On Thursday, September 20, 2007, I wrote the article, Regularity vs. Recognition, discussing how we should all recognize each other as Masons, regardless of what lodge/Grand Lodge we were raised in. I want to modify my position slightly here. Recognition is a Masonic term and carries with it definitive meanings.At this point, I would like to state that all masons should ACKNOWLEDGE each other as masons, men, women, co-masonic, regular, irregular, clandestine, whatever. If someone claims to be a mason, regardless of provenance, I plan on acknowledging them as a type of Mason. I won't invite them to lodge, or sit in lodge with them, because that is a matter of Masonic jurisprudence and my obligation.
How can we NOT acknowledge a man as a Mason when he makes the claim? What difference does it make to our obligation, and truth to tell, our obligation can be argued to REQUIRE us to acknowledge someone a mason just based on the claim. So while I cannot recognize a woman or a co-mason as a regular mason, I am firmly of the opinion that I can acknowledge these brothers and sisters as types of masons.
It seems the Masonic thing to do.
May the blessing of heaven rest upon us and all regular masons. May brother love prevail, and every moral and social virtue, cement us.
