H
Huw
Guest
Hi Squire.
When you're quoting, I think it's polite to attribute the quotation. In this case, it's from me.
Certainly not, and on two counts. First, using the threat (or if necessary the reality) of de-recognition in a dispute which is itself about recognition is a proper use of the recognition system, unlike in the WV case where it's about internal administration. Secondly, GLoMN was dallying with an irregular GL, the GLdF, and that's a more serious offence with respect to recognition than that of which GLoWV has been accused. Other GLs really were prepared to cast GLoMN into the outer darkness forever and seek its destruction over that issue, unlike the GLoWV case (at least so far).
Yes, I would, although I find it understandable in the circumstances of that time. Those who pulled recognition (led by GLoTX, if I recall correctly) sincerely believed that GLoWA were trying to recognise an irregular GL (i.e. PHAoWA) and therefore felt the same as more recently in the case of GLoMN, but the difference is that in the GLoMN case the majority were correct that GLdF was (and is) irregular whereas in the GLoWA case the majority were wrong to believe that PHAoWA was (or is) irregular.
The late PGM Upton of GLoWA was a far-sighted man, a man before his time when he realised that PHAoWA are regular, and thank goodness most of the rest of us have now realised that he was right all along.
That's very much easier said than done.
You have an American identity, Bro. You invented rituals which are very different from the rest of the world (except insofar as some of the Canadians and a few other places have subsequently adopted rituals akin to yours). You also invented a racist form of masonry which is unknown in the rest of the world.
Perhaps your problem over there is too much American identity and not enough Masonic identity.
I doubt it's possible to do that. Your Conference of Grand Masters has always had the aim of working to common principles, and indeed that's a large part of its reason for existence. Most of the major principles have always been in place, and they're called Landmarks, although I agree that additional minor principles of lesser status are necessary from time to time to cope with evolving practical situations. Yet because of State sovereignty, you've proved time after time over two centuries that you're utterly incapable even of agreeing what the Landmarks actually are, let alone agreeing the minor principles. How much more proof do you need?
If you're ever going to make a serious effort to agree, then possibly the easiest way, and probably the most historically and masonically correct way, would be for all of you simply to adopt the existing statements of principles issued long ago by UGLE. But I'd be amazed if even a single one among the State GLs would agree to abandon its own jurisprudence and revert to ours. More likely, Americans with their fierce sense of independence would want to invent a whole new set of principles all of their own, deliberately different from the original principles (i.e. our principles) ... and so then we'd face the awkward question of whether genuine ancient freemasonry still existed at all in the US.
So it's too late, Bro., centuries too late. Agreement between all those different sovereign jurisdictions isn't possible, and the consequences of trying would probably be even worse than not trying. If you truly want to work from identical principles, you'll have to merge under one banner. But I can't see how you'd ever agree to that, there are far too many petty egos who enjoy being big fish in little ponds.
Yes, you could do that, but consider the consequences.
In the first place, those cast out would nevertheless insist on continuing to call what they do Freemasonry, just as (for example) the Grand Orient of France continued (and still continues) to call its peculiar practices Freemasonry even though they ceased to be masonic 150 years ago.
In the second place, once alternative and irreconcilable systems have permanently separated, each regards the other's territory as open terrirory, and proceeds to set up its own Lodges (and eventually Grand Lodges) in the other system's territory. And the profance usually can't (or won't) tell the difference, so the sins of one besmirch the other in the public mind - we've had this problem in Europe with the Grand Orients ever since they went irregular, and believe me it's a huge nuisance in many countries.
Of course you had some of the same "invasion" problem with PHA in the US, but at least PHA (as is now realised) are not fundamentally irregular like the Grand Orients, and now reconciliation has proved possible (unlike with the GOs, with whom reconciliation is impossible).
Agreed. But if sovereign GLs insist upon exposing themselves to this risk, even this likelihood, then that's their own fault. It's a very serious problem, but the nature of sovereignty is that reform can come only from within, no matter how frustrating that may be for those of us on the outside. If the civil law is forced to step in by their pig-headed stubbornness, then so be it.
Again agreed. And if it gets to the point where civil law rules against the practices of certain GLs, then that's probably the point at which everyone else must withdraw recognition. But in the meanwhile, we are obliged to give our Brethren the benefit of the doubt so far as humanly possible, whilst attempting to whisper good counsel in their ears. That's the fraternal way.
Yes. Just as the public and uninitiated Candidates could never understand the difference between State GLs and PHA (because their wasn't one, in principle), and just as the public and uninitiated Candidates continue to have difficulty understanding the difference between genuine freemasonry and what the Grand Orients do (even though that's a real difference).
The oddities of recent GLoWV behaviour, however, are not such as to cause a big impact on public perceptions. They've got into a dispute with a member whom they've expelled, and stand accused of seriously improper procedure in doing so, and of improper procedure in several related respects as well ... but all sorts of associations have that sort of problem all the time. It's a very important case to those of us within freemasonry, but that sort of dispute doesn't, in itself, attract much public interest. The additional allegations of racism which are floating around the periphery of the dispute certainly do attract public interest, but those additional allegations are not the issue in the forthcoming lawsuit.
The GLs whose behaviour is much more likely to affect public perceptions are those which appear more flagrantly and systematically racist. GLoWV has quite a number of black members in some of its Lodges, as Bro. Walters has pointed out in this forum (he being an example himself), and the racial problem there is the more apparently-local one of being allowed (or not allowed) to visit some of the other Lodges, not of the GL as a whole appearing to operate a racial barrier.
Oh, I dunno. For two centuries US Freemasonry stood divided between State GLs and PHA, and yet it still stands. And in the wider picture, Lincoln's words were fine-sounding rhetoric, but probably not true: if the Confederacy had won in the War Between The States, both USA and CSA would probably have been able to continue to exist as separate countries.
You're failing to make a distinction between those who say "we always did it this way" about the right things and those who say the same about the wrong things. Freemasonry is fundamentally defined by its Landmarks, and those who insist upon sticking to the Landmarks are right whilst those who reject the Landmarks are no longer Masons.
Fortunately, of course, racism in US masonry is not a Landmark. When American masonry first began under British jurisdiction, it was available to men of all races (as the famous case of Prince Hall himself illustrates). Therefore those who say "we always did it this way" in defence of racist practices are talking nonsense and can (and of course should) be opposed.
However, unfortunately for your argument, sovereignty of a GL is a Landmark - and one which is universally-agreed to be a Landmark, not one of those dubious and arguable additional "Landmarks" which some ill-informed writers have asserted. This limits the manner in which we can act upon our disapproval of what some other GL does, no matter how passionately we believe that they are misguided. We have no right at all to order another GL to do as we say. We can only advise, and they are not obliged to take the advice. Ultimately we can say whether or not we accept (recognise) them as being Masons at all, but that's a very blunt instrument, designed only for dealing with fundamental principles and not for interfering in case-by-case internal affairs.
Nevertheless, suppose that we finally lost patience with the behaviour of GLoWV and wanted to go down the de-recognition route, as you seem to want. From a UGLE perspective, I can see several plausible arguments under which GLoWV could potentially be declared irregular for breaches of Landmarks. The big problem is that I can't see any such argument which applies only to GLoWV - if we were to go that route, it seems to me that we'd probably have to de-recognise a large part of all US masonry, quite possibly even including your own jurisdiction. Maybe someone in the UGLE office is smarter than I am and can see an argument which would apply to GLoWV only. But otherwise, then I'm pretty confident that UGLE wouldn't want to go there ... and I suspect that most other GLs wouldn't want to go there either.
Cheap words, Squire. When the box concerned equates to the Landmarks, I could equally say that if you cannot work within the box, then it is you who are part of the problem. We need practical reformers who will carefully and skilfully repair the faults in our temple of brotherly love, not wild-eyed anarchists who will put a bomb under the whole structure and blow it to pieces.
T & F,
Huw
When you're quoting, I think it's polite to attribute the quotation. In this case, it's from me.
Certainly not, and on two counts. First, using the threat (or if necessary the reality) of de-recognition in a dispute which is itself about recognition is a proper use of the recognition system, unlike in the WV case where it's about internal administration. Secondly, GLoMN was dallying with an irregular GL, the GLdF, and that's a more serious offence with respect to recognition than that of which GLoWV has been accused. Other GLs really were prepared to cast GLoMN into the outer darkness forever and seek its destruction over that issue, unlike the GLoWV case (at least so far).
Yes, I would, although I find it understandable in the circumstances of that time. Those who pulled recognition (led by GLoTX, if I recall correctly) sincerely believed that GLoWA were trying to recognise an irregular GL (i.e. PHAoWA) and therefore felt the same as more recently in the case of GLoMN, but the difference is that in the GLoMN case the majority were correct that GLdF was (and is) irregular whereas in the GLoWA case the majority were wrong to believe that PHAoWA was (or is) irregular.
The late PGM Upton of GLoWA was a far-sighted man, a man before his time when he realised that PHAoWA are regular, and thank goodness most of the rest of us have now realised that he was right all along.
That's very much easier said than done.
You have an American identity, Bro. You invented rituals which are very different from the rest of the world (except insofar as some of the Canadians and a few other places have subsequently adopted rituals akin to yours). You also invented a racist form of masonry which is unknown in the rest of the world.
Perhaps your problem over there is too much American identity and not enough Masonic identity.
I doubt it's possible to do that. Your Conference of Grand Masters has always had the aim of working to common principles, and indeed that's a large part of its reason for existence. Most of the major principles have always been in place, and they're called Landmarks, although I agree that additional minor principles of lesser status are necessary from time to time to cope with evolving practical situations. Yet because of State sovereignty, you've proved time after time over two centuries that you're utterly incapable even of agreeing what the Landmarks actually are, let alone agreeing the minor principles. How much more proof do you need?
If you're ever going to make a serious effort to agree, then possibly the easiest way, and probably the most historically and masonically correct way, would be for all of you simply to adopt the existing statements of principles issued long ago by UGLE. But I'd be amazed if even a single one among the State GLs would agree to abandon its own jurisprudence and revert to ours. More likely, Americans with their fierce sense of independence would want to invent a whole new set of principles all of their own, deliberately different from the original principles (i.e. our principles) ... and so then we'd face the awkward question of whether genuine ancient freemasonry still existed at all in the US.
So it's too late, Bro., centuries too late. Agreement between all those different sovereign jurisdictions isn't possible, and the consequences of trying would probably be even worse than not trying. If you truly want to work from identical principles, you'll have to merge under one banner. But I can't see how you'd ever agree to that, there are far too many petty egos who enjoy being big fish in little ponds.
Yes, you could do that, but consider the consequences.
In the first place, those cast out would nevertheless insist on continuing to call what they do Freemasonry, just as (for example) the Grand Orient of France continued (and still continues) to call its peculiar practices Freemasonry even though they ceased to be masonic 150 years ago.
In the second place, once alternative and irreconcilable systems have permanently separated, each regards the other's territory as open terrirory, and proceeds to set up its own Lodges (and eventually Grand Lodges) in the other system's territory. And the profance usually can't (or won't) tell the difference, so the sins of one besmirch the other in the public mind - we've had this problem in Europe with the Grand Orients ever since they went irregular, and believe me it's a huge nuisance in many countries.
Of course you had some of the same "invasion" problem with PHA in the US, but at least PHA (as is now realised) are not fundamentally irregular like the Grand Orients, and now reconciliation has proved possible (unlike with the GOs, with whom reconciliation is impossible).
Agreed. But if sovereign GLs insist upon exposing themselves to this risk, even this likelihood, then that's their own fault. It's a very serious problem, but the nature of sovereignty is that reform can come only from within, no matter how frustrating that may be for those of us on the outside. If the civil law is forced to step in by their pig-headed stubbornness, then so be it.
Again agreed. And if it gets to the point where civil law rules against the practices of certain GLs, then that's probably the point at which everyone else must withdraw recognition. But in the meanwhile, we are obliged to give our Brethren the benefit of the doubt so far as humanly possible, whilst attempting to whisper good counsel in their ears. That's the fraternal way.
Yes. Just as the public and uninitiated Candidates could never understand the difference between State GLs and PHA (because their wasn't one, in principle), and just as the public and uninitiated Candidates continue to have difficulty understanding the difference between genuine freemasonry and what the Grand Orients do (even though that's a real difference).
The oddities of recent GLoWV behaviour, however, are not such as to cause a big impact on public perceptions. They've got into a dispute with a member whom they've expelled, and stand accused of seriously improper procedure in doing so, and of improper procedure in several related respects as well ... but all sorts of associations have that sort of problem all the time. It's a very important case to those of us within freemasonry, but that sort of dispute doesn't, in itself, attract much public interest. The additional allegations of racism which are floating around the periphery of the dispute certainly do attract public interest, but those additional allegations are not the issue in the forthcoming lawsuit.
The GLs whose behaviour is much more likely to affect public perceptions are those which appear more flagrantly and systematically racist. GLoWV has quite a number of black members in some of its Lodges, as Bro. Walters has pointed out in this forum (he being an example himself), and the racial problem there is the more apparently-local one of being allowed (or not allowed) to visit some of the other Lodges, not of the GL as a whole appearing to operate a racial barrier.
Oh, I dunno. For two centuries US Freemasonry stood divided between State GLs and PHA, and yet it still stands. And in the wider picture, Lincoln's words were fine-sounding rhetoric, but probably not true: if the Confederacy had won in the War Between The States, both USA and CSA would probably have been able to continue to exist as separate countries.
You're failing to make a distinction between those who say "we always did it this way" about the right things and those who say the same about the wrong things. Freemasonry is fundamentally defined by its Landmarks, and those who insist upon sticking to the Landmarks are right whilst those who reject the Landmarks are no longer Masons.
Fortunately, of course, racism in US masonry is not a Landmark. When American masonry first began under British jurisdiction, it was available to men of all races (as the famous case of Prince Hall himself illustrates). Therefore those who say "we always did it this way" in defence of racist practices are talking nonsense and can (and of course should) be opposed.
However, unfortunately for your argument, sovereignty of a GL is a Landmark - and one which is universally-agreed to be a Landmark, not one of those dubious and arguable additional "Landmarks" which some ill-informed writers have asserted. This limits the manner in which we can act upon our disapproval of what some other GL does, no matter how passionately we believe that they are misguided. We have no right at all to order another GL to do as we say. We can only advise, and they are not obliged to take the advice. Ultimately we can say whether or not we accept (recognise) them as being Masons at all, but that's a very blunt instrument, designed only for dealing with fundamental principles and not for interfering in case-by-case internal affairs.
Nevertheless, suppose that we finally lost patience with the behaviour of GLoWV and wanted to go down the de-recognition route, as you seem to want. From a UGLE perspective, I can see several plausible arguments under which GLoWV could potentially be declared irregular for breaches of Landmarks. The big problem is that I can't see any such argument which applies only to GLoWV - if we were to go that route, it seems to me that we'd probably have to de-recognise a large part of all US masonry, quite possibly even including your own jurisdiction. Maybe someone in the UGLE office is smarter than I am and can see an argument which would apply to GLoWV only. But otherwise, then I'm pretty confident that UGLE wouldn't want to go there ... and I suspect that most other GLs wouldn't want to go there either.
Cheap words, Squire. When the box concerned equates to the Landmarks, I could equally say that if you cannot work within the box, then it is you who are part of the problem. We need practical reformers who will carefully and skilfully repair the faults in our temple of brotherly love, not wild-eyed anarchists who will put a bomb under the whole structure and blow it to pieces.
T & F,
Huw
