A Considerable Resolution

[Torence]

Hello Brothers-
Here is a suggested resolution that I have not quite made my mind up
on. Though it may be right (or something similar to it, worded
differently) and timing for its introduction here correct; but not
necessarily elsewhere, I was wondering how helpful or hurtful adopting
such a resolution by a Grand Lodge body would be. What are your
thoughts?

Resolved:
That the territorial limits that a Grand Lodge claims to be exclusive
is the State, Province, Territory or Federal District defined for it
by the civil authority. That there can only be one recognized Grand
Lodge within that State, Province, Territory or Federal District
empowered to elect and appoint Grand Lodge Officers, form, dissolve
and recognize existing Local Lodges, and govern the affairs
appertaining to the work of the three principle degrees of
FreeMasonry, Entered Apprentice, Fellow Craft, and Master Mason. That
there is no need for and cannot be additional administrations within
that State, Province, Territory or Federal District and so there
cannot be degrees of recognition for additional Masonic governments.
Partial acknowledgments being an abomination to Masonry, competing
Grand Lodges then must either fully unite or sever any existing
relationship that does not meet these qualifications.

Ftaernally,
Torence Evans Ake
Secretary - Auburn Park Lodge No. 789 - Crete, Illinois
PM - Arcadia Lodge No. 1138 - Lansing, Illinois

[David Simpson]

Post by Torence
Hello Brothers-
Here is a suggested resolution that I have not quite made my mind up
on. Though it may be right (or something similar to it, worded
differently) and timing for its introduction here correct; but not
necessarily elsewhere, I was wondering how helpful or hurtful adopting
such a resolution by a Grand Lodge body would be. What are your
thoughts?
That the territorial limits that a Grand Lodge claims to be exclusive
is the State, Province, Territory or Federal District defined for it
by the civil authority. That there can only be one recognized Grand
Lodge within that State, Province, Territory or Federal District
empowered to elect and appoint Grand Lodge Officers, form, dissolve
and recognize existing Local Lodges, and govern the affairs
appertaining to the work of the three principle degrees of
FreeMasonry, Entered Apprentice, Fellow Craft, and Master Mason. That
there is no need for and cannot be additional administrations within
that State, Province, Territory or Federal District and so there
cannot be degrees of recognition for additional Masonic governments.
Partial acknowledgments being an abomination to Masonry, competing
Grand Lodges then must either fully unite or sever any existing
relationship that does not meet these qualifications.

Sorry, but to my mind that won't fly except in those states where there
are racists.

[Rob Sandilands]

Post by Torence
That the territorial limits that a Grand Lodge claims to be exclusive
is the State, Province, Territory or Federal District defined for it
by the civil authority.

... why? ... the way this reads is that the civil authority sets the
boundaries ... Masonic boundaries are not normally the business of civil
authorities ... except in Jurisdictions where an act of legislature is
passed to formally establish the craft ( similar, these days, to
incorporation ) ...

... if, as I suspect, the writer simply intends to use civil boundaries
as Masonic 'borders', then a much simpler definition and wording would
apply ...

Post by Torence
That there can only be one recognized Grand
Lodge within that State, Province, Territory or Federal District
empowered to elect and appoint Grand Lodge Officers, form, dissolve
and recognize existing Local Lodges, and govern the affairs
appertaining to the work of the three principle degrees of
FreeMasonry, Entered Apprentice, Fellow Craft, and Master Mason.

... sounds good, and is more or less what is in effect right now ... but
if one GL adopts it, and another doesn't, which is right? ... if things
had started this way, it mightn't be a problem today ...

... if you have a state/country where several GLs have existed in the
past, and there has been a union establishing a new GL in that country
of state, the previous GLs, as part of recognising the new GL, usually
cede the 'territory' to the new GL ... in some cases in the past, the
new GL has agreed that individual lodges may continue to exist under the
old GLs, but that no new Lodges under the old GLs may be formed ...

Post by Torence
That there is no need for and cannot be additional administrations within
that State, Province, Territory or Federal District and so there
cannot be degrees of recognition for additional Masonic governments.

... see above ... it has happened before ... but with limitations ...
and the world hasn't ended ...

... you also have the case, in larger jurisdictions, where District GLs
have been established by the GL ... this part of the resolution would
make such an arrangement 'illegal' ...

Post by Torence
Partial acknowledgments being an abomination to Masonry, competing
Grand Lodges then must either fully unite or sever any existing
relationship that does not meet these qualifications.

... apart from the use of the word 'abomination' which is a perjorative
term that seems to have more to do with the opinion of the resoltion's
writer than the subject at hand, no one GL has power to pass resolutions
than bind another GL ... the only way it will work is if all GLs that
happen to be in amity at any one time agree together ...

... 'must' sever ... again, the only way it will work is to have all GLs
agree ...

... if, as I suspect, the aim of the resolution is to head off
territorial claims by outside GLs, then the Masonic mechanism to deal
with this already exists ... even in the good old USA ...

... to be blunt, I'm afraid the whole thing is a pointless exercise in
chest thumping ...

[Stuart H.]

Post by Torence
Hello Brothers-
Here is a suggested resolution that I have not quite made my mind up
on. Though it may be right (or something similar to it, worded
differently) and timing for its introduction here correct; but not
necessarily elsewhere, I was wondering how helpful or hurtful adopting
such a resolution by a Grand Lodge body would be. What are your
thoughts?
That the territorial limits that a Grand Lodge claims to be exclusive
is the State, Province, Territory or Federal District defined for it
by the civil authority. That there can only be one recognized Grand
Lodge within that State, Province, Territory or Federal District
empowered to elect and appoint Grand Lodge Officers, form, dissolve
and recognize existing Local Lodges, and govern the affairs
appertaining to the work of the three principle degrees of
FreeMasonry, Entered Apprentice, Fellow Craft, and Master Mason. That
there is no need for and cannot be additional administrations within
that State, Province, Territory or Federal District and so there
cannot be degrees of recognition for additional Masonic governments.
Partial acknowledgments being an abomination to Masonry, competing
Grand Lodges then must either fully unite or sever any existing
relationship that does not meet these qualifications.
Ftaernally,
Torence Evans Ake
Secretary - Auburn Park Lodge No. 789 - Crete, Illinois
PM - Arcadia Lodge No. 1138 - Lansing, Illinois

Bro. Torence:

I foresee a couple of problems here. Firstly the boundaries of the
jurisdiction of the Grand Lodge of Alberta extends beyond the borders of
the Province of Alberta to include a large portion of the North West
Territory where we have active lodges. Nova Scotia and Newfoundland
both have lodges operating under more than one Grand Lodge and are happy
with their historical arrangements. Afghanistan has a Canadian Lodge
Under Dispensation from GLOCIPOO (Canada Lodge UD)at Kandahar, as well
as, I am sure, Lodges under other GLs.

Secondly, to state that there can only be one recognized Grand Lodge
within a territory precludes recognition of Prince Hall Grand Lodges.

Stuart H.
Treasurer - Baseline Lodge #198
Spruce Grove, Alberta

[Janet Wintermute]

Post by Torence
Hello Brothers-
Here is a suggested resolution that I have not quite made my mind up
on. Though it may be right (or something similar to it, worded
differently) and timing for its introduction here correct; but not
necessarily elsewhere, I was wondering how helpful or hurtful adopting
such a resolution by a Grand Lodge body would be. What are your
thoughts?

Torence, wouldn't your resolution be incompatible with Prince Hall
recognition in the United States?

--Janet Wintermute
Eastern Order of International Co-Freemasonry
Atlanta Lodge No. 21, but living just outside DC

Post by Torence
That the territorial limits that a Grand Lodge claims to be exclusive
is the State, Province, Territory or Federal District defined for it
by the civil authority. That there can only be one recognized Grand
Lodge within that State, Province, Territory or Federal District
empowered to elect and appoint Grand Lodge Officers, form, dissolve
and recognize existing Local Lodges, and govern the affairs
appertaining to the work of the three principle degrees of
FreeMasonry, Entered Apprentice, Fellow Craft, and Master Mason. That
there is no need for and cannot be additional administrations within
that State, Province, Territory or Federal District and so there
cannot be degrees of recognition for additional Masonic governments.
Partial acknowledgments being an abomination to Masonry, competing
Grand Lodges then must either fully unite or sever any existing
relationship that does not meet these qualifications.

[Torence]

Post by Janet Wintermute
Torence, wouldn't your resolution be incompatible with Prince Hall
recognition in the United States?

The intent is to force a decision. To fully recognize the two
separate entities for all the rights and privileges of Masonry such as
plural membership, courtesy degree work, etc. and lay the ground work
for a blending of the two cultures under the umbrella of one
administration for this century in those jurisdictions that took the
baby step of recognition in the last century for visitation purposes
only. While our lodges can get together and observe each other’s
degree work, for example, we cannot participate in each other’s
funeral work.
In Illinois, that 1996 exchange had as its motivation a financial
rather than a fraternal impetus. Recognizing Prince Hall for
visitation purposes only enabled the two Grand Masters to go together
before the State Legislature in 2000 and ask for tax exemption for
lodges which are 501 c10 organizations in the IRS Code, particularly
regards to real estate taxes. The evangelical churches complained to
the law makers that such a privilege was unconstitutional as tax
exempt status is reserved for places of worship (it is not). So what
we received is a “tax freeze.” Our clubs then are at risk that the tax
waiver can be revoked by any State Congress. Full recognition under
one administration would extend the protection of the Charities which
are 501 c3 organizations to both kinds of lodges.
In jurisdictions that refuse any sort of merge, this resolution
would do more than just affirm the separation; it would lay the
groundwork for civil suits with one organization demanding that the
other cease to use the name Masons, Masonry or Freemason within the
civil limits of its state.
As extreme as that action may appear, my Grand Lodge did just that
following the February 14th, 1855 incorporation with the State. (We
are the 2nd Grand Lodge organization in Illinois organized on April
4th 1840 and first incorporated with the state on February 20th,
1847). Those suits effectively bankrupted and shut down the Rites of
Memphis and Philadelphia and other quasi-Masonic organizations at work
in Chicago and areas adjacent to St. Louis.
When our club got around to “go after” who we would call, today,
“the African-American Lodges,” who were working under a warrant as
“the Colored Masons of Ohio” the effort bogged down and waned. In the
arbitration we agreed that they could continue unmolested as long as
they agreed to go by the name “the African Masons of Prince Hall
Lodges.” One Hundred and twenty Three years later, we crossed fences
“for visitation purposes only.”
Had you not responded, Janet, I probably would not have explained so
much of this sordid affair. But when I read the resolution which is a
modern rendition of point No. IV of the thirteen original resolutions
proposed and adopted by our Grand Lodge Conclave in 1845, this old
episode came to mind. The dream of it is to fulfill the promise of
full recognition began in the 1990s; but behind it could be the danger
that our club and yours, as well as a few others, get involved in very
ugly and expensive trouble.
Another way, IMHO, should be proposed to accomplish the intended,
positive and Masonic notion between the lines, without releasing the
clasp of Pandora’s Box that also accompanies it.

Fraternally,
Torence Evans Ake
Secretary – Auburn Park Lodge No. 789 – Crete, Illinois
PM – Arcadia Lodge No. 1138 – Lansing, Illinois

[David Simpson]

Post by Torence

Post by Janet Wintermute
Torence, wouldn't your resolution be incompatible with Prince Hall
recognition in the United States?

[...]

Post by Torence
As extreme as that action may appear, my Grand Lodge did just that
following the February 14th, 1855 incorporation with the State. (We
are the 2nd Grand Lodge organization in Illinois organized on April
4th 1840 and first incorporated with the state on February 20th,
1847). Those suits effectively bankrupted and shut down the Rites of
Memphis and Philadelphia and other quasi-Masonic organizations at work
in Chicago and areas adjacent to St. Louis.

In my opinion this is a hateful and unnecessary use of legalities.
Totally unmasonic.

[...]

Post by Torence
Another way, IMHO, should be proposed to accomplish the intended,
positive and Masonic notion between the lines, without releasing the
clasp of Pandora’s Box that also accompanies it.

I don't consider that there is any Masonic notion in that motion. It is
intolerant and bigoted.

[Janet Wintermute]

Post by David Simpson

Post by Torence

Post by Janet Wintermute
Torence, wouldn't your resolution be incompatible with Prince Hall
recognition in the United States?

[...]

Post by Torence
As extreme as that action may appear, my Grand Lodge did just that
following the February 14th, 1855 incorporation with the State. (We
are the 2nd Grand Lodge organization in Illinois organized on April
4th 1840 and first incorporated with the state on February 20th,
1847). Those suits effectively bankrupted and shut down the Rites of
Memphis and Philadelphia and other quasi-Masonic organizations at work
in Chicago and areas adjacent to St. Louis.

In my opinion this is a hateful and unnecessary use of legalities.
Totally unmasonic.
[...]

Post by Torence
Another way, IMHO, should be proposed to accomplish the intended,
positive and Masonic notion between the lines, without releasing the
clasp of Pandora’s Box that also accompanies it.

I don't consider that there is any Masonic notion in that motion. It is
intolerant and bigoted.

More to the point, and I'm ready to be corrected by Prince Hall masons
at any time, but I believe PH has no, repeat ZERO, interest in being
"absorbed" into mainstream masonry.

Tax, schmacks.

--Janet

[David Simpson]

[Default] On Sat, 5 Jun 2010 19:23:02 CST, Janet Wintermute

Post by Janet Wintermute

Post by David Simpson

Post by Torence

Post by Janet Wintermute
Torence, wouldn't your resolution be incompatible with Prince Hall
recognition in the United States?

[...]

Post by Torence
As extreme as that action may appear, my Grand Lodge did just that
following the February 14th, 1855 incorporation with the State. (We
are the 2nd Grand Lodge organization in Illinois organized on April
4th 1840 and first incorporated with the state on February 20th,
1847). Those suits effectively bankrupted and shut down the Rites of
Memphis and Philadelphia and other quasi-Masonic organizations at work
in Chicago and areas adjacent to St. Louis.

In my opinion this is a hateful and unnecessary use of legalities.
Totally unmasonic.
[...]

Post by Torence
Another way, IMHO, should be proposed to accomplish the intended,
positive and Masonic notion between the lines, without releasing the
clasp of Pandora’s Box that also accompanies it.

I don't consider that there is any Masonic notion in that motion. It is
intolerant and bigoted.

More to the point, and I'm ready to be corrected by Prince Hall masons
at any time, but I believe PH has no, repeat ZERO, interest in being
"absorbed" into mainstream masonry.
Tax, schmacks.
--Janet

Why should they? Many of their lodges have been around longer than many
mainstream lodges. Once again I state that I consider this to be totally
unmasonic and plays to the intolerant and bigots who, obviously, still
rule in parts of the USA.

[Torence]

Post by Janet Wintermute
More to the point, and I'm ready to be corrected by Prince Hall masons
at any time, but I believe PH has no, repeat ZERO, interest in being
"absorbed" into mainstream masonry.

As we all move forward into the century, the sentiments of the Grand
Lodge Organizers will be less and less relevant. Eventually your
point, though valid for the moment, will not matter much.
Local Lodges, be they “Mainstream,” “Prince Hall,” “International
Brotherhood,” your group etc. will do more to influence and define
Masonry than any Grand Lodge or Right Worshipful or Most Worshipful
this or that, in this era. Lodges get along with one another just
fine. Grand Lodges seem to manifest their bigotries overtly and in
embarrassing ways without regard to “the good name of Masonry.” The
resolution we are witnessing to twentieth century ignorance is simply
the American approach to resolving trouble.
Historically, schemes devised by the relatively rich and imposed
upon the poor fail. Here, the poor can only be successful in curing
their adversity by striking out, deciding matters for themselves and
discovering their own solutions. In our case the wealth is manifested
by the power to make policy. When lodges tire of having prejudices
imposed upon them, they will go about their business and make a fix
without public policy statements, the machine works of an organized
convention etc. “Mainstream” Masons will stand with “Prince Hall”
Masons to respect a respected fallen brother the same way that West
Virginia Masons currently cross the border to Ohio in order to
participate in better degree work, say the Pledge of Allegiance
before a Lodge meeting, interact with Master Masons who are Patrons of
the Eastern Star, Youth Group Sponsors etc. the stuff of Masonry that
they cannot do within their own civilly defined borders.
The specter haunting American Masonry in the last half of the
twentieth century, at least here in Illinois has been our Large
Charity. As we develop, the role of our Servant Grand Lodge will
become more ceremonial and less governmentally paternal. The process
has already begun in jurisdictions that are divesting themselves of
large caches of funds. Without that albatross about our necks, we will
grow closer to the original Plan of Masonry and lead happier and
healthier Masonic lives.
My only wish is that before that money is all gone, some of it will
be returned to the lodges who originally sacrificed and gave to it.

Fraternally,
Torence Evans Ake
Secretary – Auburn Park Lodge No. 789 – Crete, Illinois
PM – Arcadia Lodge No. 1138 – Lansing, Illinois

[Dave Vick, PM]

In article

Post by Torence
As we all move forward into the century, the sentiments of the Grand
Lodge Organizers will be less and less relevant. Eventually your
point, though valid for the moment, will not matter much.

In your opinion. In our PHA Brothers' opinions, it will matter a very
great deal indeed.

[Rob Sandilands]

Post by Torence
As extreme as that action may appear, my Grand Lodge did just that
following the February 14th, 1855 incorporation with the State. (We
are the 2nd Grand Lodge organization in Illinois organized on April
4th 1840 and first incorporated with the state on February 20th,
1847). Those suits effectively bankrupted and shut down the Rites of
Memphis and Philadelphia and other quasi-Masonic organizations at work
in Chicago and areas adjacent to St. Louis.

... now that is really shameful ... and unmasonic ... 'you either do it
the way we say, or you don't do it at all' ...

Post by Torence
When our club got around to “go after” who we would call, today,
“the African-American Lodges,” who were working under a warrant as
“the Colored Masons of Ohio” the effort bogged down and waned. In the
arbitration we agreed that they could continue unmolested as long as
they agreed to go by the name “the African Masons of Prince Hall
Lodges.” One Hundred and twenty Three years later, we crossed fences
“for visitation purposes only.”

... and this is no better ...

... by taking these actions, I believe that it can be argued that your
GL effectively recognised the other bodies ...

Post by Torence
Had you not responded, Janet, I probably would not have explained so
much of this sordid affair. But when I read the resolution which is a
modern rendition of point No. IV of the thirteen original resolutions
proposed and adopted by our Grand Lodge Conclave in 1845, this old
episode came to mind. The dream of it is to fulfill the promise of
full recognition began in the 1990s; but behind it could be the danger
that our club and yours, as well as a few others, get involved in very
ugly and expensive trouble.

... it's 2010, for goodness sake ...

... simply recognise them, and invite them to recognise you ...

... and this business of referring to a 'club' is starting to really irk
me ...

Post by Torence
Another way, IMHO, should be proposed to accomplish the intended,
positive and Masonic notion between the lines, without releasing the
clasp of Pandora’s Box that also accompanies it.
Fraternally,
Torence Evans Ake
Secretary – Auburn Park Lodge No. 789 – Crete, Illinois
PM – Arcadia Lodge No. 1138 – Lansing, Illinois

[Alex]

Post by Torence
Hello Brothers-
Here is a suggested resolution that I have not quite made my mind up
on. Though it may be right (or something similar to it, worded
differently) and timing for its introduction here correct; but not
necessarily elsewhere, I was wondering how helpful or hurtful adopting
such a resolution by a Grand Lodge body would be. What are your
thoughts?
That the territorial limits that a Grand Lodge claims to be exclusive

Considering that I (and probably most Freemasons outside the USA) do no and
will never subscribe to the concept of "exclusive jurisdiction", I guess my
answer is a foregone conclusion - "NO WAY!".

Post by Torence
is the State, Province, Territory or Federal District defined for it
by the civil authority. That there can only be one recognized Grand
Lodge within that State, Province, Territory or Federal District
empowered to elect and appoint Grand Lodge Officers, form, dissolve
and recognize existing Local Lodges, and govern the affairs
appertaining to the work of the three principle degrees of
FreeMasonry, Entered Apprentice, Fellow Craft, and Master Mason. That
there is no need for and cannot be additional administrations within
that State, Province, Territory or Federal District and so there
cannot be degrees of recognition for additional Masonic governments.
Partial acknowledgments being an abomination to Masonry, competing
Grand Lodges then must either fully unite or sever any existing
relationship that does not meet these qualifications.
Ftaernally,
Torence Evans Ake
Secretary - Auburn Park Lodge No. 789 - Crete, Illinois
PM - Arcadia Lodge No. 1138 - Lansing, Illinois

- --
Alex Fisher

ICQ: 109592152
Yahoo: settantta
MSN: ***@yahoo.com
Skype: (chat only) settantta
(ICQ preferred)

[Doug Freyburger]

Post by Torence
Here is a suggested resolution that I have not quite made my mind up
on. Though it may be right (or something similar to it, worded
differently) and timing for its introduction here correct; but not
necessarily elsewhere, I was wondering how helpful or hurtful adopting
such a resolution by a Grand Lodge body would be. What are your
thoughts?

You phrased it as the American principle of territory. When I was in
line in California one of the steps towards recognizing Prince Hall was
allowing the GL of Mexico to sponsor a lodge within the borders of
California, US. It included a statement that any one waiver of the
American principle does not invalidate it in general. That statement
was used a year or two later as a part of PHA recognition.

For a while I have called our jurisdictions "George Washington
Affilation" for symmetry with "Prince Hall Affiliation". I know of no
official or authoritative source for it and it's definitely poetic not
literal, but it's always understood. I don't like the older term
"Regular" once the PHA GLs were declared regular.