# WV GL withdraws recognition of OH GL



## TexMass (Apr 21, 2010)

Some one needs to put a stop to this BS!

http://freemasonsfordummies.blogspot.com/2010/04/grand-lodge-of-west-virginia-withdraws.html


----------



## JEbeling (Apr 21, 2010)

Not sure... ! ? don't think this tells the whole story.. ! the problem with being a FREEmason is the fact that we are free to do things that may be considered wrong by others... ? Think the brethren have spoken and if they don't want whatever went on in their lodge... ? sometime its hard to force politically correctness on free people.. !


----------



## Bill Lins (Apr 22, 2010)

OK- who is Frank Haas & why is this a problem?


----------



## Blake Bowden (Apr 22, 2010)

Bill_Lins77488 said:


> OK- who is Frank Haas & why is this a problem?


 
"Frank Haas is a Judge in West Virginia and until several years ago was Grand Master of West Virginia. The story of his being expelled from the Grand Lodge of West Virginia is well-documented in various Masonic and other publications. I have reviewed as many as were available, including West Virginia's Proceedings, the New York Times and www.masonic-crusade.com .

He moved to Ohio last year. After that, he petitioned Steubenville Lodge # 45 for the degrees of Freemasonry.

I thoroughly researched the Code of the Grand Lodge of Ohio and there is nothing to prevent his receiving these degrees. Inasmuch as he is an Ohio resident, the Constitution of the Grand Lodge of Ohio confers jurisdiction over his membership to the Grand Lodge of Ohio and the lodge's membership.

He made a full disclosure of the Notice of Expulsion by the Past Grand Master of West Virginia and answered all questions presented to him by the Lodge's Committee of Investigation. The Lodge did the necessary background work, including a home visit. They were assured that he was a good man and true, and he met all requirements, including residency for the requisite time, for membership.

Steubenville Lodge # 45 gave a unanimous ballot approving his membership.

On April 17, he received the three degrees of Freemasonry in Steubenville Lodge.

Terry W. Posey
Grand Master
Grand Lodge of Ohio


Meanwhile, Hass' lawsuit against the Grand Lodge of West Virginia is still going forward, and is scheduled for July. I have been told by more than one West Virginia Mason that the grand lodge has spent nearly $100,000 in its court battle to keep their Past Grand Master out of the fraternity. That may or may not be an exaggeration, but it seems like an awfully big price tag for the brethren of WV to shoulder. Now that Ohio has taken Haas in, my personal hope is that West Virginia will not try to retaliate against them, and that surrounding states will simply remain neutral. 

Recaps of the expulsion of Past Grand Master Haas in 2007 and the subsequent actions can be found here.

__


A former Freemason grand master is suing the West Virginia branch of the centuries-old fraternal organization and two members, alleging they defamed him after he pushed through less discriminatory and racist policies.

"These reforms and proposals were intended to rid Masonry in West Virginia of Orwellian, repressive, regressive and unconstitutional practices,'' Frank Joseph Haas alleges in his lawsuit, filed May 30 in Kanawha County Circuit Court.

Named as defendants are the Most Worshipful Grand Lodge of Ancient, Free and Accepted Masons of the State of West Virginia Inc., Masons Charles F. Coleman II and Charlie L. Montgomery, and several John Does.

Haas says Coleman, who succeeded him as grand master, voided policy changes adopted in 2006, saying the vote to approve them was flawed.

Haas also accuses Montgomery of spearheading his expulsion from the organization in November.

Montgomery did not immediately respond to a telephone message seeking comment, and no telephone listing could be found for Coleman.

The Masons is an international secret society that promotes brotherliness, charity and mutual aid.

Haas, an administrative law judge from Brooke County, alleges the defendants insinuated he was a liar, and by doing so harmed his standing in the community and hurt his reputation.

Haas, a Mason since 1986 who became grand master in October 2005, also alleges he was not given an opportunity to defend himself against the charges.

As a result of his expulsion, Haas cannot retire to the West Virginia Masonic Home nor have a Masonic funeral with other Masons serving as pallbearers, the lawsuit alleges.

Haas is seeking reinstatement as a Mason and to have any record of his expulsion expunged. His lawsuit also seeks unspecified damages.


More info http://freemasonsfordummies.blogspot.com/search?q=haas


----------



## drapetomaniac (Apr 22, 2010)

So, in many places when potential future de recognition is discussed over moral issues, people shut it down quickly.

The funny thing is what we actually tend to pull recognition over is either someone's mood at the time or something extremely bureaucratic.


----------



## Huw (Apr 22, 2010)

Extraordinary.  Of course it's up to GLoWV to make their own decisions about who they recognise or don't recognise, but it looks like they're really determined to "go nuclear" over this issue and I reckon they're risking being cast into the outer darkness by the other regular GLs.

Bill, I'm amazed that you hadn't heard of the Haas case.  I've been hearing about it even over here in England, and it's been a bizarre situation from the start - whoever heard (as is alleged to have occurred in this case) of any GM anywhere accosting his own immediate predecessor (in a car-park, not even a Lodge!) and declaring him expelled from freemasonry there and then with immediate effect and no due process?  I would have thought it would be a hot topic in Lodges all over the US.  It has huge implications, if Haas wins - and so far as I can tell from here, he appears to have a credible case, although obviously I'm not in a position to know all the facts.  If he wins, pretty much the entire leadership of GLoWV for the last few years will be in an untenable position, exposed as liars and conspirators and rule-breakers, so the whole lot of them would have to go.  And what appears to have triggered all this trouble was a series of reforms proposed by Haas when he was GM - these covered various matters, but one can't help wondering if it may be no coincidence that his reforms included a proposal to open negotiations for recognising PHA.

T & F,

Huw


----------



## JTM (Apr 22, 2010)

oh lord. 

i'm with drape on this one.


----------



## Jamesb (Apr 22, 2010)

Yep this is what Masonry is all about right here.


----------



## Jamesb (Apr 22, 2010)

I have determined that there are a few states that I will (currently) have no desire to go and visit masonically.


----------



## Wingnut (Apr 22, 2010)

Well, I would bet they are saying that since Bro Haas is an expelled Mason any GL that holds masonic communication with him is violating the obligations and therefor not following the ancient landmarks.  Wasnt it a lodge in OH that recognized an expelled mason from GA which later lead to the a lodge turning in their Charter and the members keeping the building and other items and started or joined a 'irregular' GL?


----------



## Huw (Apr 22, 2010)

Hi Wingnut.



Wingnut said:


> Well, I would bet they are saying that since Bro Haas is an expelled Mason any GL that holds masonic communication with him is violating the obligations and therefor not following the ancient landmarks.


Oh?  Is there something special about expelled Masons in your Obligations over there?  Here in UGLE, the Obligations don't mention expelled Masons, and neither do our Landmarks (so far as we have codified them).  An expelled Mason is simply not a Brother, in the same way as someone who has never been a member, except that if he wants to re-join then special permission is required from GL (which of course won't be given unless they're satisfied that he's now acceptable, which is rare).



Wingnut said:


> Wasnt it a lodge in OH that recognized an expelled mason from GA which later lead to the a lodge turning in their Charter and the members keeping the building and other items and started or joined a 'irregular' GL?


You're probably talking about Halcyon Lodge in Cleveland, formerly #498 of GLoOH.  It was a very different type of case, not about expulsions, but instead about a Lodge which for reasons of its own deliberately chose to leave GLoOH and instead get involved with an unrecognised organisation run by an expelled Mason from GLoGA.

T & F,

Huw


----------



## TexasCop (Apr 22, 2010)

I'm a born and raised Virginian, actually spending the last several years of my life on the WV border, so I can safely say this.............WV is a whole different world.  They do things quite differently than the rest of the nation.  This story doesn't shock me at all.


----------



## Bill Lins (Apr 23, 2010)

What a crock!


----------



## Raymond Walters (Apr 23, 2010)

Hello Brethren,
My name is Raymond Walters. I live in the Ohio Valley area that covers the Ohio- West Virginia border along the Ohio River. I am going to put my two cents in simply because many of you may not be fully aware of events that led to PGM Haas' expulsion. Cutting to the chase, he was too progressive for many WV masons that think it is still ok to enslave certain people and that the Civil War is still being fought.

As goes for Masonic Code in any jurisdiction, if one chooses not to follow rules in their own jurisdiction, one certainly will not follow long-standing rules that are so old they do not need to be written down. It should be well known by any mason conversant in old charges of the fraternity that NO mason can be expelled without charges being preferred, and a hearing held so that the accused brother can present a case to explain his actions. PGM Haas was not given that opportunity at all.

As for Grand Lodge WV, they were in such a hurry to violate his Masonic rights and his civil rights that they lost sight of couple of things; 1) Their GL cannot impose or force others to do their dirty work, 2) If they wanted to keep him in limbo and punish him they should have suspended him indefinitely, not expel him, which would have placed a greater stranglehold on Bro. Haas and his ability to rejoin Freemasonry.

I will remind you brothers that this is the same Grand Lodge[GM's after PGM Haas] that refused to allow me the ability to visit lodges in their jurisdiction simply because of my physical appearance(racism) which itself is a viloation of one's Masonic obligations and violates the spirit of Freemasonry and it's regulations. 

PGM Haas simply stood for what was morally correct, something we a Freemasons are obliged to do, and he stood for and defended me personally while he was Grand Master of West Virginia, but more importantly as a brother mason. 

He will always have the utmost of my respect and admiration.


RW Bro. Raymond Sean Walters, PM


----------



## Traveling Man (Apr 23, 2010)

Thank you Bro. Raymond Sean Walters for that information. I had the feeling after all "the guilding the lily" that somehow the truth would come out.


----------



## JEbeling (Apr 23, 2010)

Sounds to me like there are a bunch of very big ego's ... ! like Bill I have never heard of this.. ! still don't understand all of it... ! sounds to me like he just went shopping for some lodge to re-do his degree's to stub his nose at those who suspended him...? wonder why he was suspended.. ? he sounds like a troublemaker to me.. !


----------



## flttrainer (Apr 23, 2010)

Just read this.  It's the blog posted by the Grand Master of Ohio.

http://freemasonsfordummies.blogspot.com/2010/04/more-on-west-virginia-and-ohio.html


----------



## Ronald D. Martin (Apr 23, 2010)

Bro Raymond,

Since you live there can you tell us why he had to retake his three degrees? Also, I am not sure which "ancient charges" you are referring to but many GLs have the ability to not just suspend but expel members (for certain things) without trial. I understand Bro Haas's case, so I am not trying to question the underlying issue <s> I am asking about the technicality of why he had to retake the degrees. I have my own ideas, but as you point out you live there so please let us know. Thanks!


----------



## Wingnut (Apr 24, 2010)

Huw said:


> Hi Wingnut.
> 
> 
> Oh?  Is there something special about expelled Masons in your Obligations over there?  Here in UGLE, the Obligations don't mention expelled Masons, and neither do our Landmarks (so far as we have codified them).  An expelled Mason is simply not a Brother, in the same way as someone who has never been a member, except that if he wants to re-join then special permission is required from GL (which of course won't be given unless they're satisfied that he's now acceptable, which is rare).
> ...


 \

Apparently so.  Im not saying who is right and who is wrong, Im just point out that some jurisdictions do state things about expelled masons, I do believe even the tilers oath that was recently discussed here in detail has a statement about expelled mason...  Ive been reading the stories about Frank Haas since its been going around and was (until recently) following the court fillings.

Same with Halycon.  For the most part you only see Halycon and Jeff Peace side of this discussion also.  I dont pretend to know the rules of other jurisdictions and can only look at things from the rules I do know, which is the GLoTX.  By our rules a lodge has to have the approval of the GL to sell or mortgaged etc the building/property.  Further, GL law defines a lodge that voluntarily surrenders their charter as a suspended lodge.  (art 257).  Since I dont know the obligation taken in OH and I can only reference the ones I do know that make a reference to cheat, wrong and defraud.


----------



## Squire Bentley (Apr 26, 2010)

*Haas Is Back*

http://www.freemasoninformation.com/2010/04/war-declared/

http://www.freemasoninformation.com/2010/04/lest-we-forget/


----------



## youngsandy (Apr 27, 2010)

Oh what a tangled web we weave,
When first we practise to deceive!


----------



## Raymond Walters (Apr 27, 2010)

Traveling Man said:


> Thank you Bro. Raymond Sean Walters for that information. I had the feeling after all "the guilding the lily" that somehow the truth would come out.


 
This whole situation hinges on "EQUALITY", that which we Masons hold dear. For some strange reason, there are many in our fraternity who feel that "certain" people are not their equals in any way. 

In an answer to PGM Haas having to re-take degrees, he was re-obligated, which is at the discretion of any Grand Lodge. The GM in Ohio[MW Bro. Terry Posey] reviewed PGM Haas' petition & explanation regarding his expulsion in WV. 
MW Bro. Posey found that no reason existed under Ohio Masonic Code that would prevent Haas from re-obligating/ rejoining Freemasonry.

Add to all of this the fact that WV violated it's own Code in how it expelled PGM Haas should indicate that there isn't much sympathy, and the reason for the expulsion; to perpetuate an elitist class by those individuals who are clearly racist. 

I say this because as I AM a member of a "regular" Grand Lodge, why was I denied the ability to visit in 2005, based on nothing more than my physical appearance[PGM Haas spoke out on my behalf]. I was disrespected as a Freemason, my lodge at that time Valley Hi 1407 in San Antonio was disrespected, as was my then grand lodge, the Grand Lodge of Texas AF&AM.

I have NO sympathy for GL- WV. As our illustrious MW Bro. Nelson King wrote, we admit too many who do not meet the minimum qualifications for Masonic membership. Nuff said!!!


----------



## youngsandy (Apr 27, 2010)

To Bro.Raymond, I am indeed sorry and saddened to read at your treatment what ever happened to "Freemasonry regards the man, not the clothes he wears,nor the house he lives in, or the luxuries with which he surrounds himself."As my Grandad always said(God rest his soul) "never judge a man by the coat he wears." It would also appear some Brethren regard themselves as being more equal than others.ps. nice pic.Heraldic shield of the GLof S.


----------



## masonicknight (Apr 28, 2010)

This reminds me of the person who has been painting a wood floor and looks up and sees has painted himself into the corner and now has to wait for the floor to dry.  The GLoWV has apparently set the paint brush in motion and we now get the opportunity to watch them work.  I honestly hope that good sense and wisdom prevail in the near future so that not only is there reconciliation with all parties but also that any damage control will become minimal to the Order at Large.  Thank you for the information, I had heard only vaguely what this was but none of the details.


----------



## Ben Rodriguez (Apr 28, 2010)

Sounds like very petty drama. It's an embarrassing predicament for the order.


----------



## TexMass (Apr 28, 2010)

This was in several news papers a while back.  It was my understanding that he had proposed Prince Hall recognition and at a GL communication it was voted on by the membership and passed.  Several other propositions were also passed that would have helped bring WV from the civil war era to the present.  After the new GM was installed he rescinded all of the former GM's changes.  Then he proceded to embarrass PGM Haas and expell him.  PGM Haas has sued the GL of WV and the court agreed to hear it.  The GL of PH has issued a letter of support for PGM Haas.  I have not heard anything regarding the case yet.


----------



## owls84 (Apr 29, 2010)

This is what I'm doing..... quite a good show.


----------



## JTM (Apr 29, 2010)

thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you


----------



## Squire Bentley (Apr 30, 2010)

Where is it written that one Grand Lodge has to uphold the rulings, restrictions and obligations of another Grand Lodge?

It might be a tradition but it's not a Landmark.


----------



## Squire Bentley (Apr 30, 2010)

Lest We Forget

http://www.freemasoninformation.com/2010/04/lest-we-forget/


----------



## Ronald D. Martin (Apr 30, 2010)

Squire Bentley said:


> Where is it written that one Grand Lodge has to uphold the rulings, restrictions and obligations of another Grand Lodge?
> 
> It might be a tradition but it's not a Landmark.


 
Bro Squire,

I would suggest that if one thinks about it the recognition card is the only way GLs have to maintain some sort of order. In this case there might be many that side with OH  but in another case the same people might not agree with that decision. There arguably have to be some sort of rules that Regular GLs abide by between themselves or Masonry has a chance, with time, to morph into something that it wasn't intended to be. GLs certainly have their own independence but how else would one maintain some sort of boundaries of what it means to be Regular Masons without rules. Now, in this case I still haven't seen a rush from other GLs to pull recognition from OH. Cooler heads do seem to eventually prevail. It wasn't that many years ago that California pulled recognition from NJ for making Danny Thomas a Mason when his permanent address was in CA. They managed to work through that in short order


----------



## Squire Bentley (May 4, 2010)

Are we keeping order or perpetuating injustice?


----------



## Ronald D. Martin (May 4, 2010)

I would think it is like any other system that has rules and laws.


----------



## Raymond Walters (May 10, 2010)

Ronald D. Martin said:


> I would think it is like any other system that has rules and laws.



The point you have missed through all these conversations/ postings is that the GL-WV chose to violate it's own masonic code for it's jurisdiction in it's mistreatment of PGM Frank Haas, due primarily to racism, which has no place in Freemasonry, and never did. 

I do wish you unknowledgeable brothers would wake up, become familiar with ALL rules/ codes of Freemasonry, not just he one's you choose to follow or educate yourselves about. 

No one is saying that GL's have to follow other rules, but there is such a thing as common courtesy & brotherly love which we masons are supposed to show toward one another. PGM Haas didn't get shown any by the way he was mistreated for doing what was morally correct. I didn't get shown any due to my physical appearance, which itself is considered un-masonic. 

PGM Haas spoke out and took action, as a GM should when injustice towards Freemasons in his jurisdiction happens!!!

If you cannot see the problem, then perhaps you should find another organization that allows for mistreatment of people, like the KKK, skinheads or some other domestic terrorist organization.


----------



## Jamesb (May 10, 2010)

Wow!
I really like the generalized statements which lumps us all into catagories.  This is a tough time as we transition from one generation to another.  But lumping us (I do wish you unknowledgeable brothers would wake up, become familiar with ALL rules/ codes of Freemasonry, not just he one's you choose to follow or educate yourselves about. ) (If you cannot see the problem, then perhaps you should find another organization that allows for mistreatment of people, like the KKK, skinheads or some other domestic terrorist organization.) into groups like this as we (the next generation) try to move the problem out of the shadows is frankly unproductive.


----------



## Huw (May 10, 2010)

I see that you are very angry, Bro. Walters. That's understandable, there's potential for anger over several aspects of the Haas case. So far as I can discern the facts from a distance (which is obviously likely to be incomplete knowledge), Bro. Haas does appear to be a man of goodwill who tried to do what is right, and does appear to have been treated remarkably harshly.

Nevertheless, please restrain yourself. Inviting any Brother who doesn't see this issue your way to go join the KKK is a pretty intemperate remark!

I contributed to the earlier discussion in this thread, so perhaps you intended to include me in this "invitation". If so, I decline and take some offence.

Whether I can "see the problem" depends on what you mean. You assert that GLoWV has broken its own rules ... I've never read the GLoWV rulebook so I can't be sure about that, but I agree that their actions (and in particular the apparent denial of due process to Bro. Haas) look pretty strange by any usual masonic rules. You call upon us, whom you insultingly describe as unknowledgeable, to familiarise ourselves with "ALL rules" everywhere, but that's an absurd demand: we'd have to be full-time specialists to know every detail of every GL's rules, there are hundreds of GLs and each one has hundreds of rules and hundreds of edicts and hundreds of case-law interpretations, so it's all an ordinary Brother can manage to be approximately familiar with the general tenor of rules within his own jurisdiction. What exactly is the "problem" which you condemn us if we "cannot see"? Most of us here are not members of GLoWV, so what are you expecting us actually to do about this problem?

If there has been misconduct in GLoWV, then it should be addressed by members of GLoWV: they're a sovereign body and the rest of us have no say in their affairs. The only external course of action which can address the specific details of Bro. Haas's treatment is for him to ask the civil courts to intervene and strike down the GLoWV actions as illegal ... and Bro. Haas has already set that in motion, and it doesn't involve the rest of us. All any other GL can do overtly is to wave the blunt instrument of de-recognition - are you calling upon other GLs to withdraw recognition from GLoWV? Even if you are, then that's a matter for GMs and their advisors to consider, not something which ordinary Brethren have much say about.

Suppose, then, that we in other GLs do threaten de-recognition, as perhaps you want us to do. Consider what we'd be saying: we'd be demanding that outsiders be allowed to micro-manage GLoWV's internal affairs right down to the level of dictating a particular procedure and even a particular outcome in a specific disciplinary case. If outsiders were allowed to dictate such internal proceedings in such detail, then GLoWV clearly would no longer be a sovereign body, and therefore couldn't qualify as a regular GL! So we'd effectively be demanding that GLoWV do something definitely irregular in order to rectify something allegedly irregular! We'd be putting them in an impossible position, because if they acceded to our demands then we wouldn't be able to re-recognise them afterwards for lack of sovereignty. This is not what the recognition system is intended to be used for, it'd be an abuse of process by the rest of us. We could only follow that path if it were the intention to cast GLoWV into the outer darkness permanently: it'd be a nuclear option, an attempt to destroy GLoWV altogether, not a means of rectifying one awkward situation. Recognising this potential, many GLs would loudly refuse to join a general de-recognition, and GLoWV would refuse to comply with the demands of those which de-recognised them, and we'd quite likely end up thereby with an insoluble deadlock and a permanent schism in masonry.

What can be done, although not overtly, is to bring a certain amount of wise counsel and diplomatic pressure from other GLs, but that doesn't involve us ordinary Brethren and can't be conducted in public. I dare say it's already happening behind the scenes, but ranting about the situation in public forums probably doesn't help efforts at quiet diplomacy.

T & F,

Huw


----------



## Ronald D. Martin (May 10, 2010)

raymondswalters said:


> If you cannot see the problem, then perhaps you should find another organization that allows for mistreatment of people, like the KKK, skinheads or some other domestic terrorist organization.


 
One might first wish to consider taking the log out of thier own eye, so that they might see clearly when attempting to take out the speck that is in their brotherâ€™s eye. Hate and anger are color blind and they certainly don't do anything for someone's reasoning abilities. I forgive you for these statements - maybe you should ponder forgiving your self.


----------



## Raymond Walters (May 11, 2010)

Dear Brethren,

All of you have raised valid points with your comments, and my intent was not to cast such a wide brush with my comments. I will comment further on this; I AM beyond tired of hearing comments that seemingly overlook conduct that denigrates our fraternal organization. Other Masonic writers have commented about the lack of effective leadership in this illustrious fraternity we all belong to, and in my masonic journey I can concur with those comments from the other writers.

We were first instructed to "subdue our passions", yet for many, not all, that transition has never taken place. If one is to become a "better" man, then a transition should take place. Yes I understand that transition will come about differently for all persons, but it should happen at some time. Because this transition hasn't happened with many grand lodge officers in West Virginia, part of the fraternal bonds we cherish are not coming about to help better ALL masons in West Virginia.

My example is this; there are several students at Bethany College in Bethany, West Virginia, [my son Austin included] who are all "regular"/mainstream masons. All of these masons happen to be African/ African-American, and are being denied the ability to visit/ attend lodge with other "regular"/mainstream masons here in West Virginia. 
These masons spend time coming to my home just to get some semblance of what could be called fellowship. We spend time talking, discussing masonic related subjects, philosophy, and occassionally, discuss ritualistic work and it's symbolic meanings. I have been happy to share what I have been taught, and to get to know these younger masons.

So when my comments are read and I sound as if I am complaining, please know that I have suffered mistreatment for over 20 years by other so-called "regular" Freemasons for none other reason than my physical appearance. I used to correspond with Bro. Allen Roberts of Virginia concerning the situation in America, and please know that this situation IS an American problem, he would reassure me that someday things will get better. I do agree, they will get better, but WE must stop sitting on the fencepost. In looking at these younger masons, who are the future of our fraternity, I can only hope that they will be able to help correct the current situations from ever taking place again.

There is no rule in Freemasonry that prevents us from espousing an opinion, so it is difficult for me to understand those who choose to play "devils" advocate. Playing advocate for evil/ injustice should not be anyone's approach. We, as Freemasons are considered to be an enlightened bunch, and certainly not be part of the in crowd or do what is expedient/ politically correct. 
WE ARE BETTER THAN THAT IF WE SIMPLY ALLOW OURSELVES TO BE!!!

In closing, I joined an organization whose principles I grew to admire & respect. I had many examples in my own family and community of upstanding men who all happened to be Freemasons. We have the ability to effect positive change within ourselves and families, as well as the community/ society around us. If we do not lead they way, who will???

Fraternally,


----------



## owls84 (May 11, 2010)

One thing you need to understand is that this is a Masonic FORUM. The purpose of this forum is discussion. Without opposition there is no discussion. From time to time I will "play devil’s advocate" just to spur discussion. Without it this site would not have any members and would have died a long time ago. However, we are ALL supposed to remain on the level and respect for one another should always be first and for most during all topics no matter how much you agree or disagree with one another. 

You are very knowledgeable on this topic and have given a large sum of us some very good information on the happenings but this is not the first time something like this has happened and I am sure there will be more. However since you are on "the front line" of this issue your input is greatly appreciated. 

The thing I keep in mind is that Masonry is not to blame but the Mason who has not taken the time to learn the teachings that Masonry has to offer. Also, please remember just because someone says something on here don't believe that is their actual viewpoint.


----------



## Squire Bentley (May 16, 2010)

> Suppose, then, that we in other GLs do threaten de-recognition, as perhaps you want us to do. Consider what we'd be saying: we'd be demanding that outsiders be allowed to micro-manage GLoWV's internal affairs right down to the level of dictating a particular procedure and even a particular outcome in a specific disciplinary case. If outsiders were allowed to dictate such internal proceedings in such detail, then GLoWV clearly would no longer be a sovereign body, and therefore couldn't qualify as a regular GL! So we'd effectively be demanding that GLoWV do something definitely irregular in order to rectify something allegedly irregular! We'd be putting them in an impossible position, because if they acceded to our demands then we wouldn't be able to re-recognise them afterwards for lack of sovereignty. This is not what the recognition system is intended to be used for, it'd be an abuse of process by the rest of us. We could only follow that path if it were the intention to cast GLoWV into the outer darkness permanently: it'd be a nuclear option, an attempt to destroy GLoWV altogether, not a means of rectifying one awkward situation. Recognising this potential, many GLs would loudly refuse to join a general de-recognition, and GLoWV would refuse to comply with the demands of those which de-recognised them, and we'd quite likely end up thereby with an insoluble deadlock and a permanent schism in masonry.



So when the Grand Lodge of Minnesota recognized the Grand Lodge of France and many other American GLs started pulling recognition, you were on the side of the GL of Minnesota, right?

And when the Gl of Washington State- Upton - recognized Prince Hall in 1898 and many other American GLs pulled recognition you would say those pulled recognitions were wrong, right?

There has to be some sort of national agreement of what Freemasonry consists .  We have such disparity between American Grand Lodges that not only do we confuse the public but we also confuse Freemasons.

American Freemasonry is crying for an American identity. That can happen if state GLs will band together to forge an agreement on common principles without giving up any state sovereignty. Those that refused to particpate the rest could pull recognition from or just refuse to call what they are doing Freemasonry.

Failure of Freemasonry to police itself could result in civil court action or federal government bureaucratic action..  And don't think for a moment that is not a possibility. Most Grand Lodges are civil corporate non profits and subject to non profit and corporate rules which take precedence over Masonic law.

Parts of American Freemasonry thumbing its nose at civil rights, human rights and certain lifestyles could create a giant headache for the entire Craft.  And what one jurisdiction does reflects on us all. The public - and future candidates - do not distinguish between West Virginia Freemasonry and California Freemasonry.  To them it's all the same - Freemasonry is Freemasonry.

But we know it isn't.  It should be but it isn't.  Lincoln told us that a house divided cannot stand.  Freemasonry divided cannot stand. Those that say one jurisdiction doesn't mess with the affairs of another jurisdiction are the same Brothers who say - "but we always did it this way." If you cannot work outside the box then you are not part of the solution you are part of the problem.


----------



## Huw (May 17, 2010)

Hi Squire.

When you're quoting, I think it's polite to attribute the quotation. In this case, it's from me.



Squire Bentley said:


> So when the Grand Lodge of Minnesota recognized the Grand Lodge of France and many other American GLs started pulling recognition, you were on the side of the GL of Minnesota, right?


 
Certainly not, and on two counts. First, using the threat (or if necessary the reality) of de-recognition in a dispute which is itself about recognition is a proper use of the recognition system, unlike in the WV case where it's about internal administration. Secondly, GLoMN was dallying with an irregular GL, the GLdF, and that's a more serious offence with respect to recognition than that of which GLoWV has been accused. Other GLs really were prepared to cast GLoMN into the outer darkness forever and seek its destruction over that issue, unlike the GLoWV case (at least so far).



Squire Bentley said:


> And when the Gl of Washington State- Upton - recognized Prince Hall in 1898 and many other American GLs pulled recognition you would say those pulled recognitions were wrong, right?


 
Yes, I would, although I find it understandable in the circumstances of that time. Those who pulled recognition (led by GLoTX, if I recall correctly) sincerely believed that GLoWA were trying to recognise an irregular GL (i.e. PHAoWA) and therefore felt the same as more recently in the case of GLoMN, but the difference is that in the GLoMN case the majority were correct that GLdF was (and is) irregular whereas in the GLoWA case the majority were wrong to believe that PHAoWA was (or is) irregular.

The late PGM Upton of GLoWA was a far-sighted man, a man before his time when he realised that PHAoWA are regular, and thank goodness most of the rest of us have now realised that he was right all along.



Squire Bentley said:


> There has to be some sort of national agreement of what Freemasonry consists . We have such disparity between American Grand Lodges that not only do we confuse the public but we also confuse Freemasons.


 
That's very much easier said than done.



Squire Bentley said:


> American Freemasonry is crying for an American identity.


 
You have an American identity, Bro. You invented rituals which are very different from the rest of the world (except insofar as some of the Canadians and a few other places have subsequently adopted rituals akin to yours). You also invented a racist form of masonry which is unknown in the rest of the world.

Perhaps your problem over there is too much American identity and not enough Masonic identity.



Squire Bentley said:


> That can happen if state GLs will band together to forge an agreement on common principles without giving up any state sovereignty.


 
I doubt it's possible to do that. Your Conference of Grand Masters has always had the aim of working to common principles, and indeed that's a large part of its reason for existence. Most of the major principles have always been in place, and they're called Landmarks, although I agree that additional minor principles of lesser status are necessary from time to time to cope with evolving practical situations. Yet because of State sovereignty, you've proved time after time over two centuries that you're utterly incapable even of agreeing what the Landmarks actually are, let alone agreeing the minor principles. How much more proof do you need?

If you're ever going to make a serious effort to agree, then possibly the easiest way, and probably the most historically and masonically correct way, would be for all of you simply to adopt the existing statements of principles issued long ago by UGLE. But I'd be amazed if even a single one among the State GLs would agree to abandon its own jurisprudence and revert to ours. More likely, Americans with their fierce sense of independence would want to invent a whole new set of principles all of their own, deliberately different from the original principles (i.e. our principles) ... and so then we'd face the awkward question of whether genuine ancient freemasonry still existed at all in the US.

So it's too late, Bro., centuries too late. Agreement between all those different sovereign jurisdictions isn't possible, and the consequences of trying would probably be even worse than not trying. If you truly want to work from identical principles, you'll have to merge under one banner. But I can't see how you'd ever agree to that, there are far too many petty egos who enjoy being big fish in little ponds.



Squire Bentley said:


> Those that refused to particpate the rest could pull recognition from or just refuse to call what they are doing Freemasonry.


 
Yes, you could do that, but consider the consequences.

In the first place, those cast out would nevertheless insist on continuing to call what they do Freemasonry, just as (for example) the Grand Orient of France continued (and still continues) to call its peculiar practices Freemasonry even though they ceased to be masonic 150 years ago.

In the second place, once alternative and irreconcilable systems have permanently separated, each regards the other's territory as open terrirory, and proceeds to set up its own Lodges (and eventually Grand Lodges) in the other system's territory. And the profance usually can't (or won't) tell the difference, so the sins of one besmirch the other in the public mind - we've had this problem in Europe with the Grand Orients ever since they went irregular, and believe me it's a huge nuisance in many countries.

Of course you had some of the same "invasion" problem with PHA in the US, but at least PHA (as is now realised) are not fundamentally irregular like the Grand Orients, and now reconciliation has proved possible (unlike with the GOs, with whom reconciliation is impossible).



Squire Bentley said:


> Failure of Freemasonry to police itself could result in civil court action or federal government bureaucratic action.. And don't think for a moment that is not a possibility. Most Grand Lodges are civil corporate non profits and subject to non profit and corporate rules which take precedence over Masonic law.


 
Agreed. But if sovereign GLs insist upon exposing themselves to this risk, even this likelihood, then that's their own fault. It's a very serious problem, but the nature of sovereignty is that reform can come only from within, no matter how frustrating that may be for those of us on the outside. If the civil law is forced to step in by their pig-headed stubbornness, then so be it.



Squire Bentley said:


> Parts of American Freemasonry thumbing its nose at civil rights, human rights and certain lifestyles could create a giant headache for the entire Craft.


 
Again agreed. And if it gets to the point where civil law rules against the practices of certain GLs, then that's probably the point at which everyone else must withdraw recognition. But in the meanwhile, we are obliged to give our Brethren the benefit of the doubt so far as humanly possible, whilst attempting to whisper good counsel in their ears. That's the fraternal way.



Squire Bentley said:


> And what one jurisdiction does reflects on us all. The public - and future candidates - do not distinguish between West Virginia Freemasonry and California Freemasonry. To them it's all the same - Freemasonry is Freemasonry.


 
Yes. Just as the public and uninitiated Candidates could never understand the difference between State GLs and PHA (because their wasn't one, in principle), and just as the public and uninitiated Candidates continue to have difficulty understanding the difference between genuine freemasonry and what the Grand Orients do (even though that's a real difference).

The oddities of recent GLoWV behaviour, however, are not such as to cause a big impact on public perceptions. They've got into a dispute with a member whom they've expelled, and stand accused of seriously improper procedure in doing so, and of improper procedure in several related respects as well ... but all sorts of associations have that sort of problem all the time. It's a very important case to those of us within freemasonry, but that sort of dispute doesn't, in itself, attract much public interest. The additional allegations of racism which are floating around the periphery of the dispute certainly do attract public interest, but those additional allegations are not the issue in the forthcoming lawsuit.

The GLs whose behaviour is much more likely to affect public perceptions are those which appear more flagrantly and systematically racist. GLoWV has quite a number of black members in some of its Lodges, as Bro. Walters has pointed out in this forum (he being an example himself), and the racial problem there is the more apparently-local one of being allowed (or not allowed) to visit some of the other Lodges, not of the GL as a whole appearing to operate a racial barrier.



Squire Bentley said:


> But we know it isn't. It should be but it isn't. Lincoln told us that a house divided cannot stand. Freemasonry divided cannot stand.


 
Oh, I dunno. For two centuries US Freemasonry stood divided between State GLs and PHA, and yet it still stands. And in the wider picture, Lincoln's words were fine-sounding rhetoric, but probably not true: if the Confederacy had won in the War Between The States, both USA and CSA would probably have been able to continue to exist as separate countries.



Squire Bentley said:


> Those that say one jurisdiction doesn't mess with the affairs of another jurisdiction are the same Brothers who say - "but we always did it this way."


 
You're failing to make a distinction between those who say "we always did it this way" about the right things and those who say the same about the wrong things. Freemasonry is fundamentally defined by its Landmarks, and those who insist upon sticking to the Landmarks are right whilst those who reject the Landmarks are no longer Masons.

Fortunately, of course, racism in US masonry is not a Landmark. When American masonry first began under British jurisdiction, it was available to men of all races (as the famous case of Prince Hall himself illustrates). Therefore those who say "we always did it this way" in defence of racist practices are talking nonsense and can (and of course should) be opposed.

However, unfortunately for your argument, sovereignty of a GL is a Landmark - and one which is universally-agreed to be a Landmark, not one of those dubious and arguable additional "Landmarks" which some ill-informed writers have asserted. This limits the manner in which we can act upon our disapproval of what some other GL does, no matter how passionately we believe that they are misguided. We have no right at all to order another GL to do as we say. We can only advise, and they are not obliged to take the advice. Ultimately we can say whether or not we accept (recognise) them as being Masons at all, but that's a very blunt instrument, designed only for dealing with fundamental principles and not for interfering in case-by-case internal affairs.

Nevertheless, suppose that we finally lost patience with the behaviour of GLoWV and wanted to go down the de-recognition route, as you seem to want. From a UGLE perspective, I can see several plausible arguments under which GLoWV could potentially be declared irregular for breaches of Landmarks. The big problem is that I can't see any such argument which applies only to GLoWV - if we were to go that route, it seems to me that we'd probably have to de-recognise a large part of all US masonry, quite possibly even including your own jurisdiction. Maybe someone in the UGLE office is smarter than I am and can see an argument which would apply to GLoWV only. But otherwise, then I'm pretty confident that UGLE wouldn't want to go there ... and I suspect that most other GLs wouldn't want to go there either.



Squire Bentley said:


> If you cannot work outside the box then you are not part of the solution you are part of the problem.


 
Cheap words, Squire. When the box concerned equates to the Landmarks, I could equally say that if you cannot work within the box, then it is you who are part of the problem. We need practical reformers who will carefully and skilfully repair the faults in our temple of brotherly love, not wild-eyed anarchists who will put a bomb under the whole structure and blow it to pieces.

T & F,

Huw


----------



## Zack (May 17, 2010)

Well said Huw.  Thank you.


----------



## Squire Bentley (May 28, 2010)

Quick reply.

The Grand Lodge of France is not and has never been an Irregular or Clandestine Grand Lodge.

Basing Regularity on the Landmarks is not a good barometer of Regularity..  Some perfectly reputable Mainstream Grand Lodges do not have any Landmarks at all.  Many only recognize a few.  The GLMA recognizes 9.  Few codify all 25 of MacKey's.


----------



## Huw (May 30, 2010)

Hi Squire.



Squire Bentley said:


> The Grand Lodge of France is not and has never been an Irregular or Clandestine Grand Lodge.


 
I wouldn't call them "clandestine", that's a word which doesn't mean quite the same over here as it seem to mean over there.  However, GLdF are certainly irregular.

In terms of their internal practice with their own members, it does appear that they operate in a manner which might be argued to be fairly regular. There are some question-marks even about that, but the issue would at least deserve some consideration.

However, GLdF maintains relations with the Grand Orient and various associated bodies including mixed-sex and women-only organisations, including some inter-visiting. The GO is a totally clandestine body which has been admitting atheists for more than a century (and which has recently started admitting women as well!) - this is obviously not an organisation which regular masons can consider to be any sort of masons at all. Inter-visiting in tyled meetings with non-masons is blatantly irregular!

IF the GLdF were willing to sever its relations with clandestine bodies and clarify some questions about its internal practices, then it is plausible that it could be accepted as regular. But GLdF has made it explicitly clear that they will not distance themselves from the GO and other clandestine bodies, and therefore the question of being regular does not even arise.



Squire Bentley said:


> Basing Regularity on the Landmarks is not a good barometer of Regularity.


 
Absurd. Measuring regularity is exactly what the Landmarks are for, that is their entire purpose, and they are essential.



Squire Bentley said:


> Some perfectly reputable Mainstream Grand Lodges do not have any Landmarks at all. Many only recognize a few. The GLMA recognizes 9.


 
Nonsense. Every mainstream GL has Landmarks, without exception; it is impossible to be a regular GL without them, since they are by definition the measure of regularity. However, _having_ Landmarks and _publishing a list_ of Landmarks are not the same thing.

Certainly several GLs do not publish a list under the title of Landmarks, and that includes my own in UGLE - although we do publish our "Basic Principles for Grand Lodge Recognition", which is in essence a list of Landmarks (and includes 7 specific Landmarks, plus a catch-all clause referring to other uncodfied Landmarks).

North American GLs which don't publish a list of Landmarks nevertheless use Landmarks in practice for measuring regularity: the Conference of Grand Masters advises all of them on recognition issues, and their criteria for assessing a GL as acceptable are effectively Landmarks even though they don't actually use that word.



Squire Bentley said:


> Few codify all 25 of MacKey's.


 
There have long been difficulties in agreeing an exact and comprehensive list of all of the Landmarks, although some of them are universally agreed. In fact, GLs very probably leave some vagueness in it deliberately, in order to give themselves a little flexibility and case-by-case discretion in judging regularity. This is analogous to the principle of "common law" in civil jurisprudence - it gives some room for common sense in particular circumstances, rather than trying to codify in advance everything which might potentially arise.

No GL anywhere pays serious attention to Mackey's list, which contains several items which are definitely not Landmarks. There are a few GLs which nominally adopt Mackey's list, but all of those recognise many other GLs as regular even though they don't follow various of those alleged "Landmarks", thereby proving that they're (correctly) not treating them as genuine Landmarks.

T & F,

Huw


----------



## jwhoff (May 30, 2010)

Guess it's time to give the man his say. 


Masonry Through the (Rearview) Looking Glass                                           
By Frank J. Haas MPS

(expelled Past Grand Master of Masons in West Virginia, to the Philalathes Society in February, 2008. MW Haas received a standing ovation at the end of the speech.)

Thank you very much for your brave invitation. I know that there is some controversy about my being here. Some of you have examined your consciences about whether you should listen to me, break bread with me, shake hands with me, appear in the banquet room with me, stay in the same hotel as me, and where to draw the line. I respect that fidelity. I am hopeful that this will be only a temporary strain on our fraternal relations. I am honored to accept an invitation that I did not seek. I have the highest respect for The Philalethes Society, and I would not do anything intentionally to harm it.

I very much wish that the circumstances that brought us together might have been dispensed with, but I have gained a great deal of unsought notoriety of late. This Society exists to research problems confronting Freemasonry. I have a problem. Some say that I am a problem. I have been a Philalethes member for quite a few years. I can relate to you my perception and my recollection of what has happened recently to Freemasonry in West Virginia and to me, and I can offer my opinions on these events. I will tell you what happenedâ€”beginning at the end.

Listen to the Red Queen from Lewis Carroll's Alice's Adventures in Wonderland.  "No, no!" said the Queen. "Sentence firstâ€”verdict afterwards." "Stuff and nonsense!" said Alice loudly. "The idea of having the sentence first!" "Hold your tongue!" said the Queen, turning purple. "I won't!" said Alice. "Off with her head!" the Queen shouted at the top of her voice. Nobody moved.

In a similar fashion, the capital punishment of Masonry was meted out to me. Sentence first, verdict irrelevant, trialâ€”well, details, details. I was expelled summarily by the Grand Master of West Virginia without a trial, without written charges, and without notice that my neck was in the noose. "Sentence firstâ€”verdict afterwards." To earn it, I did not even get the pleasure of stealing any money, messing around with any women, or sounding off with a temper tantrum. While I was watching a football game on a Sunday evening, I remember Grand Master Charlie L. Montgomery calling me to ask whether I would be in lodge the following evening. I said it was on my calendar. He said he "might drop in" to talk about the Oyster Night at the previous meeting of Wellsburg Lodge #2, where we hosted fifty Ohio brothers, including a surprise visit by the Grand Master of Ohio, the stalwart Ronald L. Winnett. When I walked into the lodge building on Monday, November 19, 2007, I thought it likely that the lodge would be complimented for its hospitality to two sitting grand masters. Little did I know that the lodge would soon be on probation and that expulsion edicts in advance had been researched, prepared, drafted, typed, and were soon to be read, expelling Richard K. Bosely and me, all, heartlessly, in the presence of my father.

I have been hurt by all of this, because I love this fraternity. I must guard against having my remarks today sound like nothing but sour grapes. Some unpleasant events happened. People ask me what happened. I tell them. They do not believe it and say it is impossible.

The Red Queen and Alice discussed such a circumstance in Carroll's Through the Looking-Glass and What Alice Found There. "I can't believe that!" said Alice. "Can't you?" the Queen said in a pitying tone. "Try again: draw a long breath, and shut your eyes." Alice laughed. "There's no use trying," she said: "one can't believe impossible things." "I daresay you haven't had much practice," said the Queen. "When I was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast."

Believe it. The reason for the expulsion: free speech. I have a sincere philosophical disagreement with Montgomery and his supporters. I believe that the grand lodge belongs to the Craft and that the brothers should decide grand lodge laws and policy with their open debates and votes, preserving always our eight Ancient Landmarks. We are not bound to look forever through a looking glass as a rearview mirror and never look at the present or toward the future. Montgomery wants no change ever, and anyone who wants any change should "go away."

Here is how I engendered such anger. Votes matter. In West Virginia, past masters have one quarter of a vote. According to the legend, I was elected to the progressive line of grand lodge officers by a quarter of a vote. You know that you must be cautious about secret ballots: those who know should not say, and those who say may not know. I am only passing on what I was told. I had served ten years on the Committee on Work with the custody of the ritual as Deputy Grand Lecturer. I became Junior Grand Warden, but some did not want me there.

As grand master, it became my frequent practice to address the brethren at lodge meetings, and I began to conclude my speaking on the level with a time of questions of answers. There were some recurring themes in the brother's questions, and these I decided to bring to the floor of grand lodge for consideration. Before grand lodge, I acted on three matters of business that needed no change but were compelling interpretations of existing language. Youth. We had one active DeMolay chapter in the whole state, at the time. We had only around a hundred Rainbow Girls. I talked to the youth and their leaders, and I learned that part of their problem was our grand lodge law. Our policies were actually harming kids. Our Masonic law requires us not to allow youth organizations to meet in the lodge rooms, no matter what the lodges want. Lodges cannot give any support to the kids. Lodges cannot donate a penny. Lodges cannot even permit the parking lot to be used to raise funds by a car wash, for example. When I learned that the application of these many prohibitions, which had slowly accumulated over the years, was hurting the kids, I concluded that it was never the intention of Masonic law to be harmful to them. I thought the brothers would want fast action, so I acted with a directive to help the kids, and I set the subject for discussion at grand lodge.

Summary reprimands. We had three brothers involved in two separate incidents. News reporters initiated calls to ask for facts about Masonic buildings, which they proposed to feature in their newspaper articles. The brothers answered questions about facts and figures, numbers and dates, and these resulted in large, beautiful articles with color photographs in the newspapers of the fourth and the fifth largest cities in the state. One headline on the front page of the Sunday newspaper was worth thousands of dollars in a public relations budget: "I knew they were just and upright men." However, the three brothers had not referred the reporters to the grand master, so he summarily issued written edicts of reprimand to be read audibly in all 140 lodges at two separate meetings. There were no trials. Sentence first. I entered an edict expunging the record because there was no constructive purpose to be achieved in having them continue.

As I prepared for the grand lodge session, I prepared a written agenda and had the various subjects of legislation distributed so that it went to the Craft with the proposals in their hands, in advance, in writing, to allow discussion to take place freely before the grand lodge session. This had not been done by a grand master for many decades, if at all.

The storm clouds began to swirl. I invited Brother Howie Damron to perform at the Grand Master's Banquet before grand lodge opened, and he sang, "The Masonic Ring" and other favorites. Some of my predecessors objected and were turning colors in anger, and I was then implored to attend a meeting of past grand masters. The place of the meeting changed without notice to me, and I finally found them at about midnight and was told that my predecessors and all of the remaining progressive line were of the opinion that my actions and proposals were illegal and had to be withdrawn, or I would face their wrath. They said I had violated the landmarks, the Ancient Charges, the ritual, the usages and customs, and my obligationâ€”so I was told, and this could not go forward. I said that the brothers would indeed debate and vote, and I later learned that the statements about unanimity in the room were exaggerated.

The following day, grand lodge opened, and I reported my actions and opinions to the Craft. Prominent among them was an outreach I had made to the Most Worshipful Prince Hall Grand Lodge of West Virginia through the Prince Hall Grand Master. Perhaps I went further than he would have liked, as I wrote him and telephoned him months earlier, and then visited the hotel of their grand lodge session, suggesting a meeting. For our grand lodge, I proposed language declaring it to be unmasonic conduct to refuse to seat a visitor to lodge if race was a reason, and it passed. On other subjects, the brothers voted to allow themselves the option to say the Pledge of Allegiance at lodge meetings. The brothers voted to allow handicapped candidates to petition.

We are the only grand lodge not to recognize or support the DeMolay, Rainbow Girls, or Job's Daughters. We are the only grand lodge not to be members of the Masonic Service Association. We are the only grand lodge not to belong to a regional conference of grand masters. We are the only grand lodge to order the Scottish Rite not to perform one of their degrees, the Washington/Arnold 20th degree. The result? I am proud to say that the brothers voted not to persist in remaining a minority of one. The brothers voted to change these things.

By their votes, the brothers repealed an assortment of legislative state-wide restrictions, piled on over the decades, for specific, temporary reasons, by Masonic legislators. Dean Roscoe Pound in Masonic Jurisprudence observed, "Having no bills of rights in Masonry and hence nothing beyond a handful of vaguely defined landmarks to restrain him, what then are our barriers against the ravages of the zealous, energetic, ambitious Masonic law-maker? Legal barriers, there are none. But some of the most sacred interests of life have only moral security and on the whole do not lose thereby."

The brothers in West Virginia voted to assert their moral security and to repeal bans of books, bans on films, and bans on slideshows, some implemented nearly fifty years ago for important reasons, apparent then, to deal with a moment in time. Royal Arch Chapter charters had been ordered to be removed from the walls of lodge rooms, but the brothers voted to allow them. Other art in a lodge room that included Masonic symbols or emblems other than the Blue Lodge had been prohibited, such as Scottish Rite or York Rite emblems or a tapestry hung on a concrete block wall, but the brothers voted to allow itâ€”including portraits of local Past Grand High Priests and Past Grand Commanders, of whom they are justly proud.

The West Virginia brothers were forward-looking and voted to do what they thought was right. There was jubilation at the passing of the Wheeling Reforms at grand lodge in 2006. That lasted for a matter of days. Then we returned to the rearview looking glass, the rearview mirror, as the ballot was declared illegal by my successor. The vote was scorned. In my opinion, the best word to describe what is now happening as a result is: repression.
Since the Wheeling Reforms were struck down, we have heard it said that, although race is not a legitimate factor to use to exclude a qualified visitor, wink-wink, the Worshipful Master has the duty to preserve the "peace and harmony" of the lodge. So, promote peace and harmony, but, wink-wink, do not consider the race of the visitor, wink-wink.

Did you lose a thumb while fighting for your country? Which one? The left?â€”sign here on this membership petition. The right? We have ancient usages and customs, and we cannot put up with your kind.

Do you want a Masonic funeral? Your grandsons are prohibited from being pall bearers unless they are all Master Masons. You must explain these Masonic laws to your widow so that we do not have to leave her sobbing in the funeral home. There is no problem if you want your remains to be cremated. However, if you want your ashes to be scattered, it is "undignified" and we must walk away from your mourners, because if anyone knows that the lodge is present as a group, we will be reprimanded, again.

If youth organizations are having problems, their problems are not our problems, so be extremely careful if you try to help the kids. If our deceased brother's obituary mentions his request that, in lieu of flowers, memorial donations should be made to a hometown hospice, which comforted and cared for him on his deathbed, then the proper action of the lodge is â€¦ send the flowers, because such charity is forbidden. We will not join the Masonic Service Association, as every other grand lodge in North America does, because it is soft on Prince Hall and they will send their publications and Short Talk Bulletins to our members without our control. We will not join the Northeast Conference of Grand Masters or any other such conference because they have ideas that conflict with our laws and mostly because those other grand lodges recognize Prince Hall Masonry.

Friends, I am proud of the Wheeling Reforms. They were distributed so that the Craft had them in their hands, in advance, in writing, most of them for the first time in their lives. We debated until the brothers voted to end debate. We voted on the merits. The Wheeling Reforms passed. They lastedâ€”until the stroke of a pen. Dick Bosely politely but persistently sought and was denied answers about this, and because he took a little bit too much time to sit down and shut up, he was instantly stripped of his title as Deputy Grand Lecturer and two weeks later was summarily expelled, and his alleged offense was committed in the presence of the Grand Master of Ohio. I engaged in free speech saying, as quoted by Grand Master Montgomery, "the dream lives on and will not die." Now I am left without free speech and without Freemasonry, but I still have the dream.

For my dreams, I have sustained the maximum Masonic punishmentâ€”expulsion. It hurts. It hurts a great deal. I hope that it is temporary. In another feat of Orwellian double think, my detractors have extended their hatred further by deleting my name from the website list of Past Grand Masters of West Virginia and throwing it down the memory hole. The Craft in West Virginia is a resilient bunchâ€”Montani Semper Liberi, Mountaineers are always free. They are unsure of what to do and how. They want to do the right thingâ€”and do that thing right, but those who would continue the repression have the upper hand for now. I do not have a call to mobilization to outline for you. I am on the outside now. Your brethren in West Virginia have voted to do what they think is right. By their votes, they made a positive statement about race relations in the fraternity. By their votes, they tried to help the kids. By their votes, they welcomed the handicapped into the Craft. By their votes, they were in favor of patriotic expression in the lodge. All for naught. We are one large fraternity divided into grand lodges. What happens to us reflects upon you. What happens to one group of your brothers affects the whole. We lecture about Masonry Universal. Search yourself, my brethren. You may find yourself with an opportunity to help, aid, and assistâ€”not meâ€”but your worthy brothers in West Virginia in ways, large or small. Will you go on foot and out of your way for them? You may be able to speak the truth to power. As Lincoln counseled, be on the side of the angels. Will you encourage, nourish, and cherish your brethren in the state with the second highest per capita Masonic membership with your concern and your prayers? If for nothing else but your concern and your prayers, the brethren of West Virginia will thank you, Masonry Universal will thank you, and I thank you for sticking your necks out for Freemasonry.


----------



## Cookieusn (May 31, 2010)

So Mote It Be!! MW Haas!


----------



## Huw (May 31, 2010)

I certainly agree that most of what Bro. Haas was trying to do was right in intention.  However, in the interest of fairness, it should be pointed out that the argument is not wholly one-sided.

There are two separate aspects to the original issue, one being the reforms brought in by Bro. Haas and their subsequent reversal by his successors, and the other being the expulsion of Bro. Haas himself.

On the aspect of the reforms themselves, take a look at the actual edicts and rulings overturning much of what Bro. Haas did, as for example here http://masonic-crusade.com/index.php?op=ViewAlbum&albumId=1&blogId=1 on the website of Bro. Haas's own supporters, who have very honourably published the arguments from the "other side" as well as their own arguments.  Several of the arguments from Bro. Haas's successors as GM of WV are actually quite well-argued and rational, and contain a serious case that Bro. Haas failed to follow correct masonic law in various of his own edicts, as well as fairly genuine-looking concerns about whether the vote for the Wheeling Reforms was correctly conducted.  I therefore think they have a pretty defensible case for over-turning what he did.  Now that doesn't mean I approve of the outcome, but I do think they have some justification for their actions.  What I'd rather they had then done (but which they conspicuously didn't do) after over-turning Bro. Haas's rulings, would have been to bring back the same reforms by correct procedure, to achieve the results which Bro. Haas originally intended (except on the age limit, where I disagree with what Bro. Haas wanted to do).

On the other aspect, however, I see nothing in these arguments from Bro. Haas's successors which offers any justification for expelling him without due process.  When that part comes to court, I'll be surprised if Bro. Haas doesn't win ... and I note that it is over this issue (and not over the reforms) that Bro. Haas is fighting in court.  This may be because he realises that his successors have a legal defence for the over-turning of his reforms and would probably win in court on that part of the argument.

An interesting point about both sides of this argument is that it all comes down to what is (or is not) within the power of a GM to do.  Bro. Haas's successors can justify over-turning the reforms because some of the edicts and rulings issued by Bro. Haas as GM exceeded his legal authority.  Yet Bro. Haas can probably over-turn his expulsion in court because his successor's denial of due process was _also_ beyond a GM's legal authority!

T & F,

Huw


----------

