, we will be making good progress on recognition this year.
Additionally, it is my intention to continue working on this issue after my term as GM ends. We will get where we need to be, but we are, I think, going to need to use the Lodge resolution process in order to do so. We will have to lobby all of those around us in order to see it pass. I remain committed to continue doing all that I can on this issue moving forward, and to continue raising the issue until we get where we need to be.
I think VW John Gebhart makes a valid point. Why do we continue to recognize jurisdictions that insist in maintaining code provisions based on narrow sectarian and/or political beliefs that are unequally applied and inconsistent with the values of our society at large? What are the arguments for continued recognition and amity? For myself, I’m personally disinclined from visiting Lodges in those jurisdictions (Tennessee, Georgia) even if we are currently officially in amity.
It's also quite interesting how Tennessee was such a huge part of the expansion of freemasonry in the United States, issuing charters to other states at a rapid pace. Even Washington State can trace it's masonic roots back to Tennessee.
As others have said, discriminating based on antiquated immoral beliefs, along with the color of someone's skin should not be part of any masonic lodge. What is even more surprising to me is how this rule was instituted only 35 years ago, and not some old garbage from the 1800s, or that it still remains to this day codified within their laws in spite of repeated attempts to repeal it.
I also ask, why hasn't our grand jurisdiction broken off relations with states like that? Publishing a strongly worded letter doesn't do anything except absolve us, much like Pontius Pilate, of the sins of others.
Seems like there will be some excellent conversations happening in the Fellowship Rooms at our GL Communication this year!
I agree with the opinions expressed by others here. I know that the GL of California revoked their amity with these Grand Jurisdictions over these points and when my own GL of Oregon did nothing in response, it was felt. Inaction, can be it’s own form of action. Then again, I believe it took my jurisdiction till the 1990s to recognize Prince Hall Masons, so it’s hard to wag the finger at others.
My brother that I helped through the degrees was stuck at FC at the start of the pandemic and has since moved to Nashville. He will come back to Oregon to finish his MM as he refuses to be in a Tennessee lodge. Understandably so.
This topic reminds me of a question I posed a few years back regarding the issue of transexuals. The story I posed was, you a the Tyler and a woman walks in who you don't know and asks to be admitted into the lodge stated meeting. You responds stating that it is for male members only. The woman responds that she is a Past Master of this lodge and point to the photo on the wall of a past master and says that is her when she was a man but she went through the transgender surgery and is now a woman. But she also shows you her current life membership card for this lodge. There are no letters of explusion on file. Do you admit her?
That would be an interesting thought exercise to work through. I'd love to hear thoughts on this.
It saddens me that our Fraternity, in any jurisdiction, would do such a thing. What would we be today if our English fraternal ancestors had taken a similar position on Royalist or Parlamentrian? Christian versus other religons? You'd think the historically recent shame or institutional racial prejudice would better inform our brethren. Once again, the West Gate seems wide open, in my opinion. As a Mason, i my instinct is to reach out to Brethren in these jusirdictions and offer fraternal comfort, and invite them to affiliate here, so they are not removed from the bidy of Masonry.
I lived in West Tennessee for about 3 1/2 years. It took them quite a few years to finally recognize Prince Hall. They finally did last year.
One thing I learned down there is that things don't change very quickly. The pace at which anything moves is slow and tedious to many.
I wouldn't go to any drastic measures yet. Give them time. Patience is the virtue we need with our Tennessee Brethern, not haste.
As it took them time to recognize Prince Hall Brothers, this is similar. I feel that time and civil discussion will prevail in the end.
How about the MWGLWA announces that we no longer recognize GL of Tennessee, and in the same announcement we make it clear that we'll make whatever time is necessary to have a civil conversation with them about it. People change when the status quo is no longer comfortable, and unless the GL of Tennessee is uncomfortable with its stance then no amount of time or civil conversation will lead to a change.
I assume all nasons must pledge an oath to the Grand Lodge wherein they reside.. The oath must pledge allegiance to God and governance to state he lives. We should not impose our morality on another jurisdiction, but we should be exemplar and expose the difference