
#: 27052 S1/Collation & Chats
    01-Dec-93  23:26:43
Sb: #F&AM  with Prince Hall
Fm: Alan P. Branch 72613,3142
To: ALL

Brothers,

In the last two years, it has been debated on the East coast whether or not to
invite Prince Hall Masons to join with Free & Accepted Masons as one Masonic
Family.  The debates have been heated on both sides.  What it finally came down
to was: If we combined, Who would comprise the Grand Staff in each state.  What
is your opinions on this matter.  THIS SHOULD BE A GOOD ONE BROTHERS so JUMP
RIGHT IN.

W..Alan Branch
Munn Lodge #203, 2nd Manhattan,NYC

There are 10 Replies.

#: 27080 S1/Collation & Chats
    02-Dec-93  00:41:51
Sb: #27052-#F&AM  with Prince Hall
Fm: CHARLES N. RIENZO 74260,432
To: Alan P. Branch 72613,3142 (X)

AND AS YOU ALL JUMP IN.....
        Please help me cure a case of hoof'n'mouth from tonight.

I made the probably incorrect statement that "a number of states recognize them
(Prince Hall lodges)."  My WM 2B  (PM also) said
"NO only NJ" and was then corrected to include Iowa.

OK GANG........SAVE ME!


WHAT STATES RECOGNIZE PH Lodges anyway??????
Chuck getti'n off on the wrong foot Rienzo
SS2B Holly 745 Willoughby  OH


There is 1 Reply.

#: 27102 S1/Collation & Chats
    02-Dec-93  01:21:46
Sb: #27080-F&AM  with Prince Hall
Fm: Douglas Huskins 72711,3537
To: CHARLES N. RIENZO 74260,432 (X)

I know CT recognizes PH Masons.

Doug



#: 27084 S1/Collation & Chats
    02-Dec-93  00:43:50
Sb: #27052-F&AM  with Prince Hall
Fm: CHARLES N. RIENZO 74260,432
To: Alan P. Branch 72613,3142 (X)

Now in response to the question........
        Sounds like an ego thing that should be worked out really quickly by
like minded __brothers__ from both organizations.
Chuck Rienzo  SS2B Holly Lodge 745  willoughby OH


#: 27089 S1/Collation & Chats
    02-Dec-93  00:47:13
Sb: #27052-F&AM  with Prince Hall
Fm: Nelson King 71202,22
To: Alan P. Branch 72613,3142 (X)

Once again Bro. Alan you are misinformed.  There will be no joining of the two
Grand Lodges.  That is not even being discussed.  All that is being discussed
and what will happen [we hope] is that the 2 Grand Lodges will reckognize each
other, and fraternal visiting between the 2 will be allowed.  The topic of
joining the 2 Grand Lodges is not even on the table........................

S&F
Nelson King

#: 27096 S1/Collation & Chats
    02-Dec-93  01:07:51
Sb: #27052-#F&AM  with Prince Hall
Fm: Dean  Millard 76277,70
To: Alan P. Branch 72613,3142 (X)

Brother Alan,
  Here in Idaho we gave full Masonic recognition to the Prince Hall Grand Lodge
of Oregon in 1992 and just this year we extended this recognition to the Prince
Hall Grand Lodge of Washington.
  The Grand Lodge of Oregon has jurisdiction over Oregon, Idaho, and Nevada and
this is why we were interested in attempting to establish Masonic communication
with them first.  The result of this action has been more than just
interesting!  The first, and obvious, result of course, was that we were
allowed to visit a Prince Hall Lodge and observe the performance of there
Degree work.  The Lodge we visited is located in Mt. Home, Idaho and is known
as Saber Lodge #(?).  Their work is done directly out of the "Duncan's Monitor"
which I believe most of us are familiar with.  The second, and very unexpected,
result was that the Grand Lodge of Oregon, A.F.& A.M., by edict of the Grand
Master, declared that the Grand Lodge of Idaho by means of their action had
'violated' the "Exclusive Jurisdiction" of the Grand Lodge of Oregon, and they
then DROPPED Masonic recognition of the Grand Lodge of Idaho.  This has caused
a great deal of consternation both in Idaho and in Oregon.
  I don't know whether this will help any in your discussions, but it may shed
some light on what has happened in the West, at least in this one incident.
  Best of luck on getting further comments on this very timely issue.

Fraternally
Dean Millard, PM
Capital City Lodge #93
Boise, Idaho

There is 1 Reply.

#: 27162 S1/Collation & Chats
    02-Dec-93  13:35:41
Sb: #27096-#F&AM  with Prince Hall
Fm: Ed Greenberg 76703,1070
To: Dean  Millard 76277,70 (X)

I understand that Georgia no longer recognizes Idaho either. True?
                                       -edg


There is 1 Reply.

#: 27238 S1/Collation & Chats
    03-Dec-93  00:56:18
Sb: #27162-F&AM  with Prince Hall
Fm: Dean  Millard 76277,70
To: Ed Greenberg 76703,1070 (X)

Br. Ed,

  You are correct, Georgia has indeed dropped Masonic recognition of Idaho.  In
discussing this subject with our Grand Secretary, WB Joe Hanig, I found out a
few other things that may also be of interest to the readers here.  1)
Louisianna has dropped recognition of Connecticut for it's recognition of the
Grand Lodge of Prince Hall in Connecticut.
2) As of September of 1992, there were 7 other Grand Lodges besides Idaho which
have recognized Grand Lodges of Prince Hall.  3) Something that I had not
realized before was that Idaho is the first Grand Jurisdiction to recognize a
Grand Lodge of Prince Hall OUTSIDE of it's own jurisdiction.  We are also the
first Grand Lodge to recognize more than one Grand Lodge of Prince Hall (I
guess this makes sense if no one else has gone outside of their own
jurisdiction!).

  I fully support the movement which is beginning to take place in this Masonic
community of ours which is just beginning to recognize that a serious injustice
has been done to a VERY large group of very good masons for some 200 years now
and most of my Brethren agree with me.  Idaho as a whole obviously supports
this movement also and is willing to suffer the indignities that we are having
to put up with while the rest of the U.S.A. begins to get it's head out of the
sand.

  Best of wishes, and Fraternal Greetings
  Dean Millard, PM (Idaho)


#: 27134 S1/Collation & Chats
    02-Dec-93  09:41:23
Sb: #27052-#F&AM  with Prince Hall
Fm: Michael Segall 100275,1313
To: Alan P. Branch 72613,3142 (X)

Alan, not my business really, but I think from my experience in France that the
stumbling block will be creating a united Grand Staff. Moreover, both GL-s have
developped, during the long time of their separation, an individuality as well
as many good methods, customs, traditions that might be diluted or lost if the
GL-s hurriedly combined or, worse, if the members of PH just left to join the
F&AM. A disappeareance of PH will probably be unacceptable to most of its
members. Mutual recognition and open intervisitation might achieve a mutual
comprehension that I'm not sure exists today, and give reunification a much
better chance in a few years.

Fraternally, Mike

There is 1 Reply.

#: 27257 S1/Collation & Chats
    03-Dec-93  07:13:02
Sb: #27134-#F&AM  with Prince Hall
Fm: John Day 100236,2364
To: Michael Segall 100275,1313 (X)

Mike,

I wonder whether all this talk of joining various Grand Lodges and forming a GL
of the USA is going a little too far? To me it smacks of a sort of EU
beauracracy of Masonry! In my humble opinion GL's should be getting smaller,
not larger, and returning responsibility for more thanigs to Lodges rather than
assuming them from Lodges, what do you think?

Fraternally, John

There are 2 Replies.

#: 27274 S1/Collation & Chats
    03-Dec-93  08:07:24
Sb: #27257-#F&AM  with Prince Hall
Fm: Michael Segall 100275,1313
To: John Day 100236,2364 (X)

One one hand, you are right about size and control. On the other, most other
Grand Lodges are country-wide, and it is aways a bore to have to deal with 50
different states. A GL of the US would anyway have to create provincial GL-s or
something, it would be otherwise too unwieldy to handle.

You know, on second thoughts, individual lodges might gain more independence
rather than lose any, with a more far away and impersonal GL...

We'll see... It still takes TWO Supreme Councils to handle the SR in the USA!
Will they have to form ONE? That will be interesting to watch.

Fraternally, Mike

There is 1 Reply.

#: 27519 S1/Collation & Chats
    05-Dec-93  05:31:07
Sb: #27274-#F&AM  with Prince Hall
Fm: John Day 100236,2364
To: Michael Segall 100275,1313 (X)

Mike,

This concept of exclusivity of jurisdiction is an intriguing one. As I am sure
you would agree it is more a political concept than a Masonic one.

As you know we have TWO Supreme Councils here in Victoria alone. One a District
of England and the other our own Victorian establishment. They work quite
happily side by side with no real concern about each other or covetousness for
each others members. Before the Union of 1888 we had FOUR Grand Lodges issuing
charters in this state. England, ~Ireland, Scotland and the Grand Lodge of
Victoria. Everybody still recognised everybody else!

It seems that in many respects Freemasons of today seem to have lost the plot
about Grand Lodge. GL has become modelled on government, which is not what I
think Grand Lodge should be. But what is a Grand Lodge? To me it is a
federating body which brings together lodges having a common bond for the
purpose of establishing a uniformity of recognition and establishment for
individual lodges.

The sort of infantile behaviour engaged in by some Grand Lodges in Europe and
America does more to damage the cause of Masonry than almost anything else.

It is Masonry which should count for recognition by other Masons. If a Prince
Hall Grand Lodge is in conformity with the Masonic requirements for recognition
then it should be recognised. It is a serious affront to the Landmarks of the
order not to recognise them. Same applies in other parts of the world. Forget
the politics and remember the Masonry!

S&F John

There is 1 Reply.

#: 27635 S1/Collation & Chats
    06-Dec-93  12:26:01
Sb: #27519-#F&AM  with Prince Hall
Fm: Michael Segall 100275,1313
To: John Day 100236,2364

John,

I can't but utterly agree with you. Since I don't think my opinion on this is
very influential, I can tell you privately that I'm sitting, with a big grin on
my face, and waiting to see how the Prince Hall problem will be solved in the
US. You can see, big as a house, why. The reason most often given for not
recognizing the Grand Lodge of France is that two GL-s cannot be recognized in
the same state...

Regards, Mike

There is 1 Reply.

#: 27757 S1/Collation & Chats
    07-Dec-93  18:00:10
Sb: #27635-F&AM  with Prince Hall
Fm: William A. Siebert 70421,3064
To: Michael Segall 100275,1313

My understanding of the position of our GL's Fraternal Relations Committee is
that the Grand Lodge of France is not recognized because it recognizes the
clearly clandestine Grand Orient.

When I hear of a PH GL that admits women and/or atheists, you may get a break
...


#: 27574 S1/Collation & Chats
    05-Dec-93  18:31:57
Sb: #27257-F&AM  with Prince Hall
Fm: Bill Paine 76327,3321
To: John Day 100236,2364 (X)

Hear Hear!

#: 27187 S1/Collation & Chats
    02-Dec-93  18:06:40
Sb: #27052-#F&AM  with Prince Hall
Fm: William A. Siebert 70421,3064
To: Alan P. Branch 72613,3142 (X)

Unfortunately, Alan, PH doesn't WANT to be "one Masonic family" as you appear
to desire it; they merely want to be recognized fraternally in much the same
way as the Grand Lodge of Michigan recognizes the Grand Lodge of New York
State.  Although this would require modification of our Principles of
Recognition (which may need to be modified anyway), THAT is the move that is
favored in this corner.

-- WAS, PM

There are 3 Replies.

#: 27219 S1/Collation & Chats
    02-Dec-93  22:44:27
Sb: #27187-F&AM  with Prince Hall
Fm: CHARLES N. RIENZO 74260,432
To: William A. Siebert 70421,3064 (X)

HEAR  HEAR!!!!
Normalization of relations sounds like an __ENLIGHTENED__ approach.... so, any
bets on it in our lifetime??
Chuck 'yes I CAN be cynical sometimes" Rienzo
Holly 745, Willoughby, OH


#: 27258 S1/Collation & Chats
    03-Dec-93  07:13:07
Sb: #27187-F&AM  with Prince Hall
Fm: John Day 100236,2364
To: William A. Siebert 70421,3064 (X)

Bill,

Sounds like a very sensible suggestion. As the principles of recognition are
political rather than Masonic it should be any problem to vary them, after all,
they seem to be more honoured in the breach in many circumstances!

John

#: 27271 S1/Collation & Chats
    03-Dec-93  07:53:03
Sb: #27187-F&AM  with Prince Hall
Fm: Michael Segall 100275,1313
To: William A. Siebert 70421,3064 (X)

You'll see! These guys are capable of ANYTHING. After recognizing PH, they
might go on and recognize the Grand Lodge of France! <G>

Mike

#: 27353 S1/Collation & Chats
    03-Dec-93  22:03:08
Sb: #27052-#F&AM  with Prince Hall
Fm: Scott M. Sherman/Sysop 76702,2014
To: Alan P. Branch 72613,3142 (X)

Bro. Alan,
This question has been discussed and debated more than once in our Forum's
history.  Be interesting to see what happens this time.  I, for one, would like
to see if the UGL of England would heal Africa Lodge and we could see what
happens from there.  I have no problem of men of any color being Masons.
Bro. Scott

There is 1 Reply.

#: 27758 S1/Collation & Chats
    07-Dec-93  18:00:14
Sb: #27353-F&AM  with Prince Hall
Fm: William A. Siebert 70421,3064
To: Scott M. Sherman/Sysop 76702,2014 (X)

        >>I, for one, would like to see if the UGL of England would heal
        Africa Lodge

Interesting proposal -- any commentary from the British bretheren?

-- WAS, PM

#: 27504 S1/Collation & Chats
    04-Dec-93  23:11:16
Sb: #27052-#F&AM  with Prince Hall
Fm: Lowell R. Morrison 72370,2243
To: Alan P. Branch 72613,3142 (X)

Perhaps Alan, I am a rable rouser.  And think what makes a man a mason?

The answer makes no mention of color.  These Masons of the Prince Hall Lodges
are just that, Masons, and should by rights be able to visit our lodges,
transfer to our lodges and we to theirs should the occasion or need arise.

One of my Lodge Brothers was ill and went to the hospital in Georga, and Who
visited him?  The Brothers of the Prince Hall Lodges brought him books, Invited
his wife to dinner, brought him home cooked goodies, and 20 years later still
drop him a line upon occasion.  On that day, and hearing that story I became
certian that they were truly brothers.  Now, if we can only get the Grand
Lodges to agree, Masonry will truly make men brothers who can meet upon the
level.

--Uncle Wolf

There is 1 Reply.

#: 27581 S1/Collation & Chats
    05-Dec-93  20:48:32
Sb: #27504-F&AM  with Prince Hall
Fm: Mark R. Sandstrom/DL 72406,303
To: Lowell R. Morrison 72370,2243 (X)

Bro. Uncle Wolf,

Excellent story. That one is being tucked away for future reference. Maybe you
would like to write it up. I'm sure Ralph Herbold would publish it in the
Southern California Research Lodge Fraternal Review. And if not there, maybe
the Philalethes Magazine.

Frat.,
Bro. Mark R. Sandstrom

#: 27573 S1/Collation & Chats
    05-Dec-93  18:31:56
Sb: #27052-#F&AM  with Prince Hall
Fm: Bill Paine 76327,3321
To: Alan P. Branch 72613,3142 (X)

Dear Alan,

Personally, I think that cross-recognition without a merger is the best
solution.  Both the GL of NY and the PH GL of NY have long histories and
traditions and I'm sure neither is eager to give up that identity.  Other
nations successfully contain more then one Grand Lodge within the same borders;
I see no reason why we shouldn't either.

There is, unfortunatly, a complication.  As things stand right now, full
recognition of PH would likely result in the GL of NY having its recognition
withdrawn or qualified by many other Grand Lodges.  Connecticut already has
this problem with the UGL of England, where English Brethren are not permitted
to visit CT Lodges for fear of sitting in open lodge with a PH Mason.  The
purely moral thing to do would be to ignore diffulties like that and forge
ahead by doing the "right thing".  But, sadly, politics is politics.

Bill

There is 1 Reply.

#: 27577 S1/Collation & Chats
    05-Dec-93  19:51:32
Sb: #27573-F&AM  with Prince Hall
Fm: John R. Ray 72773,1435
To: Bill Paine 76327,3321

Bill - Is this an "unwritten" law of the UGL, that is the inability of English
Masons to sit in a Lodge in Conn?

My copy of the 1993 List of Lodges - Masonic indicates that the UGL recognizes
all 51 Grand Lodges of the United States.

??????

JR

#: 27650 S1/Collation & Chats
    06-Dec-93  15:50:34
Sb: #27052-F&AM  with Prince Hall
Fm: Robin Woolen 71302,2034
To: Alan P. Branch 72613,3142 (X)

Dear Brother Branch,
        Since my brothers from across the state have not jumped on this one for
us so I guess I will. GL of Missouri has no recognition of PH. I understand it
is a touchy subject at the annual meeting. It has been brought up and very
quickly put off so I have heard.

        I believe very strongly that mutual recognition should be implemented.
I don't see how you can understand the Landmarks otherwise. Will I see it in my
lifetime? MOST CERTAINLY(I'm 33)!

Robin L. Woolen, MPS
2nd VP SCOTS/ Clan Chief,CSSPBA



#: 28396 S1/Collation & Chats
    15-Dec-93  20:18:01
Sb: #27914-#F&AM  with Prince Hall
Fm:  Edward L. King 76050,2023
To: John R. Ray 72773,1435 (X)

Bro. John,
        I've watched with interest the many facets of the "philisophical"
threads which have proceeded here and although I've felt an urge to speak on
several occassions, have refrained from doing so - until your message:
        You said <<When I asked a Past Grand Master here in Texas...he informed
me to get up and leave a lodge if when I'm visiting a PHA Mason were to
enter.>>  Guess this assumes that your always the first one in the room, huh?
And then how, I wonder, does one determine PHA affiliation?  I have yet to see
any visitor wearing a tag which says "I belong to XXX Lodge of the XXX Grand
Lodge"....  Methinks the only way for one to find out about a PH affiliation
visitor would be after the opening, after the ritual work, and after most of
the business of the lodge - at the time that the visiting brethren were
introduced.  Wouldn't it be wonderful to get up after all of that to excuse
onesself??  Gee, the fellow might see us acknowledging a closing ceremony....
God forbid that the secrets of a closing ceremony were to be divulged!
        Now I'm SURE this PGM wouldn't be implying that if one saw a black face
in the room that a Texas mason should excuse himself....  RIGHT??
        (BTW: I'm not criticizing YOU - Please understand that!!  I'm trying to
point out the ludicrousness of the reply you received!!)
                                Regards,      Ed


There is 1 Reply.

#: 28477 S1/Collation & Chats
    16-Dec-93  09:36:40
Sb: #28396-#F&AM  with Prince Hall
Fm: John R. Ray 72773,1435
To:  Edward L. King 76050,2023 (X)

Bro Ed, I concur.  The issue of PH recognition is confusing at best.  If we
were to accept any one of the many supposed reasons for non-recognition of the
Prince Hall Affiliate, that still does not explain why when a black applicant
approaches a majority of lodges he is essentially advised to contact the local
PHA?

The only issue with PH that I have not found a good anwer for, in regards to
its being "regular" has to do with its creation.  Not as a lodge, but as a
Grand Lodge.  That it (African Lodge) was legally constituted is no longer
deniable, but where and how were the other 2 lodges created that are necessary
for the creation of a GL?  My masonic education is weak on this point.  IF the
other 2 lodges were created by the original, rather than a GL, then it would
seem that there was case against their original "regularity".  Further, IF a GL
was created in a irregular manner, does the passage of time mend this and
demand total recognition?  Even the PHA GL denies recogntion of some lodges
that were formed as a result of their attempt to create a United Grand Lodge.
The recognition of "irregular" lodges is not confined only to us "white"
lodges.  Points to ponder, I guess.

HOWEVER ... I still take issue with not accepting any gentleman into Masonry
(regular, if you would) simply because of the color of his skin.  Like I stated
earlier, why is it that were a man of color attempt to join some of "our"
lodges, he would be either denied or given to phone number to the local PHA
lodge.  This seems like double talk to me.  To state that PHA is not recognized
as being a regular entity (for whatever reason), but referring a gentleman to
the Order because he happens to be black just doesn't sound correct.

I have my own prejudices and feelings, this I will admit.  But I would hope and
pray that if there were ever to be peace and harmony amongst the Brotherhood of
Mankind (of all colors) that it could be within the Lodges of Freemasonry.  To
deny a gentleman of color and remark that they have their own lodge (which we
don't recognize) simply does not make sense.

S&F, JR




#: 28588 S1/Collation & Chats
    17-Dec-93  11:41:35
Sb: #Prince Hall
Fm: Nelson King [GRC] 71202,22
To: All

Brethren:

On this forum there has been a lot said about Prince Hall Masonry, quite a bit
of what has been said is not true.  I will quote from Wallace McLeod's paper
"Prince Hall Freemasonry" which should answer the question of  "Why is there no
recognition?"

Various reason have been offered for the fact that White Freemasonry in the
United States does not recognize Prince Hall Masonry.  In general, certain
events took place long ago are said to contravene Masonic law and practice - -
at least as it is seen today.  Let me mention some of the arguments, with a
comment or two.

1] First argument:
In 1775 or 1778 the mother lodge, African Lodge, was probably formed illegally.
This may well be true, but it became perfectly regular when it received a
charter from England.  These are all sorts of parallels.  Let me give you one.
During the French and Indian war, in the years after 1756, many British
regiments were sent to the New World, including some that had their own
military lodges.  The First Regiment of Foot, with is Loge No. 17, I.C., was
stationed at Albany, New York, for a time, and initiated some of the local
people into Freemasonry; this was probably improper, because at least in later
times such lodges were required to restrict this membership to the armed
forces.  But when this regiment was transferred, the civilian members asked for
some authority under which they could continue to meet as Masons.  The lodge
accordingly ave them a copy of its own Warrant, together with a statement of
the facts, authorizing them to meet until such time as they could obtain a
proper warrant from the Grand Lodge in Ireland.  No Irish Warrant was ever
issued, but the substitute Warrant was confirmed by the Provincial Grand Master
[Moderns] in 1756, and by his successor in 1773 [AQC 96, 1983, 130], and the
Lodge is still working today.

2] Second argument
In 1813 African Lodge was struck of the rolls of the Grand Lodge of England,
and ceased to exist as a duly constituted body; the reason for its erasure was
that it had not submitted returns or made payments to the Charity Fund since
1797,  Sixteen years is a long time, admittedly.  It may be that every lodge in
our younger jurisdictions has an unbroken history form the time of institution.
It was not always, thus.  Sometimes colonial lodges were allowed to remain
dormant for a longer period without being erased.  Brockville No. 756/489, in
my home province of Ontario, was inactive for twenty-five years, from 1827 to
1852; Grimsby, No. 761/494, for even longer, from 1827 to 1854; yet they were
not erased, were revived under good auspices, and are still active [AQC 95,
1982, 78].  There does seem to be some inequity.

3] Third argument
From 1779 on, African Lodge issued warrants to other Lodges, and in 1828 it
formed itself into an independent Grand Lodge.  Both actions are said to be
improper, and we are told that it requires three lodges to from a Grand Lodge.
Today this may we be true.  But the fact remains that between 1678 and 1803
Lodge Mother Kilwinning in Scotland issued warrants to nearly fifty lodges, and
no one gets upset.  And so far as the formation of Grand Lodges is concerned,
Coil's Masonic Encyclopedia tell us that two lodges, not three, formed the
Grand Lodges of Rhode Island and that one lodge not three formed the Grand
Lodge of Luxembourg - - both of which we recognize.

4] Fourth argument
Prince Hall Grand Lodges formed other Grand Lodges, and this, we are told, is
improper.  William Mercer Wilson, the first Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of
Canada, said, "a Grand Lodge cannot create a Grand Lodge", and he may have been
right.  But let me quote you from the Proceedings of my own Grand Lodge for
1989: "The French National Grand Lodge...constituted... the Grand Lodge of the
Ivory Coast".  And a few years earlier the same Grand Lodge had established the
Grand Lodge of Spain [AQC 96, 1983, 136; cf. Proceedings for 1983 page 75].  In
fact, the mother of these two bodies, the National Grand Lodge of France, has
been set up by the United Grand Lodge of England in 1912 [Heritage Proceedings
12. 130].  We recognize all of them.


5] Fifth argument
You will often hear it said that any Grand Lodge, in order to be regular, must
hold "exclusive territorial jurisdiction" within the area or its authority.
This is one of the criteria for regularity required by the Committee on
Information for Recognition of the Conference of Grand Masters in North America
and was cited, for example, in the report of the Committee on Fraternal
Relations of our Grand Lodge in 1988 [Proceedings 94].  This often is called
the American Doctrine, and, so far as I can tell, it is utterly untrue.  Now
last year Bro. Auclair admitted that "in the Province of Quebec right now there
are probably five... organizations claiming to be Masonic," but of course they
are not recognized as regular.  But besides all those clandestines or
irregulars, in the Province of Quebec, that are two lodges that belong to the
United Grand Lodge of England, Saint Paul's No. 374 and St. George's No. 440,
and of course are admitted by all to be perfectly regular.  That is, the Grand
Lodge of Quebec does not hold exclusive territorial jurisdiction, and yet all
American Grand Lodges recognize it as regular.  Similarly, Halifax is the home
of Royal Standard No. 398 on the English Register; yet the Grand Lodge of Nova
Scotia is regular.  New Zealand is the home of the duly recognized Grand Lodge
of New Zealand, 40 English lodges, ll Scottish lodges, and a handful of Irish
lodges.  We are in amity with the Grand Lodge of Chile, in whose jurisdiction
there are three lodges on the register of Massachusetts.  During the years
between the World Wars, Czechoslovakia had two Grand Lodges, the Lessing Grand
Lodge working in German, and the Nation Grand Lodge working in Czech; we
recognized them both.  And so on.  Whatever may be the reason for the so-called
American Doctrine, it is clear that it has been applied selectively.  A cynic
might conclude that it is designed to exclude the existence to two sovereign
Grand Lodges, one black  and one white, in any single state.  Now of course
some of our younger Grand Lodges have never had to contend with alien
recognized Masonic bodies within their jurisdiction.

I hope that this clears up some of the misconceptions that have stated in this
forum.

S&F
Nelson



#: 28635 S1/Collation & Chats
    18-Dec-93  06:02:04
Sb: #28588-#Prince Hall
Fm: John Day 100236,2364
To: Nelson King [GRC] 71202,22 (X)

Nelson,

I welcomed your three part message about why the Prince Hall Masons seem to be
unable to achieve recognition. It seems that the arguments used against the PH
Masons are very similar to those used against other groups of Masons around the
world who are also unable to gain the imprimatur of recognition.

1.. MILITARY LODGES - I don't think you will find it uncommon for travelling
military lodges to have initiated members whilst abroad. In fact it seems to
have been quite common practice and records exist of many lodges practising
'sub-umbraculum' of the charter of another warranted lodge. One need also
remember that often it took many months, and sometimes years, for responses to
arrive from London when new Lodges wanted charters.

2.. COLONISING GRAND LODGES - On many ocassions it has been known for
Colonising bodies to leave lodges dormant for very long periods when it suited
them to do so. Maybe in the case of African Lodge it did not suit London for
some reason to continue to claim the lodge as one of its own?

3.. WARRANTING OTHER LODGES - In fact Lodge Mother Kilwinning was welcomed back
into the fold with a number suggesting it was the oldest Lodge in Edinburgh
when it had accepted earlier it was younger than the Edinburgh Lodge (No. 1
SC).

4.. FORMING OTHER GRAND LODGES - So it's improper? Did that ever stop anyone!
No, I would go so far as to suggest that many Grand Lodges aorund the world
today have irregular formations. You have mentioned some, but others were more
clandestinely created than anyone will admit today.

5.. TERRITORIAL EXCLUSIVITY - Is a specious argument if ever one existed.
Almost every GL in the world recognises the German artifice of a confederacy of
Grand Lodges. Until the 1960's most US GL's recognised two GL's in France. For
many years three Grand Lodges reigned in England alone. Washington still hasn't
ceded control of Alaska to the GL of Alaska which I understand it sponsored.
The argument of territorial exclusivity is about as political as you can get.
It provides an apparent reason for GL's to select one, often acquiescent, Grand
Lodge in a country instead of having to deal with reality.

Like so many of the arguments about recognition it seems that the rules are
better honoured in the breach than their observance. Maybe many members of GL
committees are just looking for ways of delaying the inevitability of realising
that the Landmarks of the order call for us to discriminate against no-one who
is capable of meeting the requirements for membership. But whilst so many
American GL's, and others overseas as well, fail in their own observance of
these landmarks how can we expect sanity and reason to prevail in respect of
the Prince Hall Masons?

Fraternally, John

There is 1 Reply.

#: 28657 S1/Collation & Chats
    18-Dec-93  13:29:07
Sb: #28635-#Prince Hall
Fm: Douglas Huskins 72711,3537
To: John Day 100236,2364 (X)

John:

I agree with you completely.  As a Conn. Mason, I can visit PH lodges.  Yet, as
a Calif. Mason, I cannot. (What do I do?  When in Rome...)

I wonder if anyone has asked the PH lodges if they want to be recognized. From
what I have heard, many PH Masons do NOT want to recognize "regular" Masonry.
My, my, what a publicity nightmare this would be if individual Masons (from
either side) were to, in an unmasonic manner, publicly display their dislike
for the recognition.  Just what Masonry needs right now. <tongue in cheek>

Take the GL of California.  To pass a resolution, it must receive a 5/6
positive vote on a resolution.  IOW, 83.33% to pass.  What do you think the PH
Masons would do if they heard our vote failed because it only received 82% in
favor?

I counsel time, patience, and perserverance in this issue.  Let us not ignore
the situation, but let us move with sureness of step.

Doug



There is 1 Reply.

#: 28696 S1/Collation & Chats
    19-Dec-93  05:15:39
Sb: #28657-#Prince Hall
Fm: John Day 100236,2364
To: Douglas Huskins 72711,3537 (X)

Doug,

Well put! I was also pleased to see you put the "regular' in quotes. My
understanding is that PH lodges are regular with only one exceptional clause,
they don't admit non-blacks. Most other American lodges are regular also, but
some of the won't admit blacks! I can understand why some PH masons don't want
recognition, would you want to be swallowed up like that?

S&F John

There is 1 Reply.

#: 28721 S1/Collation & Chats
    19-Dec-93  12:13:48
Sb: #28696-Prince Hall
Fm: Douglas Huskins 72711,3537
To: John Day 100236,2364 (X)

John:

I put regular in quotes since I did not want to imply others may not be
regular.  I am in favor of recognition.  I just want to see it done
successfully the first time.  Therefore, I am more willing to wait.

Your understanding about PH lodges is incorrect.  PH lodges admit non-black
members as readily as we admit black members.  There are a few PH lodges who
discourage white membership, but this is not PH Masonry so much as a few PH
Masons who do not want to see white men in their lodges.

OTOH, I have been told by PH Masons that "the other Masonry discriminates on
the basis of color.  We (PH Masonry) do not."  Yet, when I look at their
membership totals, white men are as much a minority as black men in are in
"regular" Masonry.

As I see it, there are several wounds that need healing and the process will be
slow if it is going to work.

Doug


#: 29352 S1/Collation & Chats
    27-Dec-93  06:55:46
Sb: #29296-#Duty to God ...
Fm: John Day 100236,2364
To: Jacques Huyghebaert 100142,1234 (X)

Dear Jacques,

PMFJIH.....

You talk about the problem of discrimination in two ways, internal and
external. That is one form of discrimination based on our selection criteria
for new candidates and another based on our criteria for admission to the
degrees of the appendant bodies. In some measure both of these discriminations
are cultural. Despite the fact that Americans have lived with Black Americans
(I am not sure what the politically correct erm is, nor do I much care!) for a
very long period they seem to have yet to come to a reconciliation with them
and accept them as human beings. In much the same way we see a variety of
masons of differing religious affiliations who wish to make interpretations of
the landmarks that suit them. It has become increasingly common to hear
American preachers coming to this country and preaching that Masonry is
anit-Christian, that we are a subsititute religion and that we lead all who
come to us for light in the paths of Satan! Sadly it seems that more than a few
of these men are also Masons.

The external discrimination must continue! But not in the form of
discrimination against men who are black or who are of another faith, the
discrimination must be against those who are not capable of being freemasons!
These men who would come to us and see our fraternity as a way to a socially
acceptable sate for themselvews with little or no regard for the fraternity
itself and its teachings. Maybe the French have got something right. I read
from Michael that they look carefully at the man, his capability and his
interests for a long period. They investigate him carefully, look at every
aspect of his life and do a great deal to give him the impression that what he
is about to embark on is serious and solemn business.

Alright, maybe they don't have all the answers, but I can see one thing that
will happen with French masonry as Michael describes it to us. IT WILL
SURVIVE!!! Why? Because at least the masons in France, even if they are smaller
in nmumbers, will know and understand their Craft much better than will the
same name of MAsons in this country. Our standards have already been set too
low. We have far too many people her who saw the boom of the post WWII era (it
seems the post WWI era in the US) as being what Masonry was all about. When we
had candidates coming out of our ears, where lodges were doing three and four
candidates in a degree per month. What became known here as the infamous
Masonic Waltz (1-2-3, 1-2-3) of the sixties and into the seventies. But where
are all of those men now? Gone, to the local Rotary CLub, or the Golf Club or
some other place because that is what they were really looking for in the first
place.

The external discrimination must go on! We must select those who are capable of
understanding, of valuing and of preserving that which we have. But we must
accept the Freemason in the man, newver the outward characteristics of the man
himself. Whatever religion or wahtever colour he is if he conforms to our
landmarks and proves that he can be a good Freemason then it is im we want. Not
the white for the sake of being white.

But as for the internal discrimination, it must go, and it must go soon! If we
accept men for what they are in to the Craft and we say that advancement is by
merit alone then we must ensure that such is the case. This past year I had to
face a financial problem and resign from some of my activities. I resigned from
several lodges and I leave it to you to guess which, I am sure you can work it
out for yourself! Not only did I resign I did so willingly, becuase if we tell
a Jew he can be a Freemason then we must be prepared to admit him to a
participation in every rite and privilege in Freemasonry, not just those we
think is good enough for the non-Christian.

I must admit I like what my Grand Lodge says - "Pure and Ancient Freemasonry
consists of the degrees of the Entered Apprentice, the Fellow Craft, the Master
Mason as well as the Degree of Mark Master Mason and the Holy Royal Arch". Any
other degree or rite is listed as "Other Masonic Rites" and a young Mason is
never told that they are part of Freemasonry, he is told that they are
'something extra, if you want to follow a different path'. But to say to him
that part of the system to which you might aspore is open only to Christians is
tantamount to admitting that their is something wrong with the pantheistic
requirement for membership of the most fundamental degrees of our system. In
much the same way recognising Grand bodies who require adherence to one form of
belief or another is anathema to our Landmarks in exactly the same way.

Before we can face the outside world we must look within. We must find out what
 Freemasonry really is and cut off that which is not, then we will be able to
turn to the outside world and say, 'look at us, we have something valuable,
something of which we can be proud to defend'. Then as we populate the Craft
with Freemasons, however few, then we will have something which will survive.
Numbers alone will not ensure the survival of Freemasonry. It may be called
Freemasonry but is that what it will be when nobody knows, or understands, or
cares anymore?

Personally I think we have paid the price of Pike and his concept of Masonry
for long enough, particularly as it seems that everybody in this country who
wants to cite Masonic authorities for what is wrong with Freemasonry does so by
using Pike, and Mackey to a lesser extent. If part of the cancer within that is
doing so much damage to Freemasonry is the 'Christian' degrees, then lets cut
them out! They are not an integral and essential part of Freemasonry, so why do
 we need them anyway?

Sincerely and running very, very fast!    ---John Day P.M.
Templestowe Lodge No. 791, Victoria, AUSTRALIA.


#: 29361 S1/Collation & Chats
    27-Dec-93  09:42:29
Sb: #29296-Duty to God ...
Fm: Michael Segall 100275,1313
To: Jacques Huyghebaert 100142,1234 (X)

Dear Jacques,

Thank you for your clear and complete explanatory message. You know that while
our opinions concur about the reality of problems we currently face, notably in
matters of race and religion, where our oldest laws stand witness against what
is actually done, they do not agree about the reasons of the current decline,
"crash into oblivion" as some say.

The differences are probably based, on both sides, more on our personal
convictions than on solid scientific facts. We cannot help it  because we have
little choice, because mass psychology is more an art than a science, and
because, in spite of ad-hoc committees, no one has done the serious research
necessary to find how many of those who do not join do it for what specific
reasons. I don't even think such a study is feasible, because it is hard to
identify people who DO NOT make certain choices.

We are only left with our own subjective ideas of what is going wrong in the US
(and probably also in the UK). Alive today against overwhelming odds, I tend to
be optimistic. You tend, for your own reasons, to be pessimistic. But your
pessimism drives you to envision the possibility of the eventual disappeareance
of Masonry, particularly of the brand currently practised in the Anglo-American
world.

This situation is something I cannot, subjectively or objectively, accept,
because even if I disagree with many of the ideas and practices of this brand
of Masonry, it remains nevertheless a part, a major part, of my family at the
affective level. This is probably why I'm often so aggressive in my criticism,
just as I would be with a physical brother taking a path in life that I
consider dangerous.

You consider that the changes in the US way of life, the "Political
Correctness" fad (to me a kind of Orwellian NewThink and NewSpeak), the will to
crush any difference into uniformity and to consider all humans as
interchangeable pawns on a gigantic chessboard can only mean for Masonry, in
the end, a kind of generalized co-masonry admitting anyone who just walks in,
with standards no higher and probably lower than any neighborhood barbecue
club. You are possibly, even probably right. You suggest that Grand Lodges
tacke these problems. How? What leeway do they have between doing nothing and
lowering all barriers to women and atheists?

This is why I think that, even if according to you and some others the major
reason for decline is elsewhere, nevertheless

 -      rendering the degrees meaningful and valuable again;
-       maybe dropping memorisation in favour of intelligence;
-       going back to the study of symbolism, mainstay of our Craft;
-       remaining ALSO but not ONLY fraternal or charitable;

can give Anglo-American Masonry the shot in the arm it needs to pick itself up
for another century, when our descendants, in greatly different circumstances
(because conformism and fads never last very long), will be able to decide how
to transmit and save our aims, tradition, moral and spiritual message for yet
another century.

Fraternally yours, Mike




#: 29375 S1/Collation & Chats
    27-Dec-93  13:39:49
Sb: #29296-#Duty to God ...
Fm: Douglas Huskins 72711,3537
To: Jacques Huyghebaert 100142,1234 (X)

Is Masonry crashing into oblivion?

You claim the cause is "because, for many young Americans today, ... The
selective conditions of admission into Masonry are ... discriminatory."

I think you are losing touch with the youth of the United States.  I am thirty
two years young and was raised at the age of 22.  My mother lodge is close to
death.  They have few young members.  Their old members are dying of old age
and its illnesses.  Attendance has dropped to unacceptable lows. The reason
young people do not join that lodge are numerous.  None of the reasons has
anything to do with discrimination.

Young people today accept a certain degree of discrimination: Gifted children
schooling programs, lower insurance premiums for good drivers, etc. Being told
there is a restriction on membership into Masonry only encourages membership.
(I received a call the other day from a 20 year old person interested in
joining Masonry.  I explained our "restrictions" and he was not scared off by
it. Instead, he gave me his name, address, and phone number!)

I am a Past Master of a lodge in California.  This lodge is alive and well.
Young people are joining it constantly.  An average meeting night (we meet
every week) has just over 30 members.  About half of them are under the age of
45.  Does Stanislaus Lodge "discriminate" on the basis of sex and religion?  No
more than the ancient landmarks tell us to.  No athiest or woman has or will be
made a Mason in the lodge.

What, then, makes Stanislaus Lodge raise 10 to 15 candidates per year for the
last several years?  We do not solicite.  We do not advertise.  I think the
answer to this question is also creating the effect described in the last
paragraph.

Our lodge is active.  I said we meet once a week.  That is not entirely
correct.  We have one stated meeting a month.  There is some activity the other
weeks.  That activity can be anything from visiting a Job's Bethel to degree
work to dinners to presentations to ...  I had a difficult time cramming all
the activities into 52 Thursdays.  Actually, I did not.  There was a few
Tuesdays and Wednesdays used thoughout the year (not to mention a couple of
Saturdays.)  My lodge has activities which are designed to do nothing more than
provide fellowship (pool and pinocole tournaments.)  We have numerous annual
family events (bus trips to factory outlet stores, ice cream parties, picnics,
Sweetheart dinners etc)

Young wives today want their young husbands to have an organization like
Masonry.  They want their husbands to go out with the guys every week.  They
also want a night to themselves and another night where the couple spend the
evening alone together.

Why does my second lodge seem so prosperous?  I can only say it is because of
our extensive activities.  If discrimination was keeping the young people away,
my lodge would be failing also.

It isn't.

Doug



There is 1 Reply.

#: 29560 S1/Collation & Chats
    29-Dec-93  14:55:07
Sb: #29375-#Duty to God ...
Fm: Jacques Huyghebaert 100142,1234
To: Douglas Huskins 72711,3537 (X)


>>I think you are losing touch with the youth of the United States.<<
>>The reason young people do not join that lodge are numerous.<<
>>None of the reasons has anything to do with discrimination.<<
>>Young people today accept a certain degree of discrimination<<


Possible, Doug.   May be you're right about this.   I'm not sure however.

In my opinion it is difficult for you or me to judge whether final
stabilisation in the process to remove discrimination has been reached in
American society.

What will happen in the future, will not depend on us but upon what those who
consider themselves to be the victims of discrimination will do.

What I learn from the messages and comments from you, John Day and Michael
Segall is the importance to make a clear distinction between discrimination and
selection.


Discrimination can be defined as a system of exclusion based upon an alledged
inferiority of a part of humanity  according to criteria that are considered to
scientifically false as well as morally repulsive. Supression of discrimination
is necessary in order to guarantee to all human beings equal rights and
opportunities in life and society. Discrimination is legally banned in varying
degrees in the world.

  examples : races, religions, cultures, sexes, disabled or aged people.
  cfr. United Nations declaration of human rights

I  believe that a growing number of people, young or not, will decline to join
any organisation that carries an image of discrimination (in the sense here
explained).

Selection on the contrary is a system where membership criteria are morally
irrelevant and do not threaten human rights.

e.g.    tennis club -> open to those who like or play tennis
        religious community -> open to those who share the same faith
        young mothers' club -> open to young mothers
        doctors in medecine -> open to those who have done the studies and
                                passed the exams

Selective membership is in principle an OPEN system for all those who meet the
regulations of the organisation concerned, it is not a CLOSED system and no one
should feel insulted or offended by the very existence of these organisations.

In some cases, however, selective membership can lead to hidden forms of
discrimination.


If Freemasonry, universal by definition, is not only to survive but to expand
into the next century, in the United States of America and in the whole world,
no image of discrimination should be allowed to taint the  great moral
integrity  that has been closely associated with our Venerable Order in the
past.

That the Fraternity is selective when considering candidates and requires from
all its members strict moral qualities, regular presence at the Lodge meetings,
personal participation of the Brethren,  advancement only according to merit,
etc. are criteria that can only make our Order stronger and more respectable.



This is the difference which, IMHO, we must make clear to the world.


Frat
Jacques







There is 1 Reply.

#: 29664 S1/Collation & Chats
    30-Dec-93  13:32:14
Sb: #29560-#Duty to God ...
Fm: Neil Shapiro/Chief Sysop 76703,401
To: Jacques Huyghebaert 100142,1234 (X)

Jacques --
Do you consider the exclusion of women to be selective or discriminatory? I
personally feel a case could be made either way and am not sure what I feel
about it as yet.

On the selective side it can be argued that women could not participate in the
Rituals as they are written. That various aspects of the Ritual degree work
would, at best, make them uncomfortable. It could further be argued that as
Freemasonry is based on the idea of a (perhaps non-existent) medieval Guild of
free masons which, as most Guilds, was limited to male membership that today's
Masonry simply reflects olde, operative masonry.

On the discriminatory side it could be argued that the rationale for the
Rituals was meant to exclude women and, thus, changing those aspects would
perhaps improve the Rituals (leaving aside the question of Landmarks for the
moment). It could also be argued that as there was no medieval Guild of free
masons (as Robinson and others maintain) that to go about taking the rules as
to sexual admission of a non-existent Guild is discriminatory.

At some point, and I do not think very far into the future, American Masonry is
going to have to deal with this both ethically and, I am sure, legally.
-- Neil


