True Secrets of Freemasonry

Those who become Freemasons only for the sake of finding out the secret of the order, run a very great risk of growing old under the trowel without ever realizing their purpose. Yet there is a secret, but it is so inviolable that it has never been confided or whispered to anyone. Those who stop at the outward crust of things imagine that the secret consists in words, in signs, or that the main point of it is to be found only in reaching the highest degree. This is a mistaken view: the man who guesses the secret of Freemasonry, and to know it you must guess it, reaches that point only through long attendance in the lodges, through deep thinking, comparison, and deduction.

He would not trust that secret to his best friend in Freemasonry, because he is aware that if his friend has not found it out, he could not make any use of it after it had been whispered in his ear. No, he keeps his peace, and the secret remains a secret.

Giovanni Giacomo Casanova, Memoirs, Volume 2a, Paris, p. 33

Saturday, April 12, 2008

A Solution??

Have you ever had one of the moments when you are talking to someone about some issue and suddenly you realize you are uttering the answer to a problem that has been vexing you? I had one of those moments with my wife five years ago, in answering her question about a few brothers and their actions regarding Freemasonry when I said: It's not about me changing them, it's about me changing me.

Well, yesterday, another one of those moments occurred during an email answer to a brother in Iraq regarding his issue with the Grand Lodge of Kentucky and a Prince Hall Lodge.

For instance, regarding the whole Prince Hall Recognition issue. We all know, of should know by now that there are 13 Grand Lodges in the United States that do not yet recognize Prince Hall Masonry as regular Masonry. The coincidence that the 13 Grand Lodges were ALSO core Confederate States in the southern United States is also not lost on the casual observer.

This is NOT to say that all the brethren in the southern United States are racists! A point must be made here that this is a complex issue.

There is also a somewhat logical argument that can be offered and rationally defended that it is ALSO about territorial sovereignty, and not about race. As an example of that, I have been reliably informed that men of color and and have joined lodges in Florida, and served as officers and are treated as good and true brothers as they should be, yet the GLoFL is one of the 13 that does not recognize Prince Hall Masonry.

By the way, I have never liked the term "Mainstream Masonry". Its very use denigrates all other "Masonries". Calling the 51 United States grand lodges UGLE lodges is incorrect, since we are all independent grand bodies. We refer to the one other regular Masonic group in the United States as "Prince Hall Lodges" or PHA (Prince Hall Affiliation) and a perfectly good term was offered recently: George Washington Masonry. THis seems a more appropriate designation than that of "Mainstream Masonry" since the later term says that PHA is NOT "Mainstream" and by implication Regular.

Wr. George Washington was once offered the Grand Mastership of a group to be called the Grand Lodge of America and he is arguably the single most famous "UGLE Type" Mason. Therefore, I will henceforth refer to the larger group of regular Grand Lodges, GLoCA, GLoNV, GLoCo for example, as "George Washington Masonry".

The very real fact that not all Prince Hall Grand Lodges WANT to be recognized. There are considerations for them, to wit they have fought long and hard against racism and long odds to survive and thrive while ignored, resented and yes, attacked in courts and elsewhere, by George Washington Masonry. There is a thought that if they accept recognition, intervisitation and amity, their member base will slowly erode into the George Washington system and they will just vanish. There is also, truth be told, some racism in the Prince Hall lodges.

This information is not offered to surprise anyone, or make a point one way or the other regarding Prince Hall recognition, but to lay the foundation for the epiphany, if it can be called that, I had the other day. Bear with me as I lay another course in that foundation.

I have, in the past, called for the George Washington Grand Lodges to withdraw recognition from any of their Grand Lodge that do not recognize Prince Hall Masonry as regular in all respects. However, on careful reflection, I realized that this would be counter productive, and have said so here .

My thoughts not withstanding, it has been brought to my attention that there is at least one (and it may be several from other reports) Grand Lodge that will be, in the next two years, entertaining a vote by the brethren to withdraw amity/recognition of regularity from any Grand Lodge anywhere that does not at least recognize Prince Hall Masonry as regular. That train IO once advocated is now arriving, for good or bad and we can only watch to see how it plays out. I cannot at this time reveal the Grand Lodges that are contemplating this legislation, but it will become obvious over the next year. ESPECIALLY if the legislation passes.

Now that the foundation is laid, let me present to you my epiphany: What would happen if a progressive Grand Lodge were to remove its residency requirement for joining a lodge under it for any Master Mason in good standing? For this to work effectively, it would also almost be necessary that a "Grand Master's" Lodge be created (an additional financial incentive to the Grand Lodges as well...) so that a brother from outside the state would not need to find a lodge inside the state willing to be a "host".

This "Grand Masters" lodge has been offered in my grand lodge previously, as a potential solution to other issues, but has been turned down because it would burden a lodge with members for which it was receiving no financial support. This rational alone is one reason why I think it would make a serious impact on the Grand Lodges the brethren left to join the "open" grand lodge. Therefore, the "Grand Master's" Lodge would have to be restricted to members outside the open Grand Lodge. That is a detail for legislative consideration, however.

Based on the current rules of visitation, if this rule were removed (and perhaps a Grand Master's Lodge created for these out of state brothers) any Master Mason in good standing in a regular lodge in amity with that Grand Lodge would be able to petition for membership in the "Grand Master's Lodge"... and then if he desired, dimit from the Grand Lodge he is currently a member of without impacting his lodge meetings.

He could continue attending his lodge, though of course, he could no longer be an officer. A good brother would continue to support his lodge with "donations" instead of dues, because the lodge is not the problem, and the donations would not go to the grand lodge.

What this means in real terms is that if a brother is unhappy with his Grand Lodge, for whatever reason (and to hear it on the smoldering stub, all the posters there hate their grand lodges and policies and procedures) they could join a different Grand Lodge, without residency, and no longer be "restricted" by their own Grand Lodge.

If we consider Freemasonry as a product for a moment (a concept I personally find anathema, but it will do as a metaphor) and we are not happy with the product as it is being presented by the "company" presenting it, then if we have a choice in what "company" to buy it from, market forces will effect change. What we have today is Freemasonry as it existed in the 1700s. Local. Issues were dealt with by the lodges locally then, but today, we have Grand Lodges that span hundreds of thousands of square miles. Look at a map, the Grand Lodge of Rhode Island operates pretty much the same way as the Grand Lodge of Texas or California.

Today, we have telephones and internet, which makes all issues local, whether is a lodge in Bangor, Big Sur, Los Angeles or Dallas. Yet the Grand Lodges still operate on territorial boundaries, and to a certain extent, that is a good thing. But it also means that if a Grand Lodge is unresponsive, or "repressive" of the needs or perceived needs of the brethren in that jurisdiction, the brethren have no choice.

If even one Grand Lodge dropped its residency requirement, other Grand Lodges would follow, they would HAVE to, market forces would drive them. Market forces... remember that term.

If the Grand Lodge of XYZ would not allow a brother to speak or run a web forum, for whatever reason, and he quit that Grand Lodge and joined another, the Grand Lodge could STILL silence him, for make no mistake, the Grand Master is still sovereign in his territory no matter where your dues card is from, but the Grand Lodge would not be receiving income from your membership. If enough brethren quit the grand lodge that was repressive over its policies, it would either suffer from a declining membership (income) to itself and its constituent lodges (and imagine the influence the lodges, suffering from declining paying membership and eligible brothers because of Grand Lodge policies will have with the Grand Lodge).

Market Forces would drive the Grand Lodge that is not responsive to learn to become responsive, or fade away while the membership in its state maintains or even grows. A logical progression of this is the survival of progressive, responsive, responsible Grand Lodges, and the withering of... other Grand Lodges.

If this works, this simple concept may be the acorn from which a new Freemasonry grows, it may be a turning point which our future brethren may look back and say: Like the 1717 meeting, THAT is where Freemasonry made the second turn which made it viable into the digital age.

As always, your thoughts and comments are welcome!
May the blessing of heaven rest upon us and all regular masons. May brotherly love prevail, and every moral and social virtue, cement us!

32 comments:

Justa Mason said...

Theron, I'm not commenting on your wider proposal (sorry) but will make a couple of observations on minor things..

I'm sure that Lodge in Halifax wouldn't appreciate being called "George Washington Masonry." For us up in this country, George Washington was on the OTHER side.

The other has to do with your observation about all issues being local now because of the internet and other technology. What is old is new again. While there was no internet 100, 120 years ago, there was something called newspapers. And there was no lack of Masonic periodicals commenting—and sometimes very caustically—on the events and operations of various American jurisdictions, even wading into the Cerneau debate which affected a number of Grand Lodges (and why many GLs were quick to adopt the Doctrine of Exclusive Juisdiction, which has an entirely different ramification today).

I would urge you to go to the Grand Lodge library and dig back through these various publications. You'll be amazed how little change there has been; the form of media more than the content.

Justa Mason

Theron Dunn said...

Br. Justa;

First of all, thanks for taking the time to reply. When I speak of issues, I am meaning to be speaking of LODGE issues, not national issues. What I meant to write/imply was that All LODGE issues have been local issues, handled by a grand lodge system that has not changed substantively since the late 1700s.

As for Halifax, well, Canada is often considered the 51st American state... however, you make a good point. I changed my reference to Bangor (Maine). Thanks for commenting, I really appreciate it.

Son of Light said...

Theron,
I think I get your concept, it is called supply and demand, and it is what makes our economy/government in the US strong and productive (or better yet progressive). I agree with letting the market determine what product is produced. I can appreciate Justa Mason's comment as well, regarding Halifax not wanting to be called the George Washington Masonry, because of their location on the map, but correct if I am wrong, is that not exactly the type of thinking that may be changed by allowing a free market. I am new to Masonry, but from the teachings I have read, Masons are all equal, irregardless of race, color, political affiliation, or whether or not one was born in the North or the South (whithersoever dispersed around the globe). In my ignorance, I need someone to explain to me why Masonry would deny any man in good standing (dually and truly prepared), and with all the right qualifications access to all the benefits and rights of Masonry.

Anonymous said...

PHA actually stands for Prince Hall Affiliation.

Anonymous said...

http://beaconofmasonlight.blogspot.com

Tom Accuosti said...

Bro. Theron -

Bro. Justa beat me to it - there was a move out here to use the "GW" moniker as a way to distinguish ourselves from the PH GLs; the PH GLs are considered to be "mainstream" out in the Northeast US. But few people cared for the name, especially our friends up in Canada, our 51st state.

I've been using the term F&AM, but really, there's no easy way to describe what we mean.

What would happen if a progressive Grand Lodge were to remove its residency requirement for joining a lodge under it for any Master Mason in good standing?

Seems to me that this is a lot of work for a very small percentage of Masons who might be willing to travel long distances in order to meet bros from another state. I mean, you're not suggesting that they be allowed to join a lodge without being properly investigated, right?

I understand your intention, but personally, I don't see it as practical.

That said, let me suggest that any brother who feels that strongly about the PH recognition might simply consider dimitting from his GL and joining a PH lodge in his own state. Certainly that would be more practical, although it also means that any progressive-minded brother doing so would be one less voice in his own lodge - and GL - to provide some perspective.

Justa Mason said...

Tom the Tao Guy queried:
What would happen if a progressive Grand Lodge were to remove its residency requirement for joining a lodge under it for any Master Mason in good standing?

You mean like mine, Tom?

Or England or Scotland?

There must be several in the U.S., as I know a Bro. in Halifax who affiliated with a Lodge in Minnesota and another in one of the southern states.

That said, let me suggest that any brother who feels that strongly about the PH recognition might simply consider dimitting from his GL and joining a PH lodge in his own state.

Which would be impossible if the PH GL in question didn't recognise yours.

Justa Mason

Justa Mason said...

Theron wrote:
What this means in real terms is that if a brother is unhappy with his Grand Lodge, for whatever reason (and to hear it on the smoldering stub, all the posters there hate their grand lodges and policies and procedures) they could join a different Grand Lodge, without residency, and no longer be "restricted" by their own Grand Lodge.

The only difficulty I see is some American Grand Lodges claim (or at one time claimed) jurisdiction over any Mason living in the State, regardless of which jurisdiction he fell under. Frankly, I don't know how such a thing could be enforced.

Justa Mason

Anonymous said...

Mainstream Masonry is not happy until they have sat themselves on a pedestal claiming they are the ONLY Masonry and all others do not have their blessing. Inturn claiming that all Light comes from them.

Mainstream Masonry will have to admit there is no such thing as exclusive right. Masonry transcends all divisions, all races, and it meets men on the level. Mainstream Masonry has built walls not Temples.

"Brother Grand Officers tear down this wall."

Theron Dunn said...

Br. Justa;

Yes, a the Grand Master of any jurisdiction has oversight of all the workmen in his territory. So if I, as a California mason, visit in South Carolina, I am bound by the rules, edicts and decisions of the Grand Master of South Carolina.

This only makes sense. If a mason were to commit a masonic offense in another jurisdiction, it is still a masonic offense. The Grand Master could, legally, seize my dues card and return it to my Grand Secretary with a note as to the cause of his taking it.

He could also do nothing else other than seize it, which would theoretically ban me from visiting any of HIS lodges. What does this mean practically? Well, chances of it happening are pretty slim... right now.

Right now, my GL does not, for instance, have intervisitation with the M.W. Prince Hall Grand Lodge of F&AM of the State of South Carolina
(2324 Gervais St, Columbia, SC 29204 (phone) 803-254-7210 http://www.mwphglsc.org/), but if it DID, and I visited a lodge under their jurisdiction, the Grand Master of (George Washington) South Carolina could, if he found out, pull my dues card.

This raises an interesting question of Masonic Jurisprudence, since all Grand Lodges have a mutual agreement to recognize actions taken in their jurisdiction regarding membership. This was originally to prevent a man from being expelled by one Grand Lodge and then re-establishing his membership in another.

This is why men such as Jeff Peace and MW Haas, expelled at sight by their Grand Masters cannot simply join another Grand Lodge and continue on. This is my understanding from several brothers, though there may be exceptions.

What will happen in future, I cannot say.

Tom Accuosti said...

Bro. Justa, maybe I wasn't clear - One doesn't join a Grand Lodge (as you're aware), one joins a lodge. That means that a bro living in a state wound need to travel to another state to find a lodge to his liking and then petition. Considering that some GLs do not allow plural memberships (i.e., membership in two jurisdictions), this would be an impractical solution in several ways.

My point about joining a PH lodge was this: if you feel so strongly about the recognition issue, then maybe the best course of action for you, instead of complaining and tearing down your own GL is to simply demit and join a GL that you can support.

Theron Dunn said...

Brothers, I think a potential solution for this issue would be the following, which I added to the blog:

A Grand Master's Lodge

For this to work effectively, it would also almost be necessary that a "Grand Master's" Lodge be created (an additional financial incentive to the Grand Lodges as well...) so that a brother from outside the state would not need to find a lodge inside the state willing to be a "host".

This "Grand Masters" lodge has been offered in my grand lodge previously, as a potential solution to other issues, but has been turned down because it would burden a lodge with members for which it was receiving no financial support. This rational alone is one reason why I think it would make a serious impact on the Grand Lodges the brethren left to join the "open" grand lodge. Therefore, the "Grand Master's" Lodge would have to be restricted to members outside the open Grand Lodge. That is a detail for legislative consideration, however.

Anonymous said...

I find the term "George Washington" Masonry quite curious. First off you have the historical fact that George Washington was a York Mason who had nothing to do with the current Atient system. Also, we already have "George Washington" Masonry in the USA, it's called the George Washington Union Of Freemasons.

www.georgewashingtonunion.org

2 BOWL CAIN said...

GEORGE WASHINGTON would never join a 501c10 federally regulated organization

his form of freemasonry was a governmental watchdog, standing up to tyranny.

american freemasonry is nothing more than a 501c10 and all of its members are VOLUNTEERS, not freemason.

Most Worshipful Illustrious Volunteer.
no more, no less...

Theron Dunn said...

A good point was made by Squire Bently today, so good I added it to the blog article. If a man were to join a "Grand Master's Lodge" because of issues, he might still make donations to his local lodge as he attends that lodge.

That way he might still be welcome in his lodge, even while making his point to the grand lodge.

Peter Yancey said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Theron Dunn said...

The George Washington Union is considered, at best, clandestine and irregular. "George Washington Masonry", as in "Prince Hall Masonry" might still serve as a good nomenclature for REGULAR masonry in the US.

The only problem with simply stating REGULAR masonry is that, as far as my grand lodge, and I, am concerned, Prince Hall IS regular. For that reason we need some kind of nomenclature that does not imply Prince Hall is other than Regular, while still differentiating between the two for purposes of discussion.

I am willing to disregard "George Washington Union" because very few have a) ever heard of it and b) because those that have heard of it know it is not regular masonry.

You asked: Did the Masons in the American Revolution "break" their obligations when they took up arms against their government?

Break their obligations... to whom? To their lodges? No, I do not believe, and please correct me if I am wrong on this, that their obligation did not contain anything about obedience to your country. And taking up arms against oppression has been a quintessential masonic action, many times by many brothers since 1717.

And, I may be wrong on this, but I think our UGLE brothers are way over the American Revolution by now. We are not UGLE masonry, any more than Canadian Masonry is.

Yes, many masons took up arms against the British, in the name of freedom, and while they may have been traitors in the eyes of English law and the monarchy, those men are patriots.

It says so, right here in my history book. If we had lost that particular war, the books would read they were traitors.

Anonymous said...

Ho hum, here we go with the "irregular and clandestine" bullcrao again. I wonder why I stopped posting on this blog, it's pointless. The day you start working real AASR as does the George Washington Union let me know.

Anonymous said...

Clandestine, irregular, unrecognized are old tired meaningless words, that men joining Freemasonry care little about because they are looking for a true form of Freemasonry that has been lost by many mainstream pontificators.

If mainstream Masonry maintains the status quo they will continue down the road of their own demise.

Unity, meeting upon the level, equality, fraternity and liberty are the stone laind to build the fraternity upon, not words of divisions.

Peter Yancey said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Theron Dunn said...

The only brothers who put down regularity are irregular and clandestine brothers.

If you know a Grand orient in amity with the UGLE, please let me know, since as far as I have been able to determine, the Grand Orients are considered to be irregular and clandestine by all Regular Grand Lodges, that is, those in Amity with the UGLE and the Grand Lodges of the USA, the George Washington Grand Lodges.

If you know any George Washington Grand Lodge in amity with a Grand Orient, please let me know, again, for the same reason as above.

Regularity has a purpose and a reason, and I have written several articles on this blog regarding regularity. It is a system that ensures that only regular lodges, that is, in general, lodges that can trace their charter to a grand lodge that can trace its origin through regular processes all the way back to the UGLE.

I can understand why irregular masons might want to disparage regularity, but being what it is, the objections for the most part, have no value. They are interesting, and mentally stimulating, but they change nothing. Regularity or origin is what it is.

There are those that have raised the argument that because they claim they are regular that in and of itself makes it so... if that were true, regularity would have no meaning, so that argument is easily dismissed as being, again, self serving and of no consequence to real Regularity.

If non traditional, irregular masonry were of import, then they would not spend so much time trying to denigrate regular masonry, but would focus, instead, as regular masons do, on THEIR masonry.

Frankly, the issue of regularity is of little interest to me. Its a grand lodge to grand lodge (or grand orient etc) issue. I will/can only sit in lodge with a regular mason as defined by my grand lodge.

As I have noted elsewhere on this blog, just because I cannot sit in lodge with someone does not mean I cannot treat them as a mason.

And frankly, intruding this whole regularity vs irregularity issue on every single possible occasion is very tiring and does not serve any useful purpose in discussing real, substantive issues... as this blog is attempting to do.

Peter Yancey said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

The Grand Orient D' Italia is in amity with most USA Grand Lodges. Curiosly enough they are considered both "irregular" and "clandestine" by the UGLE. You Mr.Dunn have claimed membership in both GOdI and the UGLE. How can this be? Are the UGLE OK with you being a member of an irregular and clandestine group?

Theron Dunn said...

Hmmm, you are quite correct that the United States George Washington Lodges recognize the Grande Oriente d'Italia as regular in all respects, though the UGLE does not. I am so used to thinking of it as regular I forget that it is an "Orient".

Its not really about grand orients vs. grand lodge masonry. the fact is, most grand orients are not recognized as being regular, the two exceptions serve to prove the rule.

Anonymous said...

US Masonry is based upon York Masonry and is such. Nothing more nothing less.

US Masonry's ritual is a bastardized version neither York, nor English. George Washington had nothing to do with forming the degrees of US MSM.

Its VERY apparent that it will be years if not ever before MSM will acknowledge their are Freemasons who believe something different that MSM's.

Tolerance, equality and meeting upon the level mean little to MSM when it comes to acknowledging Masons of other systems and the general public will see that, men especially, who desiring to join will see it, ask the questions and get answers that are opposite of what MSM spout as truth.

I have to come to the realization the two shall exist seperately maybe forever and MSM need to understand their exclusiveness is over.

Its time to stop the ill-will and ignore each other and go forward.

Theron Dunn said...

Br. Anonymous;

Please brother, tts time to stop carping on the issue of regularity. If you want to make it the focus of your freemasonry, that's fine. This blog entry is about a solution to the perceived problems in some grand lodges and a way to address it.

As for Mainstream and other masonry, the issue of regularity is a grand lodge issue, not an individual issue. Railing at the grand lodges for maintaining regularity of practice and philosophy is really just an attempt to water down what freemasonry REALLY is about by diverting the conversation.

This blog is not the place for railing about the issues of regularity as they are not issues that regular masons worry about.

Please brother, work on your ashlar and stop wasting time with such anger about the issue of regularity. If you are happy with your obedience, enjoy it. If you feel that regularity is the hub on which the future of freemasonry rotates, then rest comfortable in your belief that regular masonry will fail... after 300 years of maintaining regularity.

No one is telling you that you cannot enjoy it or are not a mason because you are not a regular mason.

You are a mason because you were made so in your heart, its what the ritual teaches us. Whether you are a regular mason or not isn't an issue I am interested in. Its not relevant to me as long as you act like a mason and don't try to gain admission to a regular lodge.

Otherwise, who cares?

Anonymous said...

Nice way to dance around the issue Mr.Dunn. How can you be a member of the UGLE (as you claim) and the GOdI (as you claim) when according to the UGLE the GOdI IS "irregular and clandestine?" Aren't you in fact sir breaking your obligation by doing so?

A straight question requires a straight answer.

Theron Dunn said...

Nice way to dance around the issue Mr.Dunn. How can you be a member of the UGLE (as you claim) and the GOdI (as you claim) when according to the UGLE the GOdI IS "irregular and clandestine?" Aren't you in fact sir breaking your obligation by doing so?

No dancing involved at all. I wrote I am PLANNING on joining a lodge just outside London. I have not mailed the petition yet. I am an HONORARY member of the GOdI, as that august body does not allow plural or non resident members.

I am a member, currently, of ONLY the Grand Lodge of California, F&AM and Moreno Valley Lodge. There is nothing in my obligation that would prevent me being a member of the GOdI, the UGLE and the GLoCA.

Now, do you think we can talk about substantive issues instead of trying to dance around the whole regularity issue?

Anonymous, you are clearly not a regular mason, and you clearly have problems with regularity, and apparently, with me. This blog is not the place for you to exorcise YOUR demons. If you want to rail at regular masonry, go to the smoldering stub, that's what they do there.

if you want to rail at me, send me an email, my address is listed on the front page of this blog. Please don't waste any more time on the comments section with this irrelevant issue.

Peter Yancey said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Hal said...

As a Scottish Rite Mason (32 degree) I always appreciate blogs and websites of brother Masons. Your Masonic readers will be interested to visit this blog post: http://www.cemeteryspot.com/blog/?p=119

Free-ThinkerGA537 said...

Dear Theron,
I am a member working under the jurisdiction of the Grand Lodge of Georgia, I am not however a member of the Grand Lodge because I am not a Past Master. The Grand Lodge of Georgia does not recognize Prince Hall Masonry, You have seen my comments on other pages, i think that you know that i am a freethinking obligationist. It would be nice to see recognition given to Prince Hall Lodges but the Grand Lodge has not made it so, but i still have to stand by my Grand Lodge's rules.

Things will eventually change, and the Grand Masters Lodge is a very good idea i would like to see it eventually happen, it woulld help to regulate uniform law and work and it would help to bring masonry closer togetheron a nationwide basis. It would greatly effect each lodge jurisdiction with keeping up with the times. We need a lot of things in this state, but these rural Georgians just dont keep up with the times like ya'll city slickers do. Just to give you an example, I am 21 I am the youngest member in my lodge, not the newest, but definately the youngest, the next youngest mason at my lodge is 26 and then the next is 28 and we are all the members of my lodge that are below thirty. We have approximately 75 members. There isnt very much youth in Georgia Masonry right now. But change will come one day.

-Freethinker

Kyle Myers said...

I appreciate your stand on regularity - I always knew it would be only a matter of time before you began to see the reality of the circumstance as well as the value of the concept.

I do wonder, however, why you continue to claim that "13 Grand Lodges in the United States that do not yet recognize Prince Hall Masonry as regular Masonry...were ALSO core Confederate States in the southern United States." Has West Virginia recently recognized Prince Hall & I missed it? West Virginia was a Union state - it broke away when Virginia went with the CSA & Lincoln recognized it as a seperate state by 1863.

 
/* Blog Catalog Code ----------------------------------------------- */ Philosophy Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory /* End Blog Catalog Code ----------------------------------------------- */