The Tao of Masonry

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.

Well, it was bound to happen sooner or later.

I’ve spent two years as a District Grand Lecturer, traveling to the different lodges in my district, helping out whenever asked, tactfully making suggestions, always stepping in when a body was needed. Two years of certifying those who would sit in the East, often at only a few days notice. Two years of going to meetings, of discussing issues with Grand Lodge, of offering my helpful suggestions whenever asked.

At the Grand Lodge Annual Session, I was stripped of my title.

Did I have some controversial blog post? Have an argument with my Grand Lodge superiors? Shoot my mouth off after imbibing at a social function?

No.

.
.
.
.
.

Oh, I’m still the District Grand Lecturer, of course; it’s just that Connecticut is doing away with the honorific “Very Worshipful.”

I’m so not the drama, remember ?

Sheesh!

Anyway, it was great to go to the Grand Lodge session again. That is, it was great to go to the socials on the night beforehand. To me, this is the best part of Grand lodge; you get to see people from around the state that you rarely or never get to see otherwise. Even thought Connecticut is a small state, it still sometimes seems impossible for me to get to the odd corners of the state, especially when I spend so much time looking after the lodges in my district. But even if I did get out to the lodges in, say, our New York or Rhode Island districts, there’s still too much lodge business to be conducted to be able to spend any good length of time just talking, getting caught up, passing along gossip, fixing the problems of the fraternity, and admiring the new high tech toys that we love to show off.

I have to admit that I felt a little bit like a rock star for part of the evening, as several people introduced themselves to me and mentioned that they were readers of this blog, bringing my total of Connecticut readers up to, oh, 27 or 28, I think. I got the usual comments about how I look like my Simpsonized Blogger profile picture, some nice compliments on my writing for both this blog and our state publication, and even our new Grand Senior Steward admitted that perhaps I might have a few readers who were of the UGLE persuasion. Lofty praise, indeed!

Adding to the rock star aura was a Past Master from Universal Fraternity 149, who had been to Washington D.C. and met with one of the real rock stars of Masonry, Dr. S. Brent Morris, the noted Masonic scholar, and author of a Dummies book The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Freemasonry (I’m told that he has written other things as well, but I can’t imagine they are as good). WB Daniel passed along a greeting to me from Bro. Morris, the honor of which was marred only slightly by my needing to explain to those around us who Bro. Morris is. Apparently the orange books aren’t quite as widely known as the yellow ones.

I especially appreciate Bro. Nick (raised less than two weeks previously) telling anybody that passed him on the way to the bar that The Tao of Masonry was one of the things that convinced him that he should join the fraternity. As the drinks were free, I have to suppose that he really meant it, too.

Speaking of free drinks, a lot of brothers were disappointed in the lack of lodge-sponsored “hospitality rooms” this year. As far as we’ve been able to determine, only Friendship 33 had an open room for the mingling of fellow travelers. There was the regular suite run by the Grotto, and some people crashed the Grand Lodge (quasi) private reception area, but the handful of lodges that typically sponsor such rooms were markedly absent.

I think that Friendship 33 deserves some kind of recognition, don’t you?

And speaking of recognition, I ran into a long-lost friend. Well, actually, he searched me out, and ran into some guys from the Fifth District who grudgingly admitted to knowing me. He found me having dinner in the hotel saloon, and the first thing he said was something to the effect of my hair not being as gray when he’d first met me.

The next day I made sure to scratch the side of his car with my walker.

I’d “met” brother Steve on a Masonic discussion board back in 2000 before I joined the fraternity. The board had a variety of Masons from jurisdictions all over the world, and he was they only one from Connecticut. He was a fairly new Masons himself back then, and it was good to read his perspectives on his own journeys. He wrote an amusing anecdote about his interview which prepared me for the one that I would undergo a year or so later.

One of the nicest things, though, was he came up to see my EA degree, a good hour’s drive (he’s from our New York district). I was a new guy at Friendship, and while I had met a few people, I had only really known one guy well, so Steve was the only other person at my degree with whom I was somewhat familiar. It made the experience a little more friendly for me. Thanks, bro! He had taken a few years off – a respite – and last year threw himself back into the labors. It was good to reconnect, and I’m planning a visit to his lodge next month.

Naturally a bunch of us spent some time fixing the fraternity – or at least, explaining how we would fix things, given the opportunity. It’s a lot like when people fix the government, but harder because Masonry is much more entrenched. While naturally such discussions are fueled in part by spirits, the great thing is that they, in turn, fuel the spirits of those who are committed to the improvement of the Craft. In other words, while some people see this as carping or complaining about the fraternity, I tend to see it as expressions of concern; those without a sincere desire for the welfare and growth of the organization do not bother to put much thought into either the kinds of things that they would like to see changed or improved, or the means to which those changes might happen.

Items on the repair list included more ritual seminars, more use of teh intertubez for communication and organizing, more time socializing, and less time reading the minutes. Of course, this sounded a lot like last year’s list, but little by little some things are improving. For example, in Connecticut, we’ve had about 400 new members join in the last year; 90 of them made contact directly through our web site. In other words, fully a quarter of the new members did not come in through friends or relatives. Would they have made any contact if our Grand Lodge site did not exist?

And speaking of new members, I was pleased to see a lot of new – as in, newly joined – Masons over the last couple of days, and I think that it’s a great thing for new members to get involved with the actually workings of the organization itself. I sincerely hope that they can keep up the energy and drive, and I hope to see them – and meet many new brothers – next year.
<
br />

Various shots taken during the day of the 220th Annual Communication.

This was one of the shortest communications I’ve ever seen. Of course, there was no controversial business to be conducted, which tends to be a factor.

Great socializing and meeting up with bros from around the state, including quite a few that I only know from the internet.

All in all, an excellent couple of days.

Members of Friendship Lodge show up to support the new Grand Lodge officers.

Various shots of the Grand Lodge session during the break.

The following article by RW Carl Ek is reprinted from the April 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
Timely and Good – a Paper Republished
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 three installments, MWPGM Gail Linnell Smith presented the resolution proposing mutual recognition and we learned that other Grand Lodges had also done so in the past. Would Connecticut Masons support this proposal? 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. The craft would come to learn that this proposal had been made in at least three states previously, and that two had already passed – and then rescinded – recognition.

In the 1870’s, the question came before the Grand Lodge of Ohio, where it was ‘narrowly defeated.’ In 1897, the Grand Lodge of Washington was presented with the request of two transplanted Prince Hall Masons for the opportunity for fraternal interaction. The appointed committee, led by Deputy Grand Master William H. Upton, chose to examine “the large(r) question of… legitimacy” of lodges that were the ‘offspring’ of African Lodge No. 459 and the Prince Hall Grand Lodge that coalesced in 1808.

The result Bro. Upton’s committee’s work was simple: a ‘white’ Grand Lodge had legitimized Prince Hall Freemasons for the first time. Their report discussed the possible reaction from other Grand Lodges, but did not expect there to be significant problems. In that they were sadly surprised, and by the next Grand Lodge communication, it was necessary to rescind recognition of Prince Hall Masonry.

Now Past Grand Master Upton made his feelings clear: there was to be no monument, marker, or other identification on his grave that he was even a Mason until the Washington Grand Lodge again recognized their Prince Hall brothers.

A span of fifty years passed before another Grand Lodge would essay recognition. Much had changed in the world. Most Worshipful Past Grand Master of Missouri Harry S Truman had succeeded Bro. Franklin D. Roosevelt as President, and one of his executive orders provided for the desegregation of the United States military at all levels. Enlightened people questioned issues of race, and the civil rights movement was stirring.

In Massachusetts, the home of African Lodge No. 459, the Grand Lodge agreed with the conclusions reached a half-century earlier by a Grand Lodge a continent away. Grand Master Melvin M. Johnson was a strong proponent for recognition, which was passed in March 1947. Again, sadly, this was short-lived as Grand Lodges around the nation brought fraternal pressure to bear. Two years later, recognition was rescinded.

These activities at Connecticut’s northern border caught the attention of Bro. Raymond H. Dragat, a member of Level Lodge No. 137 and Philosophic Lodge of Research (PLR). Bro. Ray had been raised in Cosmopolitan Lodge No. 125 in New Haven while attending Yale Law School. Returning to his native Hartford, he changed his affiliation to a lodge that was initially built on the premise of alternating Christian and Jewish Worshipful Masters year by year.

The secretary of Level Lodge and PLR for more than 50 years aggregated, Ray ascended to the Oriental Chair in Philosophic Lodge in 1959. In that year he presented his paper, Prince Hall Masonry in the United States of America. This well-researched paper earned Ray the lifelong respect and numerous honors from Prince Hall Masonry.

Then Grand Lecturer and eventual Prince Hall Grand Master John E. Rogers ¬– and friend of Gail L. Smith at the Masonic Home – wrote to Bro. Dragat, “I cannot find the proper words to type my appreciation of your interest and inspiration. But I will give you this promise in return; I will ever in my lectures and future instructions to my younger brothers stress love and tolerance so that the spirit of Dragat, Upton and Melvin Johnson will always be reflected by those Prince Hall men with whom I come in contact.”

Bro. Dragat’s paper caused a stir at the time of its publication, especially when it noted that “the procedure of forming African Grand Lodge in 1791 was more properly accomplished than was the formation of white Grand Lodges in Massachusetts and other states.” He concluded, as had many before him, that there was no Masonic reason not to recognize Prince Hall Masonry.

Within a few years, though, it was generally forgotten. Ray updated the work in 1978 to reflect several court cases where ‘white’ Grand Lodges had supported Prince Hall Masons’ efforts to suppress clandestine black groups claiming the name of ‘Masons.’ One court expressed amazement that there was no record ever of any adversarial court action between Prince Hall Grand Lodges and their AF & AM counterparts!

Ray’s paper may have remained ‘forgotten’ had not Philosophic Lodge of Research begun a program to bring more Masonic light to the craft. Under the leadership of WM Frank H. Icaza in 1984, the lodge began selling 10 different papers from its archives. Bro. Dragat’s Prince Hall paper, the most expensive simply due to reproduction costs, was by far the best seller of the group.

Papers were available at Committee on Masonic Information officer seminars through the late 1980’s, and many brothers who owned the paper were voting delegates at the 1989 Grand Lodge session. Craft leadership was thus aware that Prince Hall Masonry was Masonically legitimate. They had every reason to support recognition.

A strong case can be made that when Gail Linnell Smith “… request(ed) fraternal recognition from the Grand Lodge, Free and Accepted Masons of Connecticut, Prince Hall Affiliation;” and those hundreds of brothers rose as one to enthusiastically, urgently “Second!” this motion, they were expressing their understanding of a paper written 30 years earlier by a brother who would receive his 80-year pin at the age of 102. Fortunately, Brother Ray Dragat lived to see the premise of his paper accepted and recognition accomplished, the greatest honor he could have ever received.

Here’s an interesting question: Are our modern Grand Lodge websites already obsolete?

At a committee meeting that I attended recently, the subject came up that some of our brothers were posting notices of lodge events on Facebook, which causes a problem for those brothers who aren’t connected to any of the dozens of social networking, blog-friending, or instant messaging hosts. The bigger concern, though, was that these events were not being published on the regular lodge web calendars.

This struck me as strange, because Grand Lodge of Connecticut has a fantastic web site, with hosting space for each lodge (each with their own domain), plus a web forum , and (and this is the important part) an easily updatable calendar that can be used as an event search tool. For example, as District Grand Lecturer, I like to visit lodges that are having degree work. Going to the Grand Lodge calendar allows me to search on, say, EA degrees, only in District 5. This presents me with a list of the lodges doing an EA degree anytime in the next few months.

At least, that’s what I would see, if the lodge bothered to update their calendar.

I’ve written before that the reason I started blogging was that when I was Master back in 2006 I wanted an easy way to announce events, and at the time the then-new GL web site was pretty much hosed. Events were lost, half the people didn’t know how to use the controls, and the few lodges that cared enough to dress up their site a bit from the cookie-cutter template were constantly frustrated by frequent updates which would wipe out their changes or enhancements.

Fortunately that aggravation is long past; the website is much easier to use, and good features and enhancements have been added over the last few years. Changing your lodge home page is painless, and you can add lodge forums, photos, newsletters, etc. You know, just like a real organization should have.

Which brings me back to the subject at hand: Why would lodges – that is, lodge officers – with their own website and calendar functions turn to Facebook (or any of the other social networking sites) in order to pass along information?

I wouldn’t bring this up if I didn’t already have an opinion, of course.

I think it’s simply a matter of convenience and available technology. Web sites are so last century.

Yes, Joomla and Drupal and their various plug-ins have made large sites much easier to set up and maintain. The problem, though, is that you still have to actually make a point to go visit them. While you might forget to visit a website to check for updates, there’s almost no danger of missing information on a social network, unless you overlooked it because of the sheer number of other updates you might be getting.

Facebook (for example) – especially with the Twitter application – allows you to customize the flow of information so that what you’re interested in comes to you, via your cell phone. Or your Crackberry. Or your email inbox. I can well understand the appeal, especially to those who pretty much live in front of their PCs; it’s definitely easy to send off an email or event notice to your named group, mention a few key details, and follow up with a little bit of chatter; the notices will have links to the events, and anyone getting automatic updates can immediately click the link (should they so desire) or forward the event to their online calendar.

By those standards, I feel like a moss-backed old turtle when I use my cell phone to send an SMS to my update my Google calendar, or to make a blog post via sending a multi-media message to my blogger address.

I understand the concern about lodge members – and not to be stereotypical, but it’s generally the younger members – Tweeting and Facebooking event details and updates. It inadvertently bypasses those who don’t live or work in front of a PC all day, or those who don’t care to immerse themselves in the Web 2.0 media stream. Entire events can be brainstormed and planned online in a matter of a couple of days without any need to meet in person. While it’s great for moving things along, the movers and shakers need to make sure that they aren’t neglecting the older members who have barely managed those wireless telephone thingies that all the kids have nowadays.

Interestingly, I’ve had exactly this conversation in the past, but in the context of static websites and emails being too “high tech” for the older members. Tempus fugit, eh?

Another concern that arose about the social networking sites seems to be the idea that it decentralizes the information, so that a) pretty much anybody (Masons or not) can see it, and b) the people who need to be informed – or at least, who think they need to be informed – might not get the information.

The validity of the first point seems a bit over-stressed, what with Dummies books, Idiots guides, dozens of personal blogs, and an almost weekly mention of the secret inner workings on the cable tv channels. Most Masons hip enough to be using Facebook are probably savvy enough to know what they should or should not be writing for public consumption anyway.

But the second point illustrates the constant tug of war between those who understand the need for some kind of central repository for information, and those who tend to adopt new tools, techniques, and strategies when the need arises.

Obviously, having some central facility for knowledge and information is important to the success of an organization. In fact, I’d say it was inherent in the term itself. People who are in positions in which they are responsible for organizing and overseeing other people or projects really do need some way to get the information easily.

The problem with the “keep it in the house” attitude is that the structure itself often becomes more important than the contents and accessibility. Everybody involved in some way wants to have input on what kinds of and how much data should be stored, who can access the data, and how it should be managed. Then, add in those people who can’t or won’t figure out how to use the existing tools, and you have a situation in which only a few people will actually be using the tools on a regular basis. Eventually, the tools sit unused because they have limited usefulness.

There will always be pioneers and early adopters, people who will use new tools, or perhaps invent new uses for old ones. Such people drive the forces of innovation that allow us to progress as a society, whether it be to profit from more productivity with the same amount of work, or to have more leisure time, allowing us more opportunity for rest and refreshment. The early adopters also help to weed out those tools that aren’t useful, thereby saving the rest of us from wasting large amounts of time and energy.

Early adopters, however, often forget that not only are some people lagging behind a little bit, but that there a lot of people who aren’t even in the same race. Our lodge has at least one Past Master who insists
that we send out postcards for major events so that people can hang them on the refrigerator as a reminder, and he is not amused to hear that newer appliances are connected to the internet so that one’s Google calendar can push the reminders to the door at the appropriate time.

I once told him the joke about Java once being something you’d find in your coffee mug instead of your cell phone.

The following article by RW Carl Ek is reprinted from the March 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 large(r) question of… legitimacy…”

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 two installments, the stage was set and MWPGM Gail Linnell Smith presented the resolution proposing mutual recognition. Would local lodge leaders be knowledgeable enough to support this proposal? 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, three brothers revealed their plan. New Grand Master Gail Nelson Smith, his father, Past Grand Master Gail Linnell Smith, and newly installed Grand Senior Deacon Kenneth B. Hawkins, Sr., had agreed on the presentation of the Prince Hall recognition resolution, which was met with unrestrained positive response from the craft.

An observer would have believed that craft leadership present understood the complexities of the issue, knew that Prince Hall Masonry was as Masonically legitimate – and perhaps more so – than many or most North American lodges, and that there was no Masonic reason to oppose recognition. Perhaps they did, even though Bro. Smith’s resolution had included none of his research.

In large measure, most of the work necessary to establish the legitimacy of Prince Hall Masonry had been conducted by the Grand Lodge of Washington in their preparation to recognize Prince Hall Masonry in 1897. This work was updated by the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts just after World War II and they recognized the descendants of African Lodge No. 459 in 1947. Regrettably, both Grand Lodges withdrew recognition soon after due to pressure from other continental Grand Lodges.

On this point, the trio behind Connecticut’s proposal was in agreement. There would only be one chance for recognition to be mutually approved, so the work done by the special committee authorized in the resolution would have to get it right. They also agreed that once recognition was approved – as they confidently expected – there would be no turning back.

MWGM Smith quickly appointed his special committee. RW Hawkins would chair, and six Worshipful Brothers who had supported Prince Hall recognition would make up the committee. They were: John H. Blennerhassett, Jr., Annawon No. 115, West Haven; William L. Greene, Uriel No. 24, Merrow; Robert L. Hodgson, Bay View No. 120, Niantic; Edward N. Jones, Wooster No. 10, Colchester; W. John Nissen, St. John’s No. 3, Trumbull; and John E. Suomala, Hiram No. 98, Bloomfield. Several would later wear ‘the purple of the fraternity,’ but the committee intentionally excluded permanent members of the Grand Lodge. Recognition, if it were to occur, would come as the desire of the craft, not as an imposition from the Grand Lodge. But what evidence could be offered as to the legitimacy of Prince Hall Masonry? PGM Smith had done his work well in mining a mountain of research from recognized Masonic authorities.

In 1897, the Grand Lodge of Washington received a report of the “Special Committee on Negro Masonry,” prepared by Deputy Grand Master William H. Upton and “most heartily concurred in” by the committee. With no Prince Hall lodges then in Washington state, Prince Hall brothers Gideon S. Bailey and Con A. Rideout – a justice of the peace and an attorney, both with impeccable Masonic credentials – requested that the Grand Lodge “devise some way whereby we [the writers of the letter] as true, tried and trusty Masons, having been regularly initiated, passed and raised, can be brought into communication with, and enjoy the fraternal confidence of the members of the Craft in this State.”

The committee recognized the larger issue than two transplanted Prince Hall Masons hoping to attend lodge; namely that “what they really seek is recognition of the right of the bodies in which they were initiated to make Masons. In other words, they raise the large question of the legitimacy of the so-called ‘Negro Masonry’ of the United States.”

They noted:

“The question of the legitimacy of the Lodges existing among the colored men of the United States is no new one. It has been warmly and ably discussed from time to time: and was quite fully examined over twenty years ago, when a proposal in the (white) Grand Lodge of Ohio — recommended by the Grand Master and favorably reported by the committee to which it had been referred — to recognize as a lawful body the negro Grand Lodge which has existed in that State since 1849, was defeated by a very slender majority.”

The Washington State Grand Lodge committee recited the history of what is now known as Prince Hall Masonry:

“On March 6, 1775, an army Lodge, warranted by the Grand Lodge of England… initiated Prince Hall and fourteen other colored men of Boston into the mysteries of Freemasonry…. They applied to the Grand Lodge of England for a warrant, March 2, 1784. It was issued to them, as ‘African Lodge No. 459,’ with Prince Hall as Master, September 29, 1784, but not received until May 2, 1787. The Lodge was organized under the warrant four days later.”

“Brother Prince Hall a man of exceptional ability, worked zealously in the cause of Masonry; and, from 1792 until his death in 1807, exercised all the functions of a Provincial Grand Master [licensing lodges in Philadelphia and Providence, Rhode Island]… In 1808 these three Lodges joined in forming the ‘African Grand Lodge’ of Boston — now the Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Massachusetts – and Masonry gradually spread over the land.”

To support these actions, the committee quoted Brother and General (and racist son of the slave-holding antebellum South) Albert Pike: “Prince Hall Lodge was as regular a Lodge as any Lodge created by competent authority, and had a perfect right (as other Lodges in Europe did) to establish other Lodges, and make itself a mother Lodge. That’s the way the Berlin Lodges, Three Globes, and Royal York, became Grand Lodges.”

After several additional pages of supporting material, the committee set forth recommendations that were adopted:

“Resolved, That, in the opinion of this Grand Lodge, Masonry is universal; and, without doubt, neither race nor color are among the tests proper to be applied to determine the fitness of a candidate for the degrees of Masonry. Resolved, That in view of recognized laws of the Masonic Institution, and of facts of history apparently well authenticated and worthy of full credence, this Grand Lodge does not see its way clear to deny or question the right of its constituent Lodges, or of the members thereof, to recognize as brother Masons, negroes who have been initiated in Lodges which can trace their origin to prince hall Lodge, No. 459.”

A ‘white’ Grand Lodge had legitimized Prince Hall Freemasons for the first time.

To be continued…