The Tao of Masonry

The Grand Lodge Annual Communication was Monday of this week. In Connecticut, they generally follow a pattern: a disjointed opening (because we all know that Grand Lodge officers can’t do ritual), three hours of introductions, another hour of Masonicare presentations, and then an hour break for lunch (after which there seem to be a lot of empty seats). After lunch, we have a few items of business, some remarks from the outgoing Grand Master, a few rounds of applause, and then a disjointed closing. Although I complain about them all the time, I generally try to make time to participate. Connecticut is a fairly small state, so it’s not that much of an inconvenience, unlike some other states which require an 8 hour drive. However, as it happens, several people at work are out this week, so I probably won’t get out of the office early enough to make the session, or even the installation of the new officers later on.

Not that anybody will miss me, of course, seeing that after today, I will have been stripped of my position as the District Grand Lecturer.
.

.

.

.

.

No, it wasn’t because of my latest April Fool’s prank. It’s simply that they have decided to eliminate the position entirely.

I’m still so not the drama, remember ?

My travels over the last three years have given me a few things to think about with regard to the ritual and ceremonies of the lodges in and around my district.

After the District Lecturer position was created, there were still issues as to what the officers should do and how they should do it. Initially, it was expected that they would help the lodges to improve in their ritual skills, but there were never any definite plans as to how they were supposed to go about doing so. Not surprisingly, some Lecturers did little, for fear of over-stepping some boundary. Others tried things such as helping at rehearsals, or having Q&A sessions on lodge nights, or sponsoring practice sessions. However, without any authority to compel the officers of under-performing lodges to participate, you can imagine that the people most often seen at the practice sessions were those who needed the least amount of help. And again, not surprisingly, some people complained that ritual wasn’t getting any better.

There’s an old joke about how many psychologists it takes to change a lightbulb. The answer is none; the lightbulb has to want to change.

Back in 2005, Connecticut tried to implement some small steps to improve the ritual work. They required that all incoming Masters for 2006 be certified in the ability to open and close a lodge. I was in that first class of Masters, and it was witnessed by the District Lecturer, two District Deputies, and their Associate Grand Marshals. A few years later, the certification job was given to the District Lecturers. I’ve complained a few times that often Senior Wardens would wait until the very end of the year before calling me, meaning that October and November would see me visiting several lodges a week.

It didn’t really help, though.

One of the the point that everybody missed is that some lodges have a very strong internal culture that values good ritual work. Those lodges pass these expectations on to new members in various ways; perhaps by showcasing certain good ritual performers, or by asking new officers to start memorizing lectures as soon as possible, or by holding not just one, but a number of rehearsals for degree work. What usually happens in those cases is that new officers will take up the challenge — especially if they are praised for their good work, instead of being carped at for missing a word or two. Yes, some old-timers have told me that they developed good ritual skills because the old-timers before them were harsh task-masters, but times have changed. Nobody wants to be humiliated into not doing a bad job, they prefer to be coaxed into doing a god job.

What I have noticed is that the men from these lodges have consistently better degrees because they enjoy doing it. And they enjoy doing it because they know that their brothers have encouraged them along. More interesting is that even those who consider themselves to be “poor” performers (compared to their peers) are often much better than the average performers at other lodges.

Lodges like that do not need District Lecturers, except, perhaps, to address some of the finer points of ritual and floor work.

Another point that was missed is that the lodges that really need the most improvement tend to be full of officers who don’t believe that they need any help. Connecticut is very liberal in ritual; we have a printed monitor, but several lodges follow rituals that pre-date the Grand Lodge itself. A few others have somehow managed to create their own, but have been doing so for so long that nobody bothers trying to correct them. To accommodate such differences, the Grand Lodge has a policy, which is summed up as “In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty.” So, in the absence of regulation, some lodges have managed to develop “traditions,” i.e., customs that make their work markedly different from that of other lodges.

But a large number of lodges differ simply because they are doing something not just markedly different, but remarkably wrong. When questioned, they simply claim that it’s “lodge tradition,” and expect to be given a pass. Generally, the “tradition’ was an error on the part of one member that was inadvertently passed down to succeeding officers, most of whom learned ritual not from reading the monitor, but from trying to emulate the other officers, and who ended up copying the mistakes as well as the important things.

Connecticut has always had a problem with defining the essentials from the non-essentials, but I think that the overall view of the Grand Lodge itself is to let those lodges alone that are doing good ritual, even if that ritual is not exactly what is in the book. I know that this view drives some of my brothers in other, more rigidly defined states into looking for the smelling salts, but they, themselves forget, that ritual was always fluid and changing, especially in the educational lectures, which often varied from lodge to lodge. It’s a common misconception that the ritual we hear today is the same thing that has been passed down the generations; personally, I believe that this fluidity is one of the most interesting aspects of ritual practice, and should be one of our incentives to travel to other lodges.

Anyway, it’s probably pointless to discuss this any further. As the only official duties of the District Lecturers (certifying that potential Masters can open and close a lodge) were brief, those will now be assigned to the Associate Grand Marshals; the ones in my district are eminently qualified, and they are excellent brothers, as well.

For my part, I’ve been appreciative not only for the support that most of the lodges in my district have shown me, but also for the several lodges that actually asked for my help. It gave me a great opportunity to work with some fine new officers, and hopefully I’ve been able to pass along something useful to them. I w
ish them all the best in the future.

The number 300 now being associated with half-naked, well-muscled Spartans, I didn’t want to confuse anybody with the approximate number of  Masons who attended the Grand Lodge semi-annual communication in mid-October of this year. Last year I complained a bit about the people who come to these meetings and then leave as soon as possible, so I’m not going to revisit that topic. I was, however, pleased to see that all of the lodges were represented, with only one exception — a marked improvement over the last few years. It might be cynical of me to mention that some lodges may have been motivated this year by one of the items to be voted on: the increase in a monetary fine to those lodges that fail to send any representation from $25 (barely the cast of gasoline and lunch) to $250.

I got there about a half hour before the session started, got a coffee (no donut, thanks), and chatted with people I hadn’t seen in a while. When I finally went inside the main room to find a seat, I discovered that the Deputy Grand Master had gone to the hospital the previous night for chest pains (at this point, it seems that he’s fine), and would not be attending. The rest of the officers were in a mild panic because they would have to move up a chair in order to open the Grand Lodge session.  Why is this a problem? Because the nine members come from different lodges, and most of those lodges have peculiar traditions and customs. Since Grand Lodge officers don’t have any rehearsals (ahem), it’s not unusual for somebody to miss a cue. And even for those officers who are familiar with what passes for standard Connecticut ritual, it might have been years since one of them actually sat in that respective chair in a Blue Lodge. What with the rituals for York Rite, Scottish Rite, Eastern Star, Rainbow, the Shrine, etc., in our heads,  it’s a wonder that half the Masons remember as well as they do.

During the break, I twittered “Who certifies Grand Lodges officers, anyway?” This is a reference to my one actual duty as a District Grand Lecturer (as opposed to those duties which I’ve made up for myself), that being to watch a potential Master properly go through the ceremony for opening and closing a lodge.  I meant it to be funny, but after the session when people got home, some of them commented about this  on my Facebook page. Soon, it became  a (yet another!) discussion about the perception that Grand Lodge is perhaps out of touch with what the real needs are in the lodges.

Comments about the ritualistic slip-ups were good natured ribbing, however, one brother brought up some good points on the relatively new practice we have of setting standards (and giving out certifications) for anyone aspiring to be the Master of a lodge.

Brother Frank expressed the general frustration that I’ve heard from others around the state.

“There’s so much emphasis on getting these little certifications these days. Does anyone actually look at a Warden and evaluate whether or not he’d actually BE a decent WM? No. But if he’s good at ritual, and can regurgitate the stuff on the little tests, then he gets the nod of approval. Granted, you need to be a decent ritualist, but that’s only 25% at best of what the job is.”

And he’s right, of course. Being able to memorize a few paragraphs of ritual doesn’t make you qualified to run a lodge. Neither, in fact, does your attendance at a couple of half-day seminars, nor your ability to memorize the various rules and regulations that the Grand Lodge has codified.
Frank sums this up nicely:

“[Grand Lodge] is overly concerned with certifications these days and not concerned enough about whether the Master is making lodge … Read More ENGAGING for this great crop of new Masons we have coming in. We should be concentrating on giving these new guys a great sense of fraternity, and in many lodges that is missing. Passing the WM certification does not guarantee that a WM can LEAD a lodge — and LEADERSHIP is the key.”

Ironically, the Grand Lodge would agree. That’s why in the last couple of years, we have changed the format of our officers seminars from serial lectures to mini-team building exercises. Aspiring Masters and Wardens are arranged in small groups and mentored through various tasks. The exercises are not arbitrary; all of them are based on developing the kinds of programs that have been shown to work well in lodges. Even better, each officer has a chance to talk to the others in his group about possible issues he might face in implementing such programs in his own lodge, and to get input from those in different circumstances.

Does even this type of education guarantee that someone will be a good Master? Of course not. But it’s a step in the right direction, because it makes potential Masters aware that there are various ways to approach developing a program for their year.

The following article by RW Carl Ek is reprinted from the October 2009 issue of The Connecticut Freemasons publication, which is running a series of articles celebrating the 20th anniversary of our mutual recognition. Read other articles in this series: 20 Years.

(Editor’s note: in the span of several months in mid-1989, the Grand Lodge, A.F. & A.M. of Connecticut and the Grand Lodge, F. & A.M., Prince Hall Affiliates, of Connecticut, Inc. crafted an agreement that changed how Masonry operated, not just in Connecticut, but worldwide. In our seventh installment, both Grand Lodges overwhelmingly approved resolutions of mutual recognition. With strong craft support in both Connecticut Grand Lodges, the next question would be the responses of other A.F. & A.M. and PHA Grand Lodges. Would external pressure cause either Grand Lodge to regret — or rescind — their action? A series of stories will appear in Connecticut Freemasons this year to celebrate the 20th anniversary of mutual recognition.)

From Prince Hall Recognition

Connecticut Freemasons knew that Grand Lodges worldwide would respond to their actions of October 14, 1989. What they could not predict was how.
Prince Hall Grand Master Lewis Myrick, Sr. indicated concerns from several Prince Hall Grand Jurisdictions that the A.F. & A.M. Grand Lodges would “swallow them up,” given the size disparity between the Grand Lodges. After he addressed a Grand Masters Conference in Boston in mid-May, 1990, these fears were largely put to rest. Prince Hall Grand Lodges, especially in the western United States, were quite favorable to recognition. Bro. Myrick did note, however, that the Prince Hall Grand Lodges of New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania were not supportive.
The A.F. & A.M. Grand Lodge of Nebraska and their Prince Hall counterpart followed Connecticut’s lead, becoming the second state to approve recognition in February 1990. Grand Lodges in Wisconsin and Washington — which had been nearly a century ahead of its time in their initial Prince Hall recognition — quickly followed suit.
Formal letters of congratulations came from diverse places, as well. The Grand Lodge of Quebec, Canada, was most pleased by the vote, but was unsure how it could duplicate it since their counterpart Prince Hall Grand Lodge chartered lodges in both Quebec and Ontario. The Grand Lodge of South Dakota, also very supportive, had a similar concern — their very few Prince Hall Lodges were under the Grand Lodge F. & A.M., PHA of Minnesota. Also, as then Grand Master Leslie M. Spies noted, “we have a relatively small number of Blacks and they are readily admitted into our Lodges if found worthy and well qualified.”
Letters of support also came from Iowa, Germany, New York, and even a Past Grand Master of North Carolina! (This jurisdiction was the 41st United States Grand Lodge to approve recognition, doing so in 2008 after several failed efforts.)
For all of those brotherly acts, there were others that did not fit that category. In January and March 1990, L. Bruce Austin, Grand Master of the Grand Lodge, F. & A.M. of Tennessee, communicated to his lodges, noting first Connecticut’s and then Nebraska’s recognition of their respective Prince Hall Grand Lodges. Stating that the “law of the Grand Lodge of Tennessee does not provide for the recognition of more than one Grand Lodge in this jurisdiction…,” he urged “great and extreme caution” in letting a Masons from either state visit Tennessee lodges.
Similarly, Grand Master Ed. W. Quillen, Sr. of Mississippi circulated a letter noting that visitation in those two states was permitted, but that if “there be black members present,” the visitor needs to determine if he holds a Prince Hall membership card. If yes, “you need to remove yourself from that lodge at once.” He goes on to state that if the black Mason was made in a regular lodge, “… you may, at your discretion, remain in that lodge.” How very brotherly!
The most egregious behavior came from the Grand Lodge of the State of Louisiana and its Grand Master, the inappropriately named Bro. Eugene F. Love. In his first letter to Connecticut Grand Master Gail N. Smith, he expresses concerns about sitting “with Clandestinely made Masons” and asks for a “statement” before issuing an edict. He notes elsewhere in the letter, concerning Prince Hall Masons, that he has “many friends who are members” and that “They are happy with their program are we are happy with ours.” (Comment: sounds like the old apology: “Some of my best friends are black.”)
Obviously MW Smith’s reply did not satisfy Bro. Love; on December 8, 1989, he issued an edict that “The Grand Lodge of the State of Louisiana, F. & A.M. does hereby sever all Masonic relations and/or communications with the Grand Lodge of Connecticut, A.F. & A.M.” This was followed by a similar letter of January 24, 1990 from Hayden P. Davis, Grand Master of The MW Grand Lodge of Arkansas. In it, he declares, “Fraternal Relations … suspended with the Most Worshipful Grand Lodge, A.F. & A.M. of Connecticut.”
Few probably remember the action of Arkansas, but several Grand Lodges strongly opposed Louisiana’s actions. The Grand Lodge of Quebec thoroughly discredits the “logic” by which the edict was justified, and urged “… your Grand Master to draw on your Masonic toleration and compassion and withdraw this counter-productive and potentially damaging edict.” The letter goes on to suggest that Masonic public relations could suffer greatly should this schism over race be broadcast widely in the media.
Unfortunately, Bro. Love did not withdraw his edict, and a Connecticut Mason’s family did suffer as a result. Worshipful Brother Norman W. Larkin of St. John’s Lodge No. 3, Bridgeport was denied a Masonic funeral when he died in his adopted community of Hammond, Louisiana. He was a decorated military veteran, and in his nine years in Louisiana, had been an active leader in the American Legion, VFW, and DAV, among other groups. Local Masons, incensed at this situation, suggested transporting Bro. Larkin to Texas to perform the service, but the family declined this brotherly offer.
The family had no such ‘charity’ for Bro. Love. Letters from around the country excoriated this Grand Master for causing “a childish feud … over a racial issue” and using Bro. Larkin as a ”
scapegoat.” Another, citing the racial intolerance that was the basis of the edict, said, “This is disgusting ignorance in this day and age.”
Perhaps Bro. Jack Macgregor of Trumbull, then a 35-year Mason, put it best.

“I have been told,” he wrote, “… that Masonic Grand Lodges in every corner of the nation deplore this high-handed behavior, even the members of your own Louisiana lodges.”

Jack went on:

“The fault is yours, Mr. Love, and yours alone. The local Louisiana lodge was willing to perform the rites, but were prohibited by your edict. Only you have severed relations with the Conn. Grand Lodge, and purely on racial grounds. I hesitate to think what would happen to your empire, should the national media become aware of all this.”

Accusing GM Love of still fighting the Civil War, he noted finding no reference “blacks” in any of the Masonic obligations. He notes, “They do, however, refer to a “Fool”. As far as I am concerned, a bigot is a fool.” Cooler heads would eventually prevail, too late for Bro. Larkin and his family, but eventually the edicts were rescinded by both Louisiana and Arkansas.
The issue was not yet ‘put to bed’ internationally, however.
Though documentation is not available, apparently a gathering of the first half dozen or so recognizing Grand Lodges was held in Massachusetts at the request of the United Grand Lodge of England (UGLE). Bro. Michael Higham, Grand Secretary, was present and, during the discussion, is said to have recommended or suggested (or perhaps ‘demanded’ — as all of the stories are second- or third-hand, or worse, it has been impossible to be certain) that all American Grand Lodges rescind recognition immediately. Then the issue could be studied by UGLE, the world’s oldest Grand Lodge, and everyone could follow their lead once they eventually determined the ‘legitimacy’ of Prince Hall Masonry.
This ‘suggestion’ was not received well by the Americans at the meeting. After some discussion, one representative (perhaps from Colorado, the fifth state to extend mutual recognition) is said to have articulated the thoughts of his countryman. He is said to have told the Grand Secretary that “we kicked your (butts) out of this country 200 years ago, and we’ll do it again if we have to!”
Thus informed of American feelings on the topic, UGLE had no choice but to follow, rather than lead. On September 11, 1996, UGLE resolved to extend recognition to the Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Connecticut. It would also offer the same recognition to the Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Massachusetts, doing so before the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts!
Nearly 150 years after the start of the American Civil War, and 20 years after Connecticut’s landmark vote, there are 10 states that still have not extended Masonic brotherhood to members of the Prince Hall Affiliates. All were members of the Confederate States of America or claimed by the CSA as such; in all, slavery was lawful until the end of the war.
Readers may draw their own conclusions.
= = =
The author acknowledges with appreciation his thanks to MW Kenneth B. Hawkins, Sr., for allowing access to Ken’s notebook of documents relating to the Prince Hall recognition process in Connecticut. The author also acknowledges the work and website of RW Paul M. Bessel, Executive Secretary of the Masonic Leadership Center, concerning Prince Hall recognition nationwide.

First, some background:

Back on April 1 of this year (note that date), I ran an article purporting to be a news clipping from the (now long defunct) Hartford Times about the proposed merger between the Grand Lodges of Rhode Island and Connecticut. The article explained that the reasoning for this was that our small states had too many Grand Lodge officers covering too few districts, and we needed to consolidate our resources. Masonic Education would be handled by videos made for Youtube, and both states would now be referred to as the Grand Lodge of Southern New England. To add to the verisimilitude, I created a website using the WordPress free blogging platform.

The Grand Lodge of Connecticut web site posted the article and linked to the new GL-SNE site for the day. Some of the brothers, both in and out of Connecticut fell for the joke (for which I wrote about a little while later), and everybody had a good laugh. “Oh, that Tom, what a joker,” etc, etc., and a week later (this being the internet and all) we forgot all about it and were now into The Next Big Thing, which probably involved the story about how a nun, a rabbi, and Chris Hodapp walked into a bar, and asked for a… well, as I said, this is the internet and even that is old news now. I pretty much forgot the Grand Lodge of Southern New England.

Until a few weeks ago.

Somebody forwarded to me something that had been forwarded from a friend, which had been in turn forwarded to them.The first forwarder (a brother who is not from Connecticut) wanted to know if this was true, and sent it to another person (also not from Connecticut). Somehow, they managed to figure out how to email a Mason in Connecticut, who thought the incident amusing enough to let me know. I checked, and sure enough, the blog stats showed a spike in readers over the previous several days.

Interestingly, for the next week or so, I continued to see visitors to the GL of SNE “website.” I learned that what had prompted the original question was that a re-print from the article in The Connecticut Freemason had appeared in another newsletter. Some of those readers mistook the prank for an actual new item, and then forwarded that news on to other brothers – and to some internet groups.

The other day, somebody else emailed me with another twist. Someone had posted to yet another group — an email list — the explanation for the merger.

The main reason the Rhode Island merged with Connecticut is that they were loosing members and they could not afford to keep a grand lodge going in there state. They were running out of money at an alarming rate to say the least.

Oh dear.

For perspective, the original prank simply stated “Citing a budget shortfall due to a lack of membership and the bad economy.”

Anyway, the next few days saw even more spikes in the visitor counts, and several friends were kind enough to email snippets of some of the conversations of various lists to me. One of the people who had passed it along to several other groups was finally clued into the hoax. Apparently, he later admitted to falling for:

sadly it is a sick hoax written by a Brother as a April fools joke

Maybe I have become inured to the members of Friendship Lodge, but where I come from, a “sick” joke generally involves bodily functions, medical attention, and quantities of alcohol.

What another person wrote, though, underlines what is not only a problem in the fraternity, it’s also a problem that we see frequently in society overall.

Saw the rest of the posts but FYI this appeared in the May issue of the Conn. Freemason along with the disclaimer by the author as a separate article. Interesting that Conn. GL was totally silent & let confusion reign.

Maybe I’m reading too much into that last sentence, but it seems to belie the too-common attitude of “I don’t like what that person is doing. Let’s get somebody in charge to stop it.”

You see, the Grand Lodge of Connecticut was silent because, quite simply, the overwhelming majority of the members thought it was a funny joke — even those who fell for it. I wrote a follow-up article about those who were inclined to take the bait, and in it, I questioned why those people let their imaginations overtake their critical thinking skills. I mean, in the Masonic world, especially in the US, that would be big news. You can’t really imagine something that big happening without months of rumors and gossip beforehand.

But here’s where this whole situation pins the needle on the irony meter:

Despite the fact that the only news reports of this merger were on my blog, despite the fact that the news item did not actually make any newspapers (and the Hartford Times has been closed since the mid-1970s), and despite the fact that no other Grand Lodge has sent out any kinds of notices to members, advising them of, for example, their status with regard to visitation, none of the people who passed on those rumors (nor those who considered it to be a sick joke) bothered to contact me. Not one.

So, why does this ping the irony meter? Because most of those brothers who passed this around — three months after the fact — were members of research lodges or education email lists.

Doesn’t the concept of “research” imply that one needs to do at least a minimum amount of legwork to determine the veracity of a concept?

Now, I’m not trying to poke fun at any of them. Just the fact that they are using the internet at all should probably be applauded. But perhaps I live so much of my life online that spending five minutes on Google to check something new has become second nature to me, and so I’m a bit embarrassed for those brothers who simply passed around the news, embellishing a little as they went.

The other thing that I don’t understand is why some of those brothers — the ones who were hipped to the hoax — couldn’t be bothered to drop me an email (being an attention hound, I’m not that difficult to find) to discuss their disappointment or dismay with the prank. A Facebook friend passed this on:

The substance has been passed, as fact, pretty much around the Masonic world and is will provide anit Masons great material to note how Masonry is declining

You would think that if somebody had that much of a concern, they might want to drop me a line and discuss it. In fact, I’m often disappointed to discover that despite our Masonic admonishment to “whisper good counsel in the ear,” too many of us find it much more convenient to rant and rail against something (or someone) with which we take issue. I wonder if we can make a law about that?

The following article by RW Carl Ek is reprinted from the July/August 2009 issue of The Connecticut Freemasons publication, which is running a series of articles celebrating the 20th anniversary of our mutual recognition. Read other articles in this series: 20 Years.

Reflections on Recognition, 20 Years Later

The Votes are Tallied

by Carl G. Ek

(Editor’s note: in the span of several months in mid-1989, the Grand Lodge, A.F. & A.M. of Connecticut and the Grand Lodge, F. & A.M., Prince Hall Affiliates, of Connecticut, Inc. crafted an agreement that changed how Masonry operated, not just in Connecticut, but worldwide. In our first six installments, MWPGM Gail Linnell Smith presented the resolution proposing mutual recognition and Connecticut Masons and Prince Hall Grand Lodge leaders enthusiastically supported this proposal. How would the craft vote? A series of stories will appear in Connecticut Freemasons this year to celebrate the 20th anniversary of mutual recognition.)

Dateline: Cromwell, Connecticut, October 14, 1989. The Prince Hall Grand Lodge met in annual communication, and voted on the recognition resolution first. In the parlance of sports, the vote was a slamdunk, with only one member voting in the negative.

That brother later approached then Prince Hall Grand Master Lewis Myrick, Sr., asking to change his vote. “Hell no!” replied the Grand Master. “That’s how you voted, and that’s how it stays.”

With the requirement of ‘all or nothing,’ it was Prince Hall’s turn to wait to see if the A.F. & A.M. Grand Lodge would likewise approve mutual recognition at their special communication, being held at Sheehan High School in Wallingford.

As it became clear that the special Prince Hall Recognition Committee chaired by Grand Senior Deacon Kenneth B. Hawkins, Sr., would report favorably on the plan, brothers who may not have been in favor carefully attempted to have influence on the decision.

A Past Grand Master approached MW Gail N. Smith to suggest that given the magnitude of the proposed change, some brothers might desire a written, private ballot to express their feelings. Bro. Smith agreed that he was correct – thinking that some would use ‘privacy’ as an excuse to retain the status quo while not appearing to be racially motivated. Still, Grand Master Smith directed Grand Secretary and MWPGM R. Stanley Harrison to prepare paper ballots for the recognition vote – knowing that they would never be used.

As some in Prince Hall Masonry feared being overwhelmed by the much larger A.F. & A.M. Grand Lodge, so some A.F. & A.M. Masons expressed a concern that their meetings might be visited by large groups of Prince Hall Masons. Why, others asked, would that be a problem? Lodges that ‘blitz’ might arrive unannounced at a visited lodge with 10, 20, even 30 members (and, politely, with a large quantity of refreshments). Why would a visit from a Prince Hall delegation make any difference to the visited lodge? Unless, of course, there were other, unspoken, considerations….

Then Senior Grand Warden of the Prince Hall Grand Lodge Michael Bivans focused on some of those concerns while speaking to Compass Lodge No. 9, Wallingford in the weeks leading up to the votes. RW Mike had been invited by Compass WM Charles Rogers to speak to his lodge to give a history of Prince Hall Masonry. After his formal presentation, Mike responded to a question about visitation between jurisdictions.

“Do all of your (A.F.& A.M.) members show up at your meetings? Of course not,” Mike answered his own question, looking at vacant seats in the nearly full lodge room. “And do all of my (P.H.A.) members show up at all of our meetings? Same thing. So what makes anybody think that when we approve mutual recognition, all of ‘your’ members are going to start going to ‘our’ meetings, and all of ‘our’ members are going to going to start to ‘your’ meetings? Won’t happen,” he concluded. History has proven him correct.

From Prince Hall Recognition

Image: MW Lew Myrick and RW Carl G. Ek, Worshipful Master. Unity Lodge No. 148, New Britain, at the Recognition Table Lodge. MW Myrick was protagonist for recognition twenty year ago, and RW Ek is the author of this series.

Dateline: Wallingford, Connecticut, October 14, 1989. The Grand Lodge A.F. & A.M. special communication being held at Sheehan High School had several items on the agenda, most of which were disposed of as preludes to what everyone understood to be the main topic of business. Brothers learned about plans for the next inspection cycle and filled out a questionnaire concerning the then-Grand Lodge quarterly publication, Connecticut Square and Compasses.

The questionnaires filled out and collected, Grand Master Gail Nelson Smith announced, “We will now take up the Prince Hall Recognition…” and stated that there could be no amendments to the resolution since it was the same resolution being acted upon – at the same time – by the Prince Hall Grand Lodge. After opening remarks, Bro. Smith asked subcommittee chairman Hawkins to read the recommendations of his group.

Issues of Masonic legitimacy of the Prince Hall Grand Lodge, the ‘sovereignty issue’ of only one Grand Lodge per jurisdiction, and the potential for other Grand Lodges to withdraw Masonic recognition from Connecticut should the vote be in the affirmative were discussed. The first two were simple to resolve; as to the last, the report stated, “… we have no control over their actions, and our vote must not be influenced by what might happen, but rather what is prudent in this Grand Jurisdiction.”

Past Grand Master Morris I. Budkofsky, chairman of the Fraternal Relations Committee, reported complete satisfaction with the legitimacy of the Prince Hall Grand Lodge and recommended that approval of “Fraternal Recognition, including rights of visitation, be granted…” The original motion was reread and opportunities for remarks allowed.

Grand Master Smith then asked those in favor of the resolution to stand, be counted, and those opposed to stand. The final tally was not recorded in the Grand Lodge Proceedings except to say that “a large majority” had approved the resolution at the historic communication of the Grand Lodge.

Bro. Smith then reported – to great applause – the Prince Hall Grand Lodge’s vote of approval and concluded the agenda of his own session. Thereafter, Bros. Smith and Hawkins made a short drive to close a centuries-old gap in Masonic brotherhood, becoming the first A.F.& A.M. Masons to be formally received into the tiled Prince Hall Grand Lodge session.

Joint news releases would spread word of the good work publicly, but the pre-Internet Masonic grapevine spread the word faster, that recognition was reality. Response would be rapid….

The following article by RW Carl Ek is reprinted from the June 2009 issue of The Connecticut Freemasons publication, which is running a series of articles celebrating the 20th anniversary of our mutual recognition. Read other articles in this series: 20 Years.

Reflections on Recognition, 20 Years Later
A Cautiously Positive Reaction

by Carl G. Ek

(Editor’s note: in the span of several months in mid-1989, the Grand Lodge, A.F. & A.M. of Connecticut and the Grand Lodge, F. & A.M., Prince Hall Affiliates, of Connecticut, Inc. crafted an agreement that changed how Masonry operated, not just in Connecticut, but worldwide. In our first five installments, MWPGM Gail Linnell Smith presented the resolution proposing mutual recognition and Connecticut Masons enthusiastically supported this proposal. But what of the Prince Hall Grand Lodge? A series of stories will appear in Connecticut Freemasons this year to celebrate the 20th anniversary of mutual recognition.)

In the closing moments of the March 29, 1989 Grand Lodge session Past Grand Master Gail Linnell Smith presented the resolution calling for the mutual recognition of Prince Hall Masonry immediately after installing his son, Gail Nelson Smith, as the new Grand Master. New Grand Master Smith appointed the subcommittee on Prince Hall recognition provided for in the motion; RW Grand Junior Warden Kenneth B. Hawkins, Sr. headed this group.

The ball, as the saying goes, was now in the court of the Prince Hall Grand Lodge.

From Prince Hall Recognition

Prince Hall Grand Master Lewis Myrick, Sr., favored mutual recognition and appointed MWPGM Preston L. Pope to head the Prince Hall committee that would make a recommendation on the topic. Bro. Pope had opened the topic of mutual recognition with the Grand Lodge, A.F. & A.M. a decade earlier, during his term as Grand Master; regrettably, his correspondence was never answered. Now he would have a chance to move forward the plan he had advanced a decade ago. This did not mean that Connecticut’s Prince Hall Grand Lodge did not have legitimate concerns about being the first Grand Lodge to recognize, and be recognized by, its counterpart ‘white’ Grand Lodge.

For some, undoubtedly, the term ‘recognition’ would serve only as a precursor to the eventual merger of the two Grand Lodges. The idea of merging – losing individual identities through combining or being absorbed – was understandably unacceptable to Prince Hall Masonry. The history of Brother Prince Hall and his efforts to obtain a charter for free black Masons in Boston before the independence of the United States is a source of pride among brothers of Prince Hall Affiliation.

Further, innumerable Masonic authorities have examined the now unquestioned regularity of the charter of African Lodge No. 459 across the centuries. As Bro. Myrick asked, “How many ‘Regular Grand Lodges’ could withstand the scrutiny that Prince Hall has been subjected to? According to Masonic history, not very many would be considered ‘Regular’ if the same rules were applied as used against Prince Hall.”

No, ‘merger’ was neither the object, nor an acceptable outcome.

However, what about such Masonic courtesies as demitting and dual membership? The Grand Lodge A.F. & A.M. (Caucasian) had, in 1989, approximately ten times the membership of the Prince Hall Grand Lodge. A scenario could be envisioned where demits by A.F. & A.M. members could dilute or change the character of Prince Hall lodges.

The question of dual membership was easily resolved: the Prince Hall Grand Lodge did not then permit dual membership, and this would not change under mutual recognition. After considerable discussion, it was agreed that initially, at least, demission between the two Grand Lodges would not be allowed. This would, after the votes were taken, lead some to say that the two Grand Lodges had only achieved ‘partial recognition,’ but all appropriately opted for caution as the Grand Lodges explored unbroken ground.

It will be recalled that the Grand Lodge of Washington in 1897 and the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts in 1947 did not feel that there would be any backlash from other Grand Lodges when they extended recognition to Prince Hall Masonry. In both cases, they severely underestimated the wrath prompted by their actions. The Prince Hall Grand Lodge was concerned about similar reactions from their sister Grand Lodges.

Not every state has a Prince Hall Grand Lodge, but across the states that do, there were strong feelings – mostly negative – about the recognition of ‘Regular Grand Lodges’ by other Prince Hall Lodges. Much discussion and soul-searching was expended on this topic. Among the questions that had to be answered by Connecticut’s Prince Hall Masons: were we willing to be outcasts? Would we be able to accept criticism for taking this step? Were we willing to accept the possibility of some Prince Hall Grand Lodges withdrawing recognition of the Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Connecticut?

After debate and deliberation, Connecticut’s Prince Hall brothers moved forward with what was thought to be best for Connecticut. Under Bro. Myrick’s leadership, Connecticut Prince Hall Masonry decided that it was willing to accept criticism and the possible withdrawal of recognition from sister grand jurisdictions in order to practice the true meanings of Freemasonry.

These feelings were communicated to Bro. Pope’s committee as the basis for its discussions with the A.F. & A.M. committee chaired by Bro. Hawkins.

The summer of 1989 saw the two recognition committees meeting separately and jointly. The first joint meetings allowed brothers to get to know one another, and to begin to feel comfortable speaking frankly about things that they liked and disliked, things that were acceptable and unacceptable to their respective Grand Lodges.

It was at a late summer joint meeting in the conference room of the old Grand Lodge office in Wallingford that the final wording of resolutions to be circulated among voting members of both Grand Lodges was signed off on by the committee members and Grand Masters Smith and Myrick. On October 14, the resolution would come before the Prince Hall Grand Lodge at its annual communication in Cromwell; on the same day, the Grand Lodge, A.F. & A.M. would hold a special communication in Wallingford to take up the identical resolution.

As October 14 approached, Connecticut Freemasons and the Masonic world watched and waited.

Would both Grand Lodges approve mutual recognition? What if one voted in the negative
– would the process proceed? All sides had agreed that there would be but one chance to secure recognition – what if the vote failed?

“To be continued…”

The following article by RW Carl Ek is reprinted from the May 2009 issue of The Connecticut Freemasons publication, which is running a series of articles celebrating the 20th anniversary of our mutual recognition. Read other articles in this series: 20 Years

Reflections on Recognition, 20 Years Later

A Cautiously Positive Reaction

by Carl G. Ek

(Editor’s note: in the span of several months in mid-1989, the Grand Lodge, A.F. & A.M. of Connecticut and the Grand Lodge, F. & A.M., Prince Hall Affiliates, of Connecticut, Inc. crafted an agreement that changed how Masonry operated, not just in Connecticut, but worldwide. In our first four installments, MWPGM Gail Linnell Smith presented the resolution proposing mutual recognition; based on a paper written for Philosophic Lodge of Research by WB Raymond H. Dragat, Connecticut Masons understood why they should support this proposal. A series of stories will appear in Connecticut Freemasons this year to celebrate the 20^th anniversary of mutual recognition.)

In the closing moments of the March 29, 1989 Grand Lodge session Past Grand Master Gail Linnell Smith presented the resolution calling for the mutual recognition of Prince Hall Masonry immediately after installing his son, Gail Nelson Smith, as the new Grand Master. New Grand Master Smith appointed the subcommittee on Prince Hall recognition provided for in the motion; RW Grand Junior Warden Kenneth B. Hawkins, Sr. headed this group.

How did the Prince Hall Grand Lodge react as the A.F. & A.M. Grand Lodge moved forward?

The year was 1978. Bro. Preston L. Pope, Most Worshipful Grand Master of the Prince Hall Grand Lodge and a friend of WB Ray Dragat, took an unprecedented action: he wrote to another friend, MW James M. Desmond, Grand Master of the A.F. & A.M. Grand Lodge, requesting dialog leading to mutual recognition between the two Grand Lodges.

Bro. Desmond – the first son of a Grand Master to become Grand Master in Connecticut – was surprised by this request, and unsure of how to proceed. He asked the Past Grand Masters for their counsel on such a momentous matter. The PGMs of that era overwhelmingly recommended that he do nothing! Sadly, many of these good brothers were from an era where ‘out of sight, out of mind’ was the answer to questions of race relations.

The Grand Lodge A.F. & A.M. followed the suggestion of the ‘Pasts’ and never responded to the letter. MW Bro. Pope asked MWPGM Gail Linnell Smith to intercede on behalf of the Prince Hall Grand Lodge. This he did, urging a response to the Prince Hall letter, if only out of brotherly courtesy. Regrettably, this did not happen. The Prince Hall Grand Lodge was understandable disturbed by the lack of even a negative reply.

Fortunately, this missed opportunity only cost a decade.

Prince Hall Freemasonry had come to Connecticut in 1849 with the chartering of Widow’s Son Lodge No. 1 at New Haven. In 1873, four local Prince Hall lodges formed what is now the Most Worshipful Prince Hall Grand Lodge F. & A.M. of Connecticut, Inc. Despite broader Masonic issues of jurisdictional sovereignty, the Prince Hall and A.F. & A.M. Grand Lodges were well known to one another. Relations, at the state level, were friendly and generally respectful.

In 1960, the A.F. & A.M. Grand Lodge supported the Prince Hall Grand Lodge’s challenge to other organizations of black men claiming use of the name of ‘Masons.’ Two A.F. & A.M. Past Grand Masters testified “to the recognized legitimacy of the Prince Hall Grand Lodge.” The court found the Prince Hall Grand Lodge to be legitimate and enjoined the non-Prince Hall groups. The establishment of the “Brotherhood-In-Action” program in 1966 united members of the Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Masons, Grand Lodge A.F. & A.M. Masons, B’nai B’rith, and the Knights of Columbus. In 1967, decisions made by the Masonic Charity Foundation of Connecticut opened the Masonic Home and Hospital to qualified Master Masons, their wives and widows, of the Prince Hall Grand Lodge.

Yet the Prince Hall Grand Lodge had no immediate response to the A.F. & A.M. Grand Lodge motion of March 29, 1989. Why? It was not informed of the motion until May because MW Bro. Smith wanted to be sure that everything was in place on his end before contacting his Prince Hall counterpart.

Bro. Lewis Myrick, Sr., was coming to the end of first year as Grand Master of Prince Hall Masons, and planned to seek election to a second year in the Grand East. (This is common in the Prince Hall Grand Lodge.) MW Bro. Myrick was personally in favor of recognition, but Prince Hall Masons did not universally share this sentiment. When MW Bro. Smith contacted Bro. Myrick about the resolution seeking mutual recognition, he was congratulated on the courageous step his Grand Lodge had taken but told that Prince Hall leadership needed to discuss the issue before any decision could be made.

Subcommittee chairman Ken Hawkins went to New Haven in May to introduce himself to Bro. Myrick, who was participating in the city’s annual Freddy Fixer Parade. Bro. Myrick was appreciative of the meeting, but Bro. Hawkins came away with the impression that the Grand Master’s opinion of this new initiative was best described as “here we go again.”

A lengthy discussion regarding mutual recognition among Prince Hall Grand Master Myrick, Deputy Grand Master Thaddeus Holman, Senior Grand Warden Michael S. Bivans, and Junior Grand Warden Robert Williamson led to consensus to proceed toward recognition. Grand Master Myrick appointed an A.F. & A.M. Committee, Prince Hall, to meet with Bro. Smith’s Prince Hall Recognition Committee. The Prince Hall chairman was MWPGM Preston L. Pope.

Bro. Pope and his committee would meet separately and with Bro. Hawkins and his committee throughout the summer to work out an agreement in principle satisfactory to both Grand Lodges. There was urgency in their work; a report was due to the A.F. & A.M. Grand Lodge special communication on October 14 – the same date as the Prince Hall Grand Lodge Annual Communication. Could these brothers, in less than five months, craft a lasting agreement? The Masonic world was watching….

“To be continued…”

Last week, our Zeta-Reticulan overlords protectors decided that it might actually not be a horrible thing for a few of us to put up and manage a Grand Lodge of Connecticut Facebook page.

No, the End Times aren’t here.

I wrote a few weeks ago that our Grand Lodge is rather progressive with regard to using the internet for promotion and communication; a Facebook page is something that a few of us have been discussing for a while, partly because so many of our members already have Facebook profiles and use it for a combination of family, work and social interest activities. The page is not meant to replace our own Grand Lodge website – it’s simply another way for us to reach our various members, and for them to share relevant news and information.

The page features some basic information, group discussions (not that anybody has started one yet), and is open to pretty much anyone who has an interest in Freemasonry. We just started it this week, so content is a bit sparse, and probably will be until we find our way with it. I expect that we will be posting more information about general events around the state.

If you are one of my 27 or so Connecticut readers, I urge you to sign up for Facebook and link to the new page (in Facebook parlance, one becomes a “fan” of a page), and please feel free to pass along any ideas for content or features.

News item: Grand Lodge merger talks stalled over minor details

Spokespersons for the Grand Lodge of Connecticut and for the Grand Lodge of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations announced this morning that the arrangements for the merger of the two Grand Lodges into a single entity, The Grand Lodge of Southern New England, A.F. & A.M., have stalled and that the merger will likely be called off.

The early morning joint announcement by the Grand Lodges indicated that both logistic and legal considerations became a stumbling block during the finalization of the process, and that a Grand Lodge existing acros state borders would cause it to have a different tax status in each state, and neither state wanted to claim responsibility.

However, anonymous high-level sources have suggested that the cause of the disruption was actually last minute disagreements over whether to use the designation F. & A.M. (Free & Accepted Masons), which is the designation used by Rhode Island, or to continue with A.F. & A.M. (Ancient Free & Accepted Masons), which is in use by Connecticut. While  A.F. & A.M. was originally picked, grassroots opposition from Rhode Island Freemasons caused their Grand Lodge officers to revisit the issue, resulting in arguments and rumors of several Grand Lodge officers nearly coming to blows.

Unsubstantiated by either Grand Lodge, the rumors have been picked up by Freemasons of both states and have created cause for conern.  The early morning press conference was short and spokespersons for both Grand Lodges have denied the allegations.

There is no word on how either Grand Lodge will dispose of several hours worth of the online instructional videos.

News item: Connecticut and Rhode Island to merge Grand Lodges

Special to The Hartford Times
Dateline: Farmington, CT.

Citing a budget shortfall due to a lack of membership and the bad economy, and the resultant inability to fund various programs, the Freemasons of the Grand Lodge of Connecticut, and those of the Grand Lodge of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, jointly announced at the Grand Lodge of Connecticut’s Annual Communication their intention to merge into a single entity: The Grand Lodge of Southern New England, A.F. & A.M.