F&AM , AF&AM

But TBMK, no CGMNA GL has recognized PHA AR, which is what I would expect would trigger a series of actions withdrawing recognition for ignoring the doctrine of ETJ

(Is that enough acronyms?)

dfreybur said:

A year or two before California recognized PHA one of the GLs in Mexico asked permission to charter a Spanish speaking lodge in the state of California near the border. The location has a Spanish speaking majority and the only California lodge authorized to work in Spanish is nowhere near there. They asked permission according to ancient tradition. Generosity prevailed and permission was granted.

Click to expand...

According to the website of LOGIA PANAMERICANA NO. 513 Free and Accepted Masons of the State of California, they are the "first Masonic Lodge in the South of California authorized to work totally in the Spanish language" and since you said it was "near the border" it would obviously be "in the South of California".

file:///C:/Users/HP/Desktop/main%20page.htm

dfreybur said:

Now there are 3 jurisdictions that operate at specific locations in the state all with permission of GLofCA.

Click to expand...

You are correct that there are now 3 jurisdictions that operate in California, but none of them are Mexican Grand Lodges:

§409.030. RECOGNITION OF PRINCE HALL GRAND LODGE OF CALIFORNIA.

Any other provision of this Code to the contrary notwithstanding, this Grand Lodge recognizes
the Most Worshipful Prince Hall Grand Lodge Free and Accepted Masons States of California
and Hawaii, Incorporated as having concurrent jurisdiction with this Grand Lodge within the
State of California.

§409.035. RECOGNITION OF THE GRAND LODGE OF IRAN (IN EXILE).

Any other provision of this Code to the contrary notwithstanding, this Grand Lodge recognizes
the Grand Lodge of Iran (In Exile), Ancient, Free and Accepted Masons, as having concurrent
jurisdiction with this Grand Lodge within the State of California.
California Masonic Code Page 64 and 65
I said:

LAMason said:

You probably would be surprised on how it would play out if you tried to force a recognition crisis by recognizing a PHA Grand Lodge not recognized by that State.

Click to expand...

and you replied:

dfreybur said:

it ALREADY happened and no one bothered. About a year and a half ago the MWPHGLofAR issued blanket recognition by edict to every GL that has recognition it their own state.

Click to expand...

So, which State Grand Lodges have returned the recognition?

Using new mexico as an example......we recognize MWPHGLoNM and they inturn recognize MWPHGLoAR which is not recognized by NM. What if I go visit an NMPHA lodge and a ARPHA brother is visiting as well?

jdmadsenCraterlake211 said:

Using new mexico as an example......we recognize MWPHGLoNM and they inturn recognize MWPHGLoAR which is not recognized by NM. What if I go visit an NMPHA lodge and a ARPHA brother is visiting as well?

Click to expand...

Does your GL have the "When in Rome" rule which would allow this?

I dont know honestly....last nigjt i was at a SR picnic and our JR GRAND WARRDEN was there and i asked him this same question and he couldnt answer it

The way the last edition of the pantograph I read was worded the GLNM recognizes MWPHGLNM and all GLs that they recognize.

Ok well then if that is true then that answers what Bro Cook said....apparently a CGMNA GL has recognized PHA AR....new mexico....so what's gonna happen when the GLoAR catches wind of that?

Brother JC said:

The way the last edition of the pantograph I read was worded the GLNM recognizes MWPHGLNM and all GLs that they recognize.

Click to expand...

Nice. Since all of the PHA jurisdictions recognize each other (under 51 as several cover more than one state) that completes the set including those in states that do not have local recognition yet. It's a better and more practical approach than the one state at a time method that I have suggested. Here's the list -

http://www.conferenceofgrandmasterspha.org/gjlinks.asp

jdmadsenCraterlake211 said:

....apparently a CGMNA GL has recognized PHA AR....new mexico....so what's gonna happen when the GLoAR catches wind of that?

Click to expand...

Fun question once the detailed wording is double checked and its meaning is confirmed. Best case would be no comment followed by adding a local recognition vote to the agenda at their next Annual Communication.

Brother JC said:

The way the last edition of the pantograph I read was worded the GLNM recognizes MWPHGLNM and all GLs that they recognize.

Click to expand...

Well, you are quite correct, per page 77 of the 2015 edition. The Colorado entry states the same. I am unsure if this means they "recognize as regular", which is the position of CGMNA, or if they are, indeed, in amity. Thanks for pointing this out. Not entirely sure what to make of it.