A Meeting of Minds

I am asking a group of Masonic bloggers to write a essay on how to save Mainstream American Freemasonry from extinction.

Here is the scenario:

You are Grand Master of an American juisdiction which has just changed its by-laws to give the Grand Master a five year term. As the first GM to serve five years what proposals, policies and changes would you make to insure the survival of your jurisdiction and promote healthy growth? Perhaps you like things just the way they are. You don't want to do anything different. If so make a case for standing pat or for trying some new (or old) ideas. It's your call. You are now in the hot seat. Tell us with that power and influence what you would do.

This invitation is being sent to:

Greg Stewart - Masonic Traveler
Widows Son - The Burning Taper
Steve Brettell - Freemason From The Free State
Silence Dogood - The Middle Chamber
Tom Accuosti - The Tao of Masonry
Palmetto Bug - The Masonic Line
2 Bowl Cain - 2 Bowl Cain
Wafaring Man - Audi, Vide, Tace



I will post the first essay, myself, and you can all feed off that or answer the call of your own drummer. If there is some one else who would like to participate, please contact me on the back burner.

The Buffalo Soldiers

Saturday September 20, 2008 I delivered my first presentation as the newly appointed Lecturer for the Dallas Chapter of the Phylaxis Society. The subject was "The Buffalo Soldiers" many of whom were Prince Hall Masons. You can read the entire paper at: http://www.phoenixmasonry.org/buffalo_soldiers.htm That is The Phoenix Masonry website where you will find much to improve your Masonic mind.

Putting The Cart Before The Horse

As the newly appointed Lecturer for the Dallas Chapter of the Phylaxis Society, I gave my first presentation yesterday 9/20/08. The paper I delivered was a scholarly work on "The Buffalo Soldiers" which I hope will be published elsewhere where you will be able to read it.

But before the Lecture I did a 5 minute warmup on an entirely different subject - that of putting the cart before the horse. You see I have witnessed the ill effects of rushing a candidate through the degrees and a lack of post Master Mason mentoring. Sometimes Masons are in too much of a hurry to get that new man on the books and out there helping the Lodge survive. They have numerous charitible endeavors with which they need immediate help and they are so desparate for money and membership that they cannot spend the time with candidates, for it is necessary that there be a quick turnover in order that they get onto the next group of initiates. The goal is to raise as Many Master Masons in a year as possible. And Grand Lodges give out awards for this accomplishment.

So the feeling is that we can hurry the candidate through his initiation process, because the activities of the Lodge, especially the charitible endeavors, will show a man what Freemasonry is all about and through time and experiince he will "get it".

My view was this was putting the cart before the horse and I used two quotations from other authorship to illustrate my point. The first was from The Positivity Blog:

Gandhi’s Top 10 Fundamentals for Changing the World
Published by Henrik Edberg May 9th, 2008 in Personal Development, People Skills, Lessons I have learned from... and Success.
“You must not lose faith in humanity. Humanity is an ocean; if a few drops of the ocean are dirty, the ocean does not become dirty.”


“The difference between what we do and what we are capable of doing would suffice to solve most of the world’s problem.”


“If I had no sense of humor, I would long ago have committed suicide.”


Mahatma Gandhi needs no long introduction. Everyone knows about the man who lead the Indian people to independence from British rule in 1947.


So let’s just move on to some of my favourite tips from Mahatma Gandhi.


1. Change yourself.


“You must be the change you want to see in the world.”



“As human beings, our greatness lies not so much in being able to remake the world - that is the myth of the atomic age - as in being able to remake ourselves.”


If you change yourself you will change your world. If you change how you think then you will change how you feel and what actions you take. And so the world around you will change. Not only because you are now viewing your environment through new lenses of thoughts and emotions but also because the change within can allow you to take action in ways you wouldn’t have – or maybe even have thought about – while stuck in your old thought patterns.


And the problem with changing your outer world without changing yourself is that you will still be you when you reach that change you have strived for. You will still have your flaws, anger, negativity, self-sabotaging tendencies etc. intact.


And so in this new situation you will still not find what you hoped for since your mind is still seeping with that negative stuff. And if you get more without having some insight into and distance from your ego it may grow more powerful. Since your ego loves to divide things, to find enemies and to create separation it may start to try to create even more problems and conflicts in your life and world.

The Second was some words by Neal Donald Walsch:

“Life is a decision conveyer. It conveys to the world the decisions that you’ve made about yourself. It tells people what you’ve decided about who you are, and who they are, and why you are here, and why you think they are here, and what life itself is about.”

“These decisions have greater impact than you could ever guess. They touch people in ways that go far beyond what you might have imagined.”

“Yet it does not begin by trying to change the world. It begins by seeking to change the self. Change the self and your inner world changes. And when your inner world changes, the outer world that you touch changes, little by little. And when the outer world that you touch changes, the world that it touches changes, and the world that it touches. Outward and outward and outward this spreads, like a ripple in a pond.”

“When what you are doing is a reflection of what you are being, rather than an attempt to create what you wish you were being, you will know that you have produced lasting change in yourself. This is what produces lasting change in the world.”

Neal Donald Walsch in talking about Gandhi says this:

“First he attained a state of being. This is work that he did from within. Then, and only then, did his outward ‘doing’ become the kind of ‘doing’ that changed the world.”
“He did not achieve a state of being as a result of what he was doing. What he was doing reflected the state of being he had achieved.”

So my point was that first we make a Mason, then we make a Lodge.

You cannot change the world until you change yourself. And the process of becoming a Mason should be a very personal journey of a change in heart, a rebirth of the individual, as he learns what the lessons of Freemasonry can do to change his life and make him a better person. Once having assimilated the knowledge and understanding of what Freemasonry is all about, then he can be turned loose onto the world. If we spend our time and effort with our new recruits to make them knowledgable Freemasons then great things will happen as with other like Brothers they toil in society in the quarry of everyday life.

This process looks something like this:

KNOWLEDGE (or Masonic Light) begets PRIDE which begets ENTHUSIASM which begets GROWTH (both personal and membership). GROWTH brings us back to KNOWLEDGE>PRIDE>ENTHUSIASM>GROWTH

So in the priorities of your Lodge life don't first try to make a Lodge. First make a Mason. Then the fully invested Mason comprehending the philosophy of the Craft will make a Lodge and the Lodge will do great things!

Don't put the cart before the horse. A horse trying to nose a cart down the road from behind will never accomplish what a horse hooked up to the front of the cart can do, not only for the horse, but for the cart, its contents and all who are in it for the ride.

First make a Mason and then all else will follow.

Leaving Freemasonry

It's been more than five years now and I have been beating the drum with the same message over and over. My friends tell me it is time to let it go, what will be will be. They are tired of listening to the broken record I play about problems in Mainstream Freemasonry, especially race problems.

What I have been prognosticating I am now seeing come to pass. I said that if Mainstream Masonry didn't straighten out its act and get rid of the racism and accept black men and Prince Hall as regular Masonry then the new generation will not join Masonry or if they join they will not stay. I said today's young men are color blind and will not put up with those who are not. I said Mainstream Freemasonry would lose thousands and thousands of petitions for the degrees from bright, sharp, upstanding young men.

Not long ago on a place of Masonic discussion I conversed with a Tennesse Brother. Later he E-Mailed me and has given me permission to let you all see what he privately said to me.

Brother Milliken, I thank you for your reply to my post on
recognition. I did not take them as criticism and I am glad that my
post has started some good conversations about this topic. My
original post was due to having been told by a brother that there are
no African Americans in the Tennessee lodges and not to bring any to
the lodge to petition for membership. I was told that they have their
own lodge and we have ours and that was that. Well, not being raised
that way I started to ask questions and got the same answers. The
reason that it came back up to me is that I received an announcement
that there will be a cave degree and, I noticed at the bottom of
the announcement it stated that the Tennessee GL dose not recognize
the Prince Hall Lodge. That stuck in my craw. Then after that, I
found out that an African American man had been discouraged form
joining our lodge. I have heard of several good masons quitting our
lodge due to this and, I am thinking about doing the same. My
original thought was to stay in and try to change it but, I think the
odds are stacked against me. I and another MM are in the process of
figuring out what we are going to do. I do hate hypocrisy.

Thanks again.

Fraternally.

Brother X

We E-Mailed back and forth some more and I told him my story. In a followup E-Mail he told me this:

It is interesting that you should mention that you demitted from Mainstream Masonry and joined Prince Hall. A friend and I who are going through the officer seats have been talking about the racism problem in our Grand Lodge and our Lodge and, that is one of the reasons that I am leaving the seats. I have also been talking about Demitting and joining Prince Hall. I have only met one Brother from the Prince Hall Lodge and I am trying to get back in touch with him. Be it as it may, there is a time to take a stand and this is the time.

Fraternally,

Brother X

Then about two weeeks later I received an E-Mail from a well known East Coast Brother who informed me that he is also thinking about leaving Mainstream Masonry and joining Prince Hall. HIs name and state are withheld as he has yet to make that decision and that announcement is his to make.

While many states have improved their past civil rights record and now openly welcome black men to petition for the degrees and have Recognized Prince Hall, there are a number that leave a lot to be desired. I think of what expelled PGM Frank Haas from West Virginia said, "What one state does, one Grand Lodge, affects us all."

Then I remember Frank Haas' lawsuit against the Grand Lodge of West Virginia who asked the courts to throw it out as The Grand Grand Lodge of West Virginia had sole power over the decisions and discipline of its Jurisdiction, a private organization. And the Courts said, NO! They refused to throw out the lawsuit. The trial goes on.

And my friends remind me of the other things I keep saying as they reach for earplugs - "That if Mainstream Freemasonry does not learn how to police itself, then somebody else, like the government, will do it for them." And right now the government is knee deep into West Virginia Freemasonry.

The Good 'Ol Boys Network and the unwritten code that one Grand Lodge never critisizes another has perpetuated much that should not be in American Freemasonry. I think back to a comparision with baseball, to the 1919 Black Sox scandal and how baseball finally got themselves a Baseball Commissioner, Judge Landis, because a certain few selfish owners would do whatever they wanted to the detriment of the sport. The good owners, concerned for the good name of the game, finally demanded that these totally private enterprises conform to a set of rules and ethics and discipline. So why can't Freemasonry do that?

And the last thing that my friends are really tired of hearing me say has not come true, - that someday an enterprising writer or news reporter would do a feature story or article on racism in Freemasonry and spread it across the pages of a well read publication for all the world to see. The thought of that happening makes me sad.

But what really makes me cry is Brother X and others who are just not going to put up with it anymore but just leave. It is a very sad day when you lose a Brother from Freemasonry, a bright and ethical young man who was a credit to his Craft. It really doesn't have to be that way.

Peter Renzland & Squire Bentley Answer Charges of McCarthyism

Some traditionalists like Palmetto Bug on "The Masonic Line" would like to convince us that the opposition to Recognition of Prince Hall by those Grand Lodges left who refuse to do so is primarily due to their adherence to The American Doctrine, the Right of Exclusive Territorial Jurisdiction (ETJ). Of course these holdouts take up the larger part of the Old Confederacy. Now considering this region and its history and its present day inclinations can nobody think of another reason that might be on Mason's minds?

Palmetto Bug says the ETJ existed before Prince Hall, at least in South Carolina. He points to a verbal objection to other Grand Lodges in his state in the late 1700s. But was ETJ written into the Constitution, By-Laws, Rules and Regulations of the Grand Lodge of South Carolina prior to 1800? I'll put my money on the guess that it wasn't. In fact this Doctrine was not well accepted among all of American Masonry until after 1820, long after Prince Hall was firmly established. One states' thoughts do not make an American Doctrine. Maybe, just maybe, it made a South Carolinian Doctrine.

In fact, although African Lodge #459 ipso facto acted like a Grand Lodge before 1800, most of Prince Hall Masonry did not declare themselves to be a separate Grand Lodge until after the 1820s. I have a feeling that this was because they had always wanted and had been trying to become part of the Grand Lodges of Mainstream Masonry. They wanted to be one with Mainstream and grow together with them as the nation grew. Only after all hope was dashed and further efforts to incorporate within Mainstream Masonry were fruitless did they go ahead full steam to form the intricacies of complicated Masonic governance at the highest level.

So let us look at this Recognition thing logically. Black Lodges form in the late 1700s and ask Mainstream Masonry to incorporate them into their Grand Lodges. But Mainstream Masonry says No, NO, NO, Never. So Prince Hall is forced to either disband or proceed on their own. Choosing the later course they established their own traditions. Hereafter Prince Hall pushed for Recognition starting most publicly with Washington State in 1897. But Mainstream Masonry seeing what was coming had decades before adopted The Right of Exclusive Territorial Jurisdiction to block Prince Hall from Recognition consideration and to offer a "legal" reason that would hide their racism.

At this point what needs to be said is that perhaps blocking an invading Grand Lodge could be seen as a necessary move. And most of us can understand refusing to Recognize a Grand Lodge that practices irregular Masonry or refusing one not legally chartered. But Black Lodges were here before the founding of our independent nation. African #459 was duly chartered by The Grand Lodge of England. Prince Hall has always followed the Landmarks. Prince Hall has always practiced Regular Masonry. So why refuse Lodges that grew up side by side with you, with a legal pedigree, observing the same Landmarks you do and practicing the same Regular Masonry you do? Only one reason stands out - Racism. But traditionalists would have you believe it is ETJ when ETJ was created to enable keeping colored men out. Now Palmetto Bug says this is a rise of Masonic McCarthyism,

Sadly, new McCarthyism has invaded Freemasonry. The “new McCarthys” use the racist label to explain why any individual Freemason or Grand Lodge would be opposed to recognizing Prince Hall Affiliated (PHA). They ignore the fact that the Doctrine of Exclusive Territorial Jurisdiction (ETJ) is a real doctrine that predates the existence of PHA. They ignore the fact that ETJ has been generously applied to other bodies that were not primarily made up of men of African descent. They ignore the possibility that mutual recognition of more than one body within the same political boundaries sets a precedent that could come back to haunt the Fraternity – ie: the day when Prince Hall Origin (PHO) begins to make a case for recognition.

Could it be that the Grand Lodge’s that have agreed to mutual recognition with PHA have simply folded to new McCarthyism? Did they ignore the tried and true Doctrine of ETJ just to avoid the stigma of being labeled racist? Which label will they roll over for next? Will it be “sexist?”

Palmetto Bug's answer? The only way that Prince Hall Masonry can legally operate is to be merged with Mainstream Masonry? Hello!!! Isn't that what Prince Hall wanted at the start? But oh no we can't have that. So after blocking Prince Hall out, adopting ETJ and forcing them to be separate so they could be labeled clandestine in hopes they would fail, Mainstream Masonry now wants to absorb Prince Hall rather than recognize it? Why? All in the name of a Doctrine that is not a Landmark. It's a Rule or a Tradition and is not even written into all Grand Lodge Constitutions and By-Laws? Come on I wasn't born yesterday. They want to control it and force Prince Hall to practice Masonry the White, er right way.

Let me say that never again will the Black man be subservient to the White man ever again in the USA. If Mainstream Masonry had not tried so hard for so many years to discredit Black Freemasonry merging would be a more believable position. But here is what Poll and Roberts said in their article "Attacks on The Philalethes Society":

For some 200 years, U.S. “mainstream” Grand Lodges taught their members that Prince Hall Masonry was irregular. Visitation between “mainstream” US lodges and Prince Hall lodges was not allowed as no Prince Hall Grand Lodge was recognized as regular. We were taught that there were legitimate reasons why Prince Hall Masonry was irregular. Now we are taught that there is nothing at all irregular about Prince Hall Masonry. Recognition between the majority of US “mainstream” Grand Lodges and their Prince Hall counterparts now exist. Even where fraternal relations do not exist, we are led to believe that some Grand Lodges have made official statements declaring Prince Hall Masonry to be regular, if not always recognized. Did Prince Hall change in its nature? No. Then what gives? How does any thinking Mason reconcile this apparent contradiction? If being irregular means that something is wrong with a Masonic body, then how can it be declared regular if nothing has changed in the body? If we wish to take the position that it was simply an honest error in regard to Prince Hall, then we must face the fact that it was a pretty big error that for roughly 200 years falsely labeled and denied recognition to true brothers. Is there another reason (or reasons) why Prince Hall Masonry was falsely labeled “irregular”? Is it unreasonable to seek an understanding of this question? Is it unreasonable to wonder if, even today, “mistakes” could be made with other Masonic bodies?

One of the major problems with understanding the issues of regularity is our use (or misuse) of the word “irregular.” Common use has made the words “irregular,” “clandestine” and “unrecognized” interchangeable. But are they always interchangeable? Logic dictates that since Prince Hall Masonry (having made no change in their nature or organization) has been confirmed by the majority of U.S. Grand Lodges to be perfectly regular, then they were factually “unrecognized,” but not “irregular.” If this is the case, then why were they almost always called “irregular” and “clandestine”?

Prince Hall Masonry was not kept outside of the recognized Masonic family for some 200 years because of legitimate reasons, but because of an intentional desire to keep them out. In order to keep up the appearance of remaining true to the teachings of Freemasonry, Grand Lodges freely accepted the charges that Prince Hall Masonry was justifiably irregular. Since most Masons were not researchers, it was not that hard to write legitimate sounding charges against Prince Hall Masonry. In addition, because the vast majority of the Prince Hall Masons were black, there was no real desire to closely examine the charges made against them. When one spoke or wrote about Prince Hall Masonry, the words “irregular” or “clandestine” were used with no attempt to prove that the charges were factual. It was enough to just keep saying that Prince Hall Masonry was irregular. It was not true, but it was always there and accepted by most all. Even among those who held no bigotry in their hearts, the charges against Prince Hall Masonry were commonly accepted. Why? Because we trusted that our leaders would not tell us anything but the truth. We are Freemasons. We don’t speak evil of our brothers, right? How could such an organized effort of deception take place?

I am indebted to Peter Renzland and his TORONTO SOCIETY FOR MASONIC RESEARCH (TSMR).
http://tsmr.org/

For Prince Hall Issues:
http://tsmr.org/ph.html

For ETJ Issues:
http://tsmr.org/ph.html#ETJ

And For Recognition in General and more ETJ Issues:
http://tsmr.org/ph.html#RecoMisc

Palmetto Bug says these charges of Masonic racism are trumped up, made up Masonic McCarthyism. Here are some quotes and some thoughts from Brother Peter Renzland:

" How, then, could that law be binding on the negro Masons? Will folly be carried so far as to claim that the white Masons could, first, exclude the negro brethren from the white organizations, and then, having done this, proceed, in those organizations, without the consent of the negroes, to create a law that would both bind the negro Masons and render it impossible for them to continue their growth? Surely, the proposition is too monstrous to be considered. No; the "American doctrine," whatever its true meaning may be, and in whatever stage of development it may have been in 1808, was not morally, legally or Masonically binding on negro Masons. " -- William H. Upton: Light on a Dark Subject, #64, p81, 1899

"The question has been asked: the cause of the separate organizations of white and colored Masons in the United States of America? We do not know of any good reason why there should be, and we have made several attempts without success to have but one. We are, and always have been, in procession of all the ancient landmarks and regulations of the Craft; and we do acknowledge all genuine Masons of all Nations and shades of complexion, to be our brethren." -- Sentiments, National Grand Lodge (PH), 1847-06-24 (from Walkes, 1983)

" Resolved, That in the opinion of this Grand Lodge, it would be inexpedient and tend to mar the harmony of the fraternity to admit any of the persons of color, so-called, into the fraternity of Free and Accepted Masons within the jurisdiction of thie Grand Lodge. " -- Grand Lodge of Ohio, adopted 1847

" After the abolition of slavery in the West Indies by the British Parliament, the Grand Lodge of England on September 1, 1847, changed the word free-born into free man, but the ancient landmark never has been removed in America. " -- Mackey's Encyclopedia of Freemasonry

" Resolved, That all subordinate lodges under this jurisdiction be instructed to admit no negro or mulatto as a visitor or otherwise, under any circumstances whatever. " -- Grand Lodge of Illinois, adopted 1851

" [In 1852] the Grand Lodge of Iowa adopted a report on foreign correspondence, which embodied and endorsed the action of the Grand Lodge of New York, declaring that the 'exclusion of persons of the negro race is in accordance with Masonic law and the ancient charges and regulations', and also declaring it 'not proper to initiate them in our lodges'; " -- Grand Lodge of Iowa, John Long, G.M. 1870

" Resolved, That lodges under this jurisdiction are positively prohibited from initiating, passing, raising, or admitting to membership, or the right of visitation, any negro, mulatto, or colored person of the United States. This prohibition shall be an obligation, and so taught in the third degree. " -- Grand Lodge of Delaware, adopted 1867

I took my obligations to white men, not to negroes. When I have to accept negroes as brothers or leave Masonry, I shall leave it. I am interested to keep the Ancient and Accepted Rite uncontaminated, in our country at least, by the leprosy of negro association. ... Better let the thing drift. Apres nous le deluge. ". -- Albert Pike, 1875 -- cited by William H. Upton, Negro Masonry 1902 p214-5

" The Ahiman Rezon of South Carolina, compiled by that eminent author, erudite scholar and unsurpassed Masonic jurist, Albert G. Mackey, and adopted by the Grand Lodge, specifically declares that a candidate must be of free white parents. " -- Grand Lodge of South Carolina Proceedings 1898 p50, cited in Upton: "Light on a Dark Subject", 1899 #16 p22

" A candidate for initiation must be of the age of twenty-one years and a free-born white man. " -- Grand Lodge of Kentucky Constitution, Article viii, Section 5. Cited in Upton 1902, p36

" To have Lodges exclusively of Negroes, would be dangerous to the high character of our Order. And, to associate them in Lodges with white brethren, would be impossible. " -- Grand Lodge of Illinois Proceedings, 1899

" Several Grand Lodges seem to believe and have -- perhaps disingenuously -- been led to declare that they possess "exclusive territorial jurisdiction" by "inherent right"; that any infringement upon their "territory" is a high Masonic crime; and that the doctrine is actually a part of "the common law of Masonry," -- one writer has said, "paramount to a Landmark"! [Proceedings GL of Indiana, 1899, Cor. Rep.] ...

The American doctrine of exclusive Grand Lodge jurisdiction is not a Landmark, but a modern, local, American-born regulation. ...

Once prove that, "This is not a question of race, but of jurisdiction"; that a system of Masonry founded in the Landmarks and practiced in accordance therewith cannot exist side by side with the American Doctrine of Exclusive Territorial Jurisdiction -- once prove that, and the American Doctrine must perish: The Ancient Landmarks shall always be carefully preserved. [General Regulations XXXIX, 1721] " -- William H. Upton: "Negro Masonry" 1902 #71a p159-161

"Masonry never contemplated that her privileges should be extended to a race morally and intellectually totally incapacitated to discharge the obligations which they assume ... We hold that affiliation with negroes is contrary to the teachings of Masonry, ... do order that fraternal correspondence between the Grand Lodge of Mississippi and the Most Worshipful Grand Lodge of New Jersey, be and is hereby discontinued until such time as ... New Jersey shall see fit to desist from her present practice of initiating and affiliating negros as Masons ... if we open our Lodges to a promiscuous mixing up, then we destroy Masonry ... The negro in our land is unfit to assume the responsibilities and obligations of Masonry. It is an open secret that virtue and morality, which are indispensable qualifications to membership, are foreign to the race. I felt it my duty as your Grand Master to cut loose from any who would dare open the door of Masonry to a people whose standing for virtue and morality is a mockery to civilization."" -- Edwin J. Martin, Grand Master of Mississippi, 1909

"Our political requirements are most explicit upon the question of being free born. Many have erroneously thought that such qualification was "read into" the body of Masonry to keep out men of the colored race. Unquestionably "free born" means not only not born a slave, but not born of parents who have been slaves, or whose forebears were slaves. Thus "free born" does bar men of African descent in this country from becoming a Mason. " -- Carl H. Claudy, Executive Secretary 1929-1957: "The Candidate", MSA STB 1930-5

"This Grand Lodge does not recognize as legal or Masonic any body of negroes working under any character of charter in the United States, without regard to the body granting such charter, and they regard all negro lodges as clandestine, illegal and unMasonic, and moreover, they regard as highly censurable the course of any Grand Lodge in the United States which should recognize such bodies of negroes as Masonic Lodges. " - Grand Lodge of Texas Constitution, Article XV, p.34 1948

1949.06.08 "specially not because it was incorrect but because it has brought objections from certain other jurisdictions." ... "Unity and Harmony are vastly more important to the Fraternity than debates about Negro Freemasonry." " -- Grand Lodge of Massachusetts, cited in Walkes 1983 p89-92

" ... that so-called American Doctrine of Exclusive Territorial jurisdiction which is a piece of anti-Negro Masonic buncombe used with effect against the Prince Hall Order. " -- Harry A. Williamson, 1952

" Under the Act of Incorporation the law plainly states 'Consisting of Masons exclusively of the white race.' " -- Grand Lodge of Florida, Jurisprudence Committee, p131 Proceedings 1955

WHEREAS: The Grand Lodge of Connecticut, A.F. & A.M. adopted a resolution dated October 14th, 1989 giving recognition to the Prince Hall Grand Lodge, F. & A.M. of Connecticut, Inc. ... ... WHEREAS: the resolution adopted on October 14th, 1989 by the Grand Lodge of Connecticut AF&AM, is contrary to and conflicts with the Constitution ... of the GLLA, as well as the obligations of a Master Mason. THEREFORE: I, EUGENE F. LOVE, GRAND MASTER OF MASONS, THE GRAND LODGE OF THE STATE OF LOUISIANA, F.&A.M. DO HEREBY ISSUE THE FOLLOWING EDICT EFFECTIVE FROM THE DATE SHOWN ON THE BOTTOM HEREOF: The Grand Lodge of the State of Louisiana, F. & A.M. does hereby sever all Masonic relations and/or communications with The Grand Lodge of Connecticut, A.F. & A.M. " -- Eugene F. Love, G.M., Grand Lodge of Louisana, quoted in Phylaxis 1990Q3 p7,10

" This doctrine was one of the arguments used to prevent the recognition of Prince Hall Masonry. " -- Coil's Masonic Encyclopedia, "American Doctrine" p37 1996

"Exclusive jurisdiction ... in the 20th & 21st centuries has only contributed to discrimination, isolation and political dilemma. Some of this has only recently been addressed by the co-recognition of several Prince Hall Affiliated Grand Lodges with their "mainstream" counterpart grand lodges ... effectively negating the thrust of the doctrine." -- Grand Lodge of Minnesota, 2002-05-22

"Were it not for this doctrine the Masonic Fraternity could well have been a leader in our nation on civil rights and the racial integration of blacks into American society beginning as early as 1898 (in Washington) or even in 1947 (in Massachusetts). Instead we came along 25 years after the passage of Civil Rights legislation to recognize the truth that territorial exclusivity simply was a lie in principle and in fact. Not only did we squander an opportunity, we simply let the doctrine of territorial exclusivity become the excuse and the ruse for our own lack of brotherhood, and our immoral apathy about "separate but equal" segregation. Shame on us. And shame on all the leaders of Freemasonry who did not live up to the ideals we so proudly professed but so blatantly ignored. " -- -- John L. Cooper III, 33°, PSoc Lecture 2004-02-14

"I believe in Prince Hall Masonry, a door of benevolence securely tiled against the unworthy, but opened wide to men of good report, whether Aryan or Hottentot." -- From the Prince Hall Credo, W.E.B. DuBois, Boston, 1904

And finally some words from Brother Renzland:

Exclusion and Non-Recognition



During most of US history, black persons were systemically excluded or segregated, in all social associations. This was clearly contrary to the "self evident truth that all men are created equal". And it was certainly contrary to the Masonic maxim that all Masons, if not all persons, are Brothers, Equal and Free. In US Freemasonry, not only did black and white streams run parallel and separate, but the prevailing view held by respected and influential white Masonic writers, teachers, and leaders was that a black person was ineligible for Freemasonry.



This exclusion was defended, simultaneously, by the argument that Masonic doctrine demanded it (Claudy), and that, although Masonic doctrine forbade it, it was necessary to maintain "peace and harmony" in the lodge (Haywood, Mackey).



Thus, whereas exclusion led to separate institutions and non-recognition of the black (Prince Hall) institutions by the white (mainstream) ones, the polite arguments given were "peace and harmony" and "exclusive territorial jurisdiction", respectively.



These attitudes, practices, and policies persisted long after the US signed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: "1. All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood. 2. Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status." -- Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted world-wide, without dissent, 1948.



It should be noted that this attitude was one-sided. Whereas the white policy of black exclusion is well-documented, the black institutions had an explicit policy of inclusion and of recognition. Prince Hall himself gave this Charge to African Lodge in 1797: "give the right hand of affection and fellowship to whom it justly belongs let their color and complexion be what it will, let their nation be what it may, for they are your brethren, and it is your indispensable duty so to do; let them as Masons deny this, and we & the world know what to think of them be they ever so grand". And the 1904 Prince Hall Credo states: "I believe in Prince Hall Masonry, a door of benevolence securely tiled against the unworthy, but opened wide to men of good report, whether Aryan or Hottentot."



Inclusion and recognition (in non-trivial numbers) in mainstream US Freemasonry began in the 1980s, and, after 19 years of recognition efforts, 80% of US Grand Lodges recognize at least one Prince Hall Grand Lodge. However, 58% of the 160,000 Prince Hall Masons remain totally unrecognized by *any* US mainstream Grand Lodge. The "reason" is that the mainstream GLs won't recognize a PH GL unless it is recognized by the white GL in the same State. This is called "The American Doctrine of Exclusive Territorial Jurisdiction". The following 11 States remain thus excluded: AL AR FL GA KY LA MS NC SC TN WV. The majority of all PH Masons live in those 11 States.



Even the United Grand Lodge of England, which does not practice this American Doctrine itself, respects it and will not recognize the Prince Hall Grand Lodges thus excluded by their white counterparts.



In contrast, all the Australian Grand Lodges have fraternal relations with *all* Prince Hall Affiliated Masons, and the same is true for some of Canada.



Even in Canada, far North of the Mason-Dixon Line, there remains one mainstream Grand Lodge which still does not recognize the Prince Hall Grand Lodge in the same territory. Some of its leaders have even dis-acknowledged its very existence.



Outside the US (and parts of Canada), Freemasons are shocked by such official policies and systemic practices. And many, if not most Masons in North America are ashamed and deeply disturbed by these facts. Even after 20 years of recognition efforts, only a small percentage of the possible Masonic handshakes between black and white Masons are "legal". In Canada, the degree of completion of Prince Hall recognition is only 1.5%, even though, in 1992, *all* Canadian Grand Masters agreed to accept *all* Prince Hall Affiliated Masons as *Regular* Masons. The corresponding metric in the US is still very small, and, at the rate of progress over the past 20 years, full recognition could take another century.



Ultimately, an explanation for the persistence of exclusion and non-recognition can be found in what Mackey's Encyclopedia approvingly calls the "dogmatic and autocratic" system of Grand Lodge governance in the US and (parts of) Canada.



Another part of the explanation is that many refuse to acknowledge that 200 years of exclusion and non-recognition was a unilateral and systemic *wrong* that needs to be stopped promptly, unilaterally, and completely. Many refuse to acknowledge that there ever *was* any race-based exclusion in US Freemasonry, because such an exclusion would be a perversion of the very essence of Freemasonry:



Denial of Brotherhood perpetuated by the denial of the perpetual denial of Brotherhood.





TSMR: Prince Hall Freemasonry Recognition (in Canada, in Context)

Brethren Exclusive Territorial Jurisdiction is a sledge hammer used to bludgeon to death Black Masonry. Racism in Masonry is not "McCarthyism" but reality. Continued opposition to Recognition of Prince Hall Masonry reflects more the amount of Klans Men now underground in American Masonry rather than any kind of quasi legal mumbo jumbo that was deliberately invented to justify such racism.

I rest my case.
Brother Frederic L. Milliken

Codifying Prejudice ~ Making Racism Legal

Attacks on The Philalethes Society
by
Michael R. Poll, FPS and Kenneth D. Roberts, FPS

Betrayal of Masonic Trust is the highest and gravest crime a Master Mason can commit. … It is the masonic duty of each and every Master Mason to rise up and to denounce any violation and breach of Masonic Trust …
- VW Billy Aportadera [1]

Part 2 of Series
The nature of our Masonic initiations is such that we deliberately place our candidates in an extraordinarily vulnerable environment. We do this to set the minds and hearts of the candidates in a state where they can best receive our teachings. One of the first and most important lessons we teach our candidates is to trust their soon-to-be brothers. It is necessary for them to accept, with no question, what they are told, as well as the motives and intentions of the officers and members of the lodge. If a candidate has no reason to trust the lodge membership, then how will he view the various and often peculiar aspects of his initiation?
“The trust of a Mason is in God. But before a man can trust in God, whom he cannot see, he must learn to trust in his fellowman, who is made in God’s image.” [2]

The lesson of trust is a vital part of the Masonic foundation we lay for the candidate. Without it, the walls of our structure crumble. Can you imagine any lodge allowing a candidate to be made the subject of a practical joke while receiving a degree? Can you imagine any Grand Lodge not seriously reprimanding or pulling the charter of any lodge that would allow unMasonic behavior with a candidate?

All Masons have the right to expect that the trust we were taught to have in our brothers will not be violated. Those who would knowingly and willingly violate the trust placed in them by their brothers must be reduced to order or driven from our lodges.

But what does it mean to violate a Mason’s trust? Can we do so with no ill intent or under the belief that our actions will result in ultimate good for Freemasonry? Is willfully lying to a brother the same as making a mistake? Is bending the truth the same as willfully lying? Where is the line that divides a willful intent from a mistake?

This paper will attempt to examine recent events in Masonry as well as some published statements with the hope of better understanding the question of Masonic trust.

What is the Truth?
The search for the Lost Word is symbolic of a Mason’s search for truth, but what is the truth? Is there a “Universal Truth” for all of Masonry? In many cases, no. “Masonic truth” must often be qualified. What is true in one Grand Lodge might be quite false in another. The truthful answer to the question, “Who is the Grand Master?” will change depending on the jurisdiction of the one being asked the question. Certain basic questions, however, will almost assuredly bring about like answers. “Are Masons taught to be honest?” Does anyone know of any jurisdiction that would answer “no” to this question? But what about questions of regularity? How do we answer the question, “Who is regular?” There are very few questions in Masonry that are as seemingly simple, yet, in fact, more complex. The opinion (law) concerning regularity in one jurisdiction might be quite different than the opinion (law) of another jurisdiction. The answers to questions concerning regularity will certainly change from one place to another. Concerning regularity, the United Grand Lodge of England states:

“There are some self-styled Masonic bodies that do not meet these standards, e.g. which do not require a belief in a Supreme Being, or which allow or encourage their members to participate as such in political matters. These bodies are recognised by the Grand Lodge of England as being Masonically irregular, and Masonic contact with them is forbidden.” [3]

That might give us an idea of what is irregular, but it is not clear as to who is irregular or why are they so or how we handle a situation when our Grand Lodge and a Grand Lodge that we recognize disagree about a third Grand Lodge.

For some 200 years, U.S. “mainstream” Grand Lodges taught their members that Prince Hall Masonry was irregular. Visitation between “mainstream” US lodges and Prince Hall lodges was not allowed as no Prince Hall Grand Lodge was recognized as regular. We were taught that there were legitimate reasons why Prince Hall Masonry was irregular. Now we are taught that there is nothing at all irregular about Prince Hall Masonry. Recognition between the majority of US “mainstream” Grand Lodges and their Prince Hall counterparts now exist. Even where fraternal relations do not exist, we are led to believe that some Grand Lodges have made official statements declaring Prince Hall Masonry to be regular, if not always recognized. Did Prince Hall change in its nature? No. Then what gives? How does any thinking Mason reconcile this apparent contradiction? If being irregular means that something is wrong with a Masonic body, then how can it be declared regular if nothing has changed in the body? If we wish to take the position that it was simply an honest error in regard to Prince Hall, then we must face the fact that it was a pretty big error that for roughly 200 years falsely labeled and denied recognition to true brothers. Is there another reason (or reasons) why Prince Hall Masonry was falsely labeled “irregular”? Is it unreasonable to seek an understanding of this question? Is it unreasonable to wonder if, even today, “mistakes” could be made with other Masonic bodies?

One of the major problems with understanding the issues of regularity is our use (or misuse) of the word “irregular.” Common use has made the words “irregular,” “clandestine” and “unrecognized” interchangeable. But are they always interchangeable? Logic dictates that since Prince Hall Masonry (having made no change in their nature or organization) has been confirmed by the majority of U.S. Grand Lodges to be perfectly regular, then they were factually “unrecognized,” but not “irregular.” If this is the case, then why were they almost always called “irregular” and “clandestine”?

Say it Again and Again
Joseph Goebbels, the propaganda minister for Adolph Hitler, is often credited with the phrase, "A lie repeated often enough becomes the truth." As despicable as the man was, there is certain logic to that statement. A basic rule of advertising is to offer your message again and again so that the chances of forgetting the message will be minimized. In addition, it is realized that value is often subjective and one may not be guilty of false advertising if they state their opinion of a product’s value or quality. The fine line between an error and a falsehood is often walked in the high stakes advertising game. But how does this relate to Masonry?

Prince Hall Masonry was not kept outside of the recognized Masonic family for some 200 years because of legitimate reasons, but because of an intentional desire to keep them out. In order to keep up the appearance of remaining true to the teachings of Freemasonry, Grand Lodges freely accepted the charges that Prince Hall Masonry was justifiably irregular. Since most Masons were not researchers, it was not that hard to write legitimate sounding charges against Prince Hall Masonry. In addition, because the vast majority of the Prince Hall Masons were black, there was no real desire to closely examine the charges made against them. When one spoke or wrote about Prince Hall Masonry, the words “irregular” or “clandestine” were used with no attempt to prove that the charges were factual. It was enough to just keep saying that Prince Hall Masonry was irregular. It was not true, but it was always there and accepted by most all. Even among those who held no bigotry in their hearts, the charges against Prince Hall Masonry were commonly accepted. Why? Because we trusted that our leaders would not tell us anything but the truth. We are Freemasons. We don’t speak evil of our brothers, right? How could such an organized effort of deception take place?
The Tactics

If there was an organized effort to keep Prince Hall Masonry out of the recognized Masonic family, then the individuals involved would have discussed their plans between themselves. That is what “organized” means. But how does one go about organizing an effort for anything that requires the agreement of more than a few independent Grand Lodges? What kind of plans could be made that would cross jurisdictional lines? How would one go about such an effort?

In a letter dated 6 February 2000, William R. Miller, a Past Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of Washington State and Sovereign Grand Inspector General in Washington wrote to C. Fred Kleinknecht, then Sovereign Grand Commander of the Supreme Council, SJUSA [4] concerning suggestions for dealing with reports that the Imperial Potentate intended to initiate changes that would allow non-Masons to join the Shriners. Bro. Miller offers some astonishing suggestions. How should the AASR deal with the possible action of the Shriners? Bro. Miller writes:
“Plant the seed that it is a bad idea because it is no solution at all, then attack it as a fraternal bad idea.”

Miller also writes:
“We need to develop a collective strategy to plant and reinforce that value system in our members.”

How could they accomplish such an effort? Miller answers:
“In the time between now and then I propose we interview the probable candidates for Representative (in my Temple that is the Potentate, Chief Rabban, Assistant Rabban and Recorder) to see where they stand on the issue and make them commit to vote the way we want them to. If they won't, we elect an alternate slate of Representatives.”

And

“If he is not with us we make sure he is not elected Imperial Potentate. We go right down the line. If they commit to be with us they stay in line - if not we replace them with an alternate we have in the wings.”
And additionally,

“It will be a political campaign where you have to count the votes. We need a war room where we keep tabs on who the Representatives are and how well they are staying committed. It just would not happen with individual Grand Lodges trying to coordinate with sixty other Grand Lodges.”

By any reasonable examination, Bro. Miller is offering plans for the successful manipulation of an allied Masonic organization into doing what he and “others” want done. He even offers punishment for anyone not yielding to the demands. If those running for any local or national Shrine office would not agree with “the plan” they would be replaced or unable to be elected.

Bro. Miller’s letter was obtained by the Shriners and posted on their website. While it is understandable that this event may have caused some embarrassment for both the Southern Jurisdiction and Bro. Miller, it does not seem to have stopped Bro. Miller’s brazen letter writing. In a 19 February 2004 email to a fellow PGM and SJ SGIG, Bro. Miller writes:

“The Philalethes has its own, new, agenda - led by Nelson King (an embarrassment to Freemasonry) and Roberts. They want the rank and file to recognize the Grand Orients, co-Masonic bodies, Prince Hall carte blanc etc. They constantly denigrate the authority of Grand Lodges to control recognition and legitimate, regular Freemasonry. Wallace McCloud seems to be a bit of that tong as well. As Grand Abbot of the Blue Friars, he invited an expelled Texas mason, now a member of a Prince Hall lodge in Texas, as a new member - last year I think. Sort of poking Reese and company in the nose.”[5]

Let’s look at this amazing mail. What evidence does Bro. Miller offer in support of his serious charges? None at all. It is all stated “as fact.” It is uncertain what he means by “Grand Orients,” but if he means the Grand Orient of France, this is wholly false as is his charge that these brothers support the recognition of co-Masonic bodies in any manner. We must remember Bro. Miller’s message in the Shrine letter, “Plant the seed …” We must remember what was written in the Grand Lodge of New York’s report on The Philalethes Society, “…in light of the Grand Master’s concerns regarding this Society’s alleged attempts to interfere in Grand Lodge activities inappropriately.” Bro. Miller’s statement in this e-mail (“They constantly denigrate the authority of Grand Lodges”) is disturbingly similar. Was Bro. Miller the source of the GM of New York’s misinformation? Where else has Bro. Miller “plant[ed] the seed”?

If these events concerning Bro. Miller were not enough, there is a third event that should be examined. We learn from the July 2003 edition of the E-Alpha (on-line newsletter of Holland Lodge #1 in Houston, Texas) [6] that Bro. Miller gave a talk entitled “The Case for a United Grand Lodge of the United States of America.” The E-Alpha tells us that Bro. Miller is supportive of creating a single, supervising “Grand Lodge” of sorts in the US so that national action could be better implemented. The report tells us of Bro. Miller’s “disappointments” and “failed efforts” concerning getting his ideas into practice. The report notes that Bro. Miller is dissatisfied with the fact that each year the “annual Conferences of Grand Masters and Grand Secretaries” adopts rules “making it NOT a Legislative Assembly.” He is reported to suggest that issues of “regularity and recognition pose problems more easily solved by fewer bodies to promote the Universality of Freemasonry.” And “…should we just design our own UGL? One perhaps with [a] national spokesman within the framework of our present 51 Grand Lodges.”

Let’s try to look at the total picture being painted. Bro. Miller seems to want some sort of governing, controlling body that will be able to direct the actions of all U.S. Grand Lodges and Masonic organizations. He has offered a plan that spells out the steps that should be taken to obtain this control. Anyone who would not be supportive of this plan will be unable to be elected to any office of importance. He has a plan for advancing his message (planting the seed) and has already demonstrated a willingness to use falsehoods with the obvious dual goal of smearing the name of anyone who might present him with problems and of convincing others to join him in his position. Will it become necessary for a small group of centralized Masons to “approve” candidates before they can be elected to any Grand Lodge or appendant body office regardless of jurisdiction?

Obviously, U.S. Grand Lodges will become, if Bro. Miller achieves his professed goal, subservient to this little “super grand lodge.” The voice of individual lodges will be silenced. What is most ironic is that Bro. Miller’s professed plans for controlling U.S. Grand Lodges by means of this little band of allies is exactly what he falsely attributed to The Philalethes Society in his February 2004 e-mail. We have already seen that this same false notion was advanced, and wisely rejected, in New York. Reports even tell us that the absurdly false charge that The Philalethes Society is somehow attempting to “control” U.S. Grand Lodges is circulating in more than a few U.S. jurisdictions. The “seed” of falsehood has clearly been planted in more than a few areas.

What’s Going on?
For whatever it’s worth, the tactics, the plan and the execution for a centralized, national control of U.S. Masonry are laid out by Bro. Miller. The questions are: if this is more than one man’s design, how deep are the roots; how long has this been going on and how many Masons could be involved in such activity? The idea of a national U.S. Grand Lodge has been around since George Washington was nominated to be its “National Grand Master.” This idea was wisely squelched, as was the movement to crown him King George Washington when the nation was newly formed. But a national Grand Lodge is one matter; organized efforts to manipulate and control by means of spreading falsehoods or eliminating opposition is quite another matter.

There is no question that Prince Hall Masonry was kept out of the recognized U.S. Masonic family by the employment of tactics very similar to the ones laid out by Bro. Miller. The “seed” was planted that Prince Hall Masonry was irregular, there was very little effort made on the grand lodge or leadership level to seriously prove the charges factual and the unsubstantiated charges were repeated until they became an “understood fact.” At some point the actual issue regarding Prince Hall’s regularity becomes a secondary issue. The real issue becomes the tactics that were used to keep them on the outside looking in. The tactics of planting the seeds, offering minimal support for the charges, spreading falsehoods and punishing those who might consider any reevaluation of the situation fits like a glove with what Bro. Bill Miller offers. His “plan” is not unique.

Like Prince Hall, the actual regularity of the Grand Lodge of France becomes a secondary issue to the tactics that have been used to keep them unrecognized in the U.S. for the last 50 or so years. Since they are unrecognized, then just about anything can be said about them and how does one determine if what is being said is factual? By visiting their lodges? That’s not possible until recognition takes place. By listening to what those opposed to the Grand Lodge of France have to say? By reading what independent researchers have to say about the Grand Lodge of France in The Philalethes? Is it now clear why some might wish to silence The Philalethes Society?

And So it Goes
The paranoid, anti-communist hysteria of the 1950’s in the U.S. became known as McCarthyism. Just like the Salem Witch Hunt days of the late 1600’s, all that was necessary was to cry out, “He’s a Communist!” and the career and lives of totally innocent individuals would be ruined. The charge alone, even if wholly false, was enough to do the damage. Why? Because “important men” made the charges. Who could think that such “important men” would offer anything but the truth? What they said was accepted as fact, many times with precious little support for the charges. For a time, this activity was successful. Many of those who fell victim to these tactics never fully recovered from the damage done to them by outright lies.
In the next part of this series, we will examine the Masonic equivalent of McCarthyism taking place today in U.S. Masonry and further analyze how the same strategy of paranoia and falsehoods has been employed against the Grand Lodge of France, The Philalethes Society and any organization or individual who does not wish to subjugate itself or himself to a small band of individual Masons in positions of authority.

Notes:
1) Billy Aportadera, Betrayal of Masonic Trust, The Grand Lodge of the Philippines website, www.glphils.org/sp-feature/masonic-trust.htm
2) Louisiana Masonic Monitor (The Grand Lodge of Louisiana, 1974) 40.
3) United Grand Lodge of England website, www.grandlodge-england.org/masonry/freemasonrys-external-relations.htm.
4) www.shrinershq.org/potesmsg/planetalk/sgigletter3-00.html
5) William R. Miller email, 19, February 2004. Message on File.
6) www.hollandlodge.org/e-AlphaJuly2003.pdf
Copyright ©2002, 2003, 2004, 2005 The Philalethes Society. All Rights Reserved


Dear Brother Milliken:





We will gladly give you permission to reprint the copyright article from The Philalethes Magazine©, The Philalethes CD-Rom© or web sites providing the following:



A. That credit is given to the author.

B. It is noted that the article is reprinted from The Philalethes, with permission.

C. That a copy of your publication is forwarded to the Editor.



Sincerely and fraternally,

Nelson King, FPS

Editor

2 Knockbolt Crescent

Toronto ON Canada M1S 2P6