# Compact Signing



## Blake Bowden (Feb 15, 2010)

http://www.mwphglotx.org/compact.htm

This whole compact is kinda silly. So let me get this straight, we recognize each other as legitimate Masonic entities, yet we're prohibited from meeting upon the level?

No visitation
No membership
No dual membership

Does it benefit Freemasonry to keep the divide alive and well?


----------



## Bill Lins (Feb 15, 2010)

blake said:


> Does it benefit Freemasonry to keep the divide alive and well?


 
Of course not.


----------



## MGM357 (Feb 15, 2010)

Peace and Harmony being the ...

My question is how come I have never read or heard PH Masons want to merge? Has anyone ever asked PH if they would like to become one? Personally I don't think it has anything to do with racism. Maybe the teachings are different enough that some of the meanings could be lost if we were to merge. If I'm off on this, please correct me.


----------



## drapetomaniac (Feb 15, 2010)

I don't think merging is necessary.  Simple recognition and visitation seems to work in 40 other states.


----------



## Blake Bowden (Feb 16, 2010)

drapetomaniac said:


> I don't think merging is necessary.  Simple recognition and visitation seems to work in 40 other states.


 
Well said Brother.


----------



## JTM (Feb 16, 2010)

40 other states?  really?  wtf.


----------



## Raven (Feb 16, 2010)

I agree with you, Brother.



drapetomaniac said:


> I don't think merging is necessary. Simple recognition and visitation seems to work in 40 other states.


----------



## Raven (Feb 16, 2010)

I have encountered numerous PH Masons in recognition, but have never heard anyone, PH or otherwise, express an interest in merging.  I think that it is simply respect without racism.


----------



## drapetomaniac (Feb 16, 2010)

JTM said:


> 40 other states?  really?  wtf.



Sorry - 39 (we're the 40th with recogniition).  Plus Kentucky is getting started.  As far as I know, we're the only state with our arrangement.


----------



## JTM (Feb 16, 2010)

where you get that?  that we're so far behind is kind of absurd.


----------



## drapetomaniac (Feb 16, 2010)

Another correction - the number includes DC.

http://www.bessel.org/masrec/phamap.htm
also:  
http://freemasonsfordummies.blogspot.com/2010/02/grand-lodge-of-louisiana-fails-to.html

I found this yesterday - a lot of relevant links at the bottom:
http://tsmr.org/ph.html

It's worth readinng through the quotes and source though.


----------



## owls84 (Feb 17, 2010)

I have heard from a VERY credible source says the original compact that was presented to our Fraternal Relations Committee had visitation but PHA was told to take it out or it would not pass.


----------



## Heirophant (Apr 13, 2010)

I met a PH Mason once a few years back, and he said it quote on quote "It all started with Juneteenth". Whatever that means..


----------



## Huw (Apr 14, 2010)

Hi Heirophant.



Heirophant said:


> I met a PH Mason once a few years back ...



Is it that rare?  Wow!  PHAoTX isn't a tiny organisation, something like 10,000 members, so I'd have thought you'd bump into one another from time to time, even though TX is a big State (or should I say a big country, for those of you who take a more lone star view? )

Actually, aren't there any PH Brethren in this forum?  I'd have thought a few would sign up, now that you're speaking to one another.

T & F,

Huw


----------



## Huw (Apr 14, 2010)

Hi Johnnie.



MGM357 said:


> Maybe the teachings are different enough that some of the meanings could be lost if we were to merge. If I'm off on this, please correct me.


 
I think you're probably off on that.  Certainly so far as the ceremonies go, most of the PHA Brethren do pretty much the same as the State GL Brethren.  Not absolutely identical, of course, but no more different than the differences you could find by visiting in other States.  And certainly more similar to one another than you'd find if you visited non-US GLs - you might be shocked if you saw how I do the work here in England, but I doubt you'd be shocked by the proceedings if you were allowed to visit your PH neighbours.



MGM357 said:


> My question is how come I have never read or heard PH Masons want to merge? Has anyone ever asked PH if they would like to become one? Personally I don't think it has anything to do with racism.


 
PHA has been going a long time, it has a substantial history and tradition of its own, just as the State GLs do.  Naturally there are a lot of PH Brethren who take pride in their tradition and don't want to lose it, and I reckon that's an understandable and respectable reason for not wanting merger.  I imagine that the question must have been asked in a few places, and I'm not surprised if the answer has been no.  Perhaps there might be some mergers in the long term, but I wouldn't hold my breath.

Nevertheless, I'm not so sure that racism has no relevance at all.  I've occasionally seen a few PH Brethren say harsh things about whitey, same as some State GL Brethren have said harsh things the other way around.  And I've noticed that one PHGL (one of the ones which is still unrecognised, not PHAoTX!) even makes some remarks on its official website which seem to be based on racial assumptions.

T & F,

Huw


----------



## Gerald.Harris (Apr 14, 2010)

Brother Miley, The reason that things are the way that they are, is because that is precisely what the PH Masons asked the Grand Lodge of Texas to do several years ago. They did not seek visitation rights . They simply asked for recognition. I believe that if enough of the members of the PHGL  and the GLOT want this to happen then it will . 



MGM357 said:


> Peace and Harmony being the ...
> 
> My question is how come I have never read or heard PH Masons want to merge? Has anyone ever asked PH if they would like to become one? Personally I don't think it has anything to do with racism. Maybe the teachings are different enough that some of the meanings could be lost if we were to merge. If I'm off on this, please correct me.


----------



## Huw (Apr 14, 2010)

Bro. Owls says that he "heard from a VERY credible source says the original compact that was presented to our Fraternal Relations Committee had visitation but PHA was told to take it out", whereas Bro. Gerald says instead that PHA "did not seek visitation rights".  They can't both be right!  But from where I'm sitting, I've no way to know which of them has the correct information.

I have to agree with Bro. Gerald's other point (about visitation) that "if enough of the members of the PHGL and the GLOT want this to happen then it will".  However, the key word is "enough".  Naturally there are various procedural hurdles which might become relevant, so "enough" probably means that both leaderships must want it as well as both sets of members all at the same time.  That might happen one day, but there evidently isn't the will for it right now.

T & F,

Huw


----------



## drapetomaniac (Apr 14, 2010)

I've always been suspicious of the story PHA didn't want visitation because it seemed to be the one single thing about Grand Lodge that absolutely everyone seemed to say the same thing verbatim on.  

I've even seen one brother switch from "they're not recognized", after I corrected him,  to the usual verbatim.


----------



## TexMass (Apr 14, 2010)

They are just another jurisdiction.  Some things are different some are the same but we are all Brothers.


----------



## Huw (Apr 17, 2010)

A question for you, Brethren.

I realise that GLoTX and PHAoTX Brethren cannot visit one another within their own jurisdictions, *but* am I correct in believing that the one concrete result of this type of recognition is that, if a GLoTX member and a PHAoTX member are both visiting in a third jurisdiction which recognises both of them (such as here in UGLE), then they *can* now sit together in a third-party Lodge?

T & F,

Huw


----------



## Bill Lins (Apr 17, 2010)

Huw said:


> am I correct in believing that the one concrete result of this type of recognition is that, if a GLoTX member and a PHAoTX member are both visiting in a third jurisdiction which recognises both of them (such as here in UGLE), then they *can* now sit together in a third-party Lodge?


 
Yes, sir- that would be correct.


----------



## TexMass (Apr 18, 2010)

Many of you have seen my photo album and know of my installtion.  Here is a repost of my installation night.  The installation was performed by a suite from PHA in Boston.  On the far right is MW Robert Chester Isles PGM.  To the far left is RW Gerald Thaxton.


----------



## Huw (Apr 18, 2010)

Hi Bill.



Bill_Lins77488 said:


> Yes, sir- that would be correct.


Thanks, I just wanted to make sure I was understanding the interpretation correctly.

However, so far as I can see, this seems to be the only substantial effect of the compact.  It's obviously a step towards reconciliation, but it doesn't actually appear to mean much when you're at home in TX.

T & F,

Huw


----------



## Bill Lins (Apr 18, 2010)

huw posted "it doesn't actually appear to mean much when you're at home in TX."

No, it doesn't. We were told that the only reason PHA asked for recognition by GLoT was in order for them to be recognized by UGLE. No idea if this is the case or not.


----------



## Huw (Apr 19, 2010)

Hi Bill.



Bill_Lins77488 said:


> We were told that the only reason PHA asked for recognition by GLoT was in order for them to be recognized by UGLE.


 
Well so far as that point is concerned, mission accomplished.

However ...


Bill_Lins77488 said:


> No idea if this is the case or not.


 
Indeed. I note that conflicting stories are being put about.

What reason is given for PHAoTX apparently not wanting a fuller form of recognition? _Ab initio_, one would have thought that PHAoTX would seek full recognition in the same way that GLs normally recognise one another, and in the same way that other PHGLs have with their respective State GLs. When they came to us in UGLE, PHAoTX sought (and got) normal recognition with visiting rights and so forth. It's not obvious to me why they would deliberately want a more restricted form of recognition at home in TX.

T & F,

Huw


----------



## drapetomaniac (Apr 19, 2010)

Bill_Lins77488 said:


> No, it doesn't. We were told that the only reason PHA asked for recognition by GLoT was in order for them to be recognized by UGLE. No idea if this is the case or not.


 
I believe the PHA web site with the compact pictures, etc state it was "a goal"  which is different from being the "only" reason.


----------



## TexMass (Apr 19, 2010)

The UGLE thing sounds funny since Prince Hall's first lodge, African lodge in Boston, was chartered by England.  I had never heard that story.  When I met PGM Fred Allen and I asked him about the compact he said that PH wanted recognition but did not want visitation or dual membership.  Maybe he figured it was too much too soon.

I went to Bessel.org and see that UGLE still doesn't show recognition for PH of TX.  Interesting.


----------



## Bill Lins (Apr 19, 2010)

Huw said:


> What reason is given for PHAoTX apparently not wanting a fuller form of recognition? _Ab initio_, one would have thought that PHAoTX would seek full recognition in the same way that GLs normally recognise one another, and in the same way that other PHGLs have with their respective State GLs. When they came to us in UGLE, PHAoTX sought (and got) normal recognition with visiting rights and so forth. It's not obvious to me why they would deliberately want a more restricted form of recognition at home in TX.


 
We were told that PHA was afraid that their members would abandon them for GLoT and that new prospects would join us instead of them- leading to the demise of PHA.


----------



## Huw (Apr 19, 2010)

Hi Jack.



TexMass said:


> The UGLE thing sounds funny since Prince Hall's first lodge, African lodge in Boston, was chartered by England. I had never heard that story.


 
Oh yes.  African Lodge was our #459.  The story is moderately well-known over here ... but of course it's not surprising that we've heard of it, since it was one of our own.



TexMass said:


> I went to Bessel.org and see that UGLE still doesn't show recognition for PH of TX. Interesting.


 
If you go to UGLE's own site (http://www.ugle.org.uk/about-ugle/recognised-foreign-grand-lodges/), then you'll see that we do list PHAoTX.

I've noticed before that the Bessel list is often well behind the times.  I don't think he updates very often.  His list of UGLE recognitions currently looks to be around 5-6 years out of date.  We now recognise quite a lot more (including PHAoTX, various other PHGLs, and several other GLs in other countries), and have withdrawn recognition from a couple of GLs which he still shows us as recognising.

For those who are interested in knowing more accurately who UGLE recognises, the list on the UGLE site is kept fairly up-to-date.

T & F,

Huw


----------



## Huw (Apr 19, 2010)

Hi Bill.



Bill_Lins77488 said:


> We were told that PHA was afraid that their members would abandon them for GLoT and that new prospects would join us instead of them- leading to the demise of PHA.


 
Interesting.  I can see that as being a credible concern for some of the PHGLs in the northern States where PHA is quite small (in some States only a few hundred members and a handful of Lodges), yet in those States they've nevertheless usually gone right ahead and negotiated full-scale recognition.  But in TX, PHA is a much more substantial and solidly-established organisation (around 10,000 members and 150 Lodges), so it seems pretty odd that PHAoTX would be so worried about this risk that they'd actually choose this current limited-recognition deal.

T & F,

Huw


----------



## TexMass (Apr 20, 2010)

Huw said:


> Hi Jack.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
GOOD STUFF!  Thanks Brother!


----------



## Huw (Apr 20, 2010)

TexMass said:


> GOOD STUFF! Thanks Brother!


:001_cool::001_smile:


----------



## Robert G (Apr 30, 2010)

Texas is one of the three mainstream masonic jurisdictions of the former Confederacy which has some form of recognition of Prince Hall Masonry. The others are Virginia and North Carolina. Of the 51 mainstream masonic jurisdictions in the United States, the following do not recognize any Prince Hall jurisdiction: West Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, South Carolina, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia and Florida. Thus 41 jurisdictions do have some form of recognition. Although Texas does not allow visitation, it is way ahead of the above-listed jurisdictions in that it recognizes Prince Hall masons as regular. I think that that's a major step forward. Eventually I'd like to see a maturing of this recognition to allow visitation if such is desired by the PH Grand Lodge. By the way, I have been informed that Prince Hall masonry does not allow for dual or plural membership among its own lodges.


----------



## Bill Lins (Apr 30, 2010)

Robert G said:


> By the way, I have been informed that Prince Hall masonry does not allow for dual or plural membership among its own lodges.


 
I've been told the same thing- wonder why?


----------



## jonesvilletexas (May 1, 2010)

I would love to see a pole from every mason in texas to see how many wont to merage with ph.


----------



## Blake Bowden (May 1, 2010)

I wouldn't support any form of "merging". Visitiation, yes.


----------



## Gerald.Harris (May 3, 2010)

blake said:


> I wouldn't support any form of "merging". Visitiation, yes.


 
I think that visitation would be a much smoother transformation than merging. If PHGL does not even allow their members to belong to more than one lodge at a time and a merger is generally associated with one lodge giving up their identity, then a merger is pretty much out of the question.


----------



## drapetomaniac (May 3, 2010)

Robert G said:


> By the way, I have been informed that Prince Hall masonry does not allow for dual or plural membership among its own lodges.


 
I've been thinking about this and it actually seems to echo what many masons seem to be pushing towards with more conservative measures to "revive" or maintain their masonry.

At various times and places, some lodges have had a maximim number of members, with the intent on being a group of men truly focused on keeping that particular lodge.  I can see that rule as similar to not having plural membership.  Of course, plural membership doesn't mean you can't visit or interact either.


----------



## Ronald D. Martin (May 3, 2010)

Nor does it require you to attend lodge. I am aware of a couple of PHA Brothers that are looking at switching to a Mainstream GL, in part due to this exact restriction.


----------



## TexMass (May 3, 2010)

I have sat in several jurisdictions that either did not allow plural membership or did not allow more that two.  This is not uncommon.


----------



## fairbanks1363pm (May 17, 2010)

i understand we are not allowed to visit each other.  what exactly are we allowed to do?  i was there at GL when this was passed and the way i understood it was that if you met a ph mason on the street we would now be able to acknowledge each other.  does this mean discuss masonry? help one another or what.  i dont think this was ever realy discussed that day.


----------



## Huw (May 17, 2010)

Hi Wes.

Well, if you and a PHAoTX member both come over here (England) to visit me, then you can both come to my Lodge and sit together as Brothers, which you couldn't do before.  So that's a real change, albeit a small one, and you'd have to travel to take advantage of it.

Back home in TX, hmmm ... if you visit one another's social events (not actual meetings, obviously), then you can call one another Brother in public without fear of expulsion ... and, ummm ... that's about it, so far as I know.

It's quite handy for the London-resident Texan in my Lodge, though:  when he goes home to visit his folks in TX, he'll be able to visit you and PHAoTX Lodges as well because UGLE has visiting with both, even though you can't visit one another.

T & F,

Huw


----------



## rhitland (May 18, 2010)

owls84 said:


> I have heard from a VERY credible source says the original compact that was presented to our Fraternal Relations Committee had visitation but PHA was told to take it out or it would not pass.



Very credible is an understatement the Brother this was heard from in my opinion is beyond reproach.  Which begs the question what is the truth?  One is left to form his own opinion because leadership has been unclear on this issue and we all know what opinions are good for.  I would love to see a GL education program on the very subject with the original compact included for all to read in its entirety.  

Where would a GLoTexas Mason find the original or copy of the full compact signed?


----------



## Bill Lins (May 18, 2010)

Welcome back, Puss Boy! I don't recall what year it was voted on at Grand Lodge, but if you can find that out, then check the "Proceedings" of that year's GL Communication and the Grand Master's report for that same year- both books should be in your Lodge's files and/or library.


----------



## Huw (May 18, 2010)

Hi Bill.



Bill_Lins77488 said:


> I don't recall what year it was voted on at Grand Lodge


 
Voted through by GLoTX at 171st AC, 1st-2nd December 2006. Final draft signed by both GLs on 23rd April 2007.

However, the GL proceedings and reports will presumably show the final text as presented to the Brethren ... and not answer Rhitland's question about what was in the original draft presented by PHA, before (allegedly) being modified during the negotiations.

T & F,

Huw


----------



## Bill Lins (May 18, 2010)

Huw said:


> Voted through by GLoTX at 171st AC, 1st-2nd December 2006. Final draft signed by both GLs on 23rd April 2007.
> 
> However, the GL proceedings and reports will presumably show the final text as presented to the Brethren ... and not answer Rhitland's question about what was in the original draft presented by PHA, before (allegedly) being modified during the negotiations.


 
True, but I'm hoping the draft is included in the report of the Committee on Fraternal Relations, which should be in one of those volumes. If it isn't, then he'll need to try to get that Committee's records from that year- mebbe it'll be there.


----------



## rhitland (May 18, 2010)

I would love to see either of them especially the original if there was a first draft but I have been in search of the signed one.  I do not want to indicate I know there was I just heard this, so we are still in rumorsville on this which is not a place I like to be.  I did look through my lodge library which is huge at the Ft Worth Temple and that was one was missing.  Probably checked out at the time but I have had no luck finding it after a few lodge visits and perusing their library as well.  I will keep up the search though.


----------



## swole (May 18, 2010)

Heirophant said:


> I met a PH Mason once a few years back, and he said it quote on quote "It all started with Juneteenth". Whatever that means..


 
Juneteenth commemorates the announcement of the abolition of slavery for Texas in  1865. It is a *HUGE* deal here in Austin. Celebration everywhere. Now you fellas know why I am torn in this debate of which way to go. My ignorance of the craft may make me a bit naive in the situation so i feel, naked, if you will.... coming in.


----------



## owls84 (May 21, 2010)

I have attended various PHA sponsered BBQ's and was treated on the Level everytime. So many guys came and gave me a handshake and a hug in most cases. In discussion all each of the ones said all they want is recognition as we would recognize ANY other Grand Jurisdiction.


----------



## Huw (May 21, 2010)

Hi Owls.



owls84 said:


> ... all they want is recognition as we would recognize ANY other Grand Jurisdiction.


 
Which not only means visiting, but also allowing dual allegiance, membership transfers, conferring degrees for one another on request, and so on.  I can imagine that, for GLs which are not used to the idea of sharing geographical territory, that might seem to be a big ask, so I don't expect it'll happen tomorrow.

However, in UGLE we have long experience of shared territory in our many overseas Districts (and a little experience of sharing our home territory as well), and it seems to have worked out quite well in most places.  South Africa is an interesting example, where five separate jurisdictions work side by side:  the local GL of SA, plus a large number of English, Scottish and Irish Lodges, and one Dutch Lodge.  All fully recognise one another, freely intervisiting, permitting multiple allegiance, and so on.  It's a complex situation administratively, but it's been this way for a long time and it seems always to have worked pretty well in practice, with each Lodge working within the continuing traditions of its own jurisdiction.

If in the fullness of time GLoTX and PHAoTX can arrive at a situation analogous to the harmonious sharing of territory in South Africa, then I reckon you'll have achieved a satisfactory outcome for everyone.

T & F,

Huw


----------



## owls84 (May 21, 2010)

Huw said:


> Hi Owls.
> 
> 
> 
> Which not only means visiting, but also allowing dual allegiance, membership transfers, conferring degrees for one another on request, and so on.  I can imagine that, for GLs which are not used to the idea of sharing geographical territory, that might seem to be a big ask, so I don't expect it'll happen tomorrow.


 
Not necessarily Bro. Huw. In the US there are several Grand Jurisdictions that do not allow dual or plural membership from one jurisdiction to the next. They are all listed in a book we have issued every year.


----------



## Bill Lins (May 21, 2010)

owls84 said:


> Not necessarily Bro. Huw. In the US there are several Grand Jurisdictions that do not allow dual or plural membership from one jurisdiction to the next. They are all listed in a book we have issued every year.


 
Including TX PHA. I've always wondered why. Many of our Lodges would have demised were it not for dual/plural members.


----------



## Huw (May 22, 2010)

Hi Owls.



owls84 said:


> Not necessarily Bro. Huw. In the US there are several Grand Jurisdictions that do not allow dual or plural membership from one jurisdiction to the next. They are all listed in a book we have issued every year.



Yes, I know that those restrictions exist in some US GLs.  However, that's a minority habit (hey, I've got a copy of the List of Lodges too!), and in particular it's not the GLoTX rule.  Therefore, I would assume that the normal form of recognition offered by GLoTX to most GLs is the form which does allow dual affiliation, etc.

T & F,

Huw


----------



## JTM (May 23, 2010)

that's a confusing statement.  the GLoTX has plenty of GLs that it doesn't allow visitation to (and more especially - and it's the same thing - visitation/communication).  all masonic grand lodges that i know allow and disallow certain grand lodges membership and visitation - it's part of the obligation.  regularity in obligation is a requirement for recognition.


----------



## Huw (May 23, 2010)

Hi JTM.



JTM said:


> that's a confusing statement. the GLoTX has plenty of GLs that it doesn't allow visitation to (and more especially - and it's the same thing - visitation/communication).


 
Oh? Actually I'm finding your statement rather confusing too ... evidently there's some mis-communication here somewhere. Let's try to clarify, because now I'm really confused about what GLoTX policy is. What I'm trying to find out is what is the normal policy, as opposed to what might happen in a few special cases.

Is it or is it not the case that the form of recognition practiced by GLoTX normally includes visiting and dual affiliation? My understanding hitherto has been that the answer is yes.

In other words, does GLoTX normally include visiting and dual affiliation as part of recognition except when the other GL doesn't want it? Or is it the case that even if the other GL is happy to have visiting and dual affiliation, GLoTX is usually likely to refuse it and insist on only nominal recognition?



JTM said:


> all masonic grand lodges that i know allow and disallow certain grand lodges membership and visitation


 
As an example of a GL which doesn't do recognition treaties without visitation and membership, there's my own in UGLE. In our rulebook, these rights follow automatically from recognition. Sometimes we have temporary suspensions of visiting rights and so on, when there's some dispute going on, but only as a temporary measure by edict, not as a permanent restriction built into the recognition agreement. If UGLE isn't happy to allow full-scale recognition with all the rights, then it simply doesn't recognise at all.

Our guiding principle in this is the equality of brotherhood: if we recognise him, then a Brother is a Brother and will be received as such, but if we can't receive him as a Brother, then he's not recognised as being a Brother at all. I suppose it's conceivable that sometime in history we may have signed a recognition treaty on some other basis than this, but I can't think of any example of us doing so. 



JTM said:


> it's part of the obligation. regularity in obligation is a requirement for recognition.


 
I'm not sure where the Obligation comes into this issue. Perhaps there's something in your Ob which isn't in mine? Of course I'm obligated to have masonic communication only with recognised Brothers, but there's nothing in my Obligation which subdivides recognition into different categories of partial recognition, it's pretty much an all-or-nothing issue for us: a guy is a Brother, or he's not. Is it different in your Ob?

T & F,

Huw


----------



## owls84 (May 23, 2010)

This is where I get my popcorn, sit back and watch.....

What are you going to say to that JTM???? Huh?? You have been called out now what?


----------



## Huw (May 23, 2010)

Hi Owls (and JTM).



owls84 said:


> What are you going to say to that JTM???? Huh?? You have been called out now what?


 
Oh ... er, look, I'm not trying to call anyone out.  I'm simply trying to understand what the policy is over there, because I'm now confused about it even though I previously thought I had understood.  I wasn't trying to start a row.

T & F,

Huw


----------



## owls84 (May 23, 2010)

No worries Huw, JTM and I are long time forum goers. One of our jobs here is to stem debate and keep hot topics going. Don't let that stop you. All we are saying is the only place we have recognition without visitation is with PHAoTX. I personally have asked several PHA members and GLoTX officers about this "Compact" I was told two different stories as to how it went down and the reasoning why it happened like it did. One side I believe the other I question. Regardless of what any of us believe I am proud to be able to call them a Brother and meet with them in several functions that I have. I treat and talk to them just as I would a possible candidate and discuss Masonry in a broad sense. The only thing we can not speak of is that in which you can't tell your spouse. Which leaves quite a bit to talk about. These guys actually have so much we can learn from and we have stuff to learn from them. Just as the lodge down the road or in the other county. The only thing this stops us from doing is sitting in a Lodge together but I can still go to a fundraiser and invite them to ours.


----------



## Huw (May 23, 2010)

Hi Owls.



owls84 said:


> All we are saying is the only place we have recognition without visitation is with PHAoTX.


 
You're saying that, yes. But JTM is directly contradicting you: above in this thread, he says


			
				JTM said:
			
		

> GLoTX has plenty of GLs that it doesn't allow visitation to.


 
You can't both be right. And furthermore, this is surely a matter of simple fact rather than opinion. How come you disagree? Am I missing some subtext here?

T & F,

Huw


----------



## Bill Lins (May 24, 2010)

Huw said:


> You're saying that, yes. But JTM is directly contradicting you


 
I believe what JTM meant is that there are many GL's that GLoT does not recognize as regular in origin and/or practice. AFAIK, PHAGLoT is the only GL we do recognize but are not allowed to fraternize with. Like owls, I've heard 2 different stories regarding why. And yes, I know I'm not supposed to end a sentence with a preposition. :wink:


----------



## Huw (May 24, 2010)

Hi Bill.



Bill_Lins77488 said:


> I believe what JTM meant is that there are many GL's that GLoT does not recognize as regular in origin and/or practice. AFAIK, PHAGLoT is the only GL we do recognize but are not allowed to fraternize with. Like owls, I've heard 2 different stories regarding why.


 
Ah, I see. That's not quite how I read what JTM said, but okay, that makes sense of it. Obviously there are hundreds (maybe even thousands) of spurious organisations in the world claiming to be masons.

But this puts us right back to what I said in the first place, with which others appeared to be taking issue: the normal form of recognition by GLoTX is full recognition with visiting rights, membership transfers when appropriate, courtesy conferral of degrees on request, dual affiliation if the other GL allows it, and so on. So if PHAoTX members have said (as you and Owls appeared to testify earlier in this thread) that they want to be recognised in the same way as any other GL, then that means that they do want visitation and all the rest (except dual affiliation because they don't allow that ... at the moment).

Frankly, I'd be surprised if PHAoTX wanted it otherwise, and I'm even surprised that GLoTX apparently want it otherwise. This current situation of saying that the other guy is a Brother for some purposes but not a Brother for other purposes feels very strange to an outside observer like me. It's understandable as a temporary suspension of normal relations when there's a dispute going on, but the idea that this is written into the treaty as a permanent suspension of normal rights is the strange part. When there's a dispute, the outcome anywhere else in the world would be either that the dispute is soon resolved and normal relations are resumed, or it's not resolved and recognition is withdrawn. So to outsiders, the current relations in TX look like an "ongoing dispute" situation.

Of course I realise that this has happened because the history down your way is different from most places, but that doesn't stop it from looking odd and uncomfortable to outsiders. I'm almost tempted to get on a plane to DFW and test how it feels on the ground, since I have visiting rights to both GLs in TX, but I'm not sure I'd enjoy the experience of visiting two sets of Brothers in the same town who are cut off from visiting one another.



Bill_Lins77488 said:


> And yes, I know I'm not supposed to end a sentence with a preposition. :wink:


 
As my old English teacher once remarked: never end a sentence with "with" ... er ... unless you have nothing else to end it with!:wink:

T & F,

Huw


----------



## owls84 (May 24, 2010)

We'd sure show you a good time. By the way I think we actually solved something here.


----------



## Bill Lins (May 24, 2010)

Huw said:


> Obviously there are hundreds (maybe even thousands) of spurious organisations in the world claiming to be masons.



According to Nelson King, there are over 200 clandestine Prince Hall groups just in Texas!



Huw said:


> But this puts us right back to what I said in the first place, with which others appeared to be taking issue: the normal form of recognition by GLoTX is full recognition with visiting rights, membership transfers when appropriate, courtesy conferral of degrees on request, dual affiliation if the other GL allows it, and so on. So if PHAoTX members have said (as you and Owls appeared to testify earlier in this thread) that they want to be recognised in the same way as any other GL, then that means that they do want visitation and all the rest (except dual affiliation because they don't allow that ... at the moment).



We do not know if PHAoTX members want visitation or not. We do know that the PHA GL wanted recognition so that they could seek recognition by UGLE.



Huw said:


> This current situation of saying that the other guy is a Brother for some purposes but not a Brother for other purposes feels very strange to an outside observer like me.



It feels pretty strange to us on the inside also., but I just work here.  ;-)

S&F, Bill


----------



## rhitland (May 27, 2010)

Bill_Lins77488 said:


> It feels pretty strange to us on the inside also., but I just work here.  ;-)
> 
> S&F, Bill



my thoughts exactly


----------



## Robert G (Jun 5, 2010)

Actually, PHA recognition has been accomplished by 41 US jurisdictions which include the District of Columbia. The only mainstream masonic jurisdictions which do not recognize at least their own PHA counterpart are the following ten: West Virginia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, Arkansas, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana. Florida just the other day rejected recognizing their PHA counterpart. Interestingly, Virginia, North Carolina and Texas are the only jurisdictions in the old Confederate states which have recognized any PHA jurisdiction.


----------



## pha (Jun 6, 2010)

Bro Robert, in my Travels Eastward I have noticed with out a doubt that the only power some jurisdiction's have IS the power to deny recognition, as a member of PHA I hold no animosity toward's any of the brother's in the state's that deny recognition.  Lets look at it like this, If we (PHA of Texas) are given recognition by the Mother Lodge in England (and we are) and if those lodges that deny recogniton are also a part of the Mother Lodge, what have so called mainstream masonic jurisdictions accomplished, this subject has gotten more publicity then it deserves considering that most of us live, work worship, shop,bank,vacation and  send our kids to schools ect, etc that are diverse, what are we accomplising by carrying on with this  denying someones right to practice the art of being BETTER MEN.


----------



## Huw (Jun 6, 2010)

Hi Robert.



Robert G said:


> Actually, PHA recognition has been accomplished by 41 US jurisdictions which include the District of Columbia.


 
Evidently you're counting only the State GL jurisdictions, but surely they're not the only ones who count: you could add another 40-something by noticing that the various PHA jurisdictions also recognise one another!

However, a large part of the point of this thread is discussing what "recognition" means. There are 41 State GLs which say they recognise their co-terminous PHGL, yes. But in some cases that recognition means the same as what recognition normally means, whilst in other cases it means (at least so far) something significantly less than what recognition normally means.

Also, although 41 State GLs have announced recognition (in some sense) of their local PHA, only some of those have yet progressed to recognition of the PHGLs of other States. So there's an awful lot still to be done before the relationships among GLs in the US is going to look like the normal situation between regular GLs internationally. No doubt it'll take years yet.

T & F,

Huw


----------



## Robert G (Jun 23, 2010)

blake said:


> http://www.mwphglotx.org/compact.htm
> 
> This whole compact is kinda silly. So let me get this straight, we recognize each other as legitimate Masonic entities, yet we're prohibited from meeting upon the level?
> 
> ...


 
In reading the compact, you will note that the final paragraph clearly states that the Texas PHA Grand Lodge sought the compact solely to obtain recognition from the mother lodge, the United Grand Lodge of England (UGLE). I've taken a picture of the last paragraph and attached it here. You can read the entire compact at the PH GL of Texas website. On the left-side navigation frame click compact signing. By the way, checking with the UGLE's website you'll see that they do indeed recognize the Texas PHA GL.


----------



## Huw (Jun 24, 2010)

Hi Robert.



Robert G said:


> In reading the compact, you will note that the final paragraph clearly states that the Texas PHA Grand Lodge sought the compact solely to obtain recognition from the mother lodge, the United Grand Lodge of England (UGLE).


 
Sorry, no, I must take issue with this.

The compact notes UGLE recognition as the "ultimate goal" of PHAoTX, but it doesn't say that it's their "sole" goal. I rather suspect that this note was inserted into the compact as a "reassurance" for those Brethren (of either GL, but perhaps mainly from GLoTX) who weren't keen on the idea of recognising one another in TX. But the compact conspicuously omits to say that PHAoTX didn't also have some other objectives in mind, it's merely silent about other objectives, and it reads to me as a rather "loud silence" - the absence of any denial of additional objectives implies to me that there probably are other objectives, and eventually achieving visiting rights is the most obvious guess for what else they may have had in mind. But they probably didn't dare say that, for fear that even this partial recognition under the Compact might be denied to them if they openly admitted that what they actually want is to be treated like normal recognised Brethren from anywhere else.



Robert G said:


> By the way, checking with the UGLE's website you'll see that they do indeed recognize the Texas PHA GL.


 
Correct.

Furthermore, the UGLE recognition of PHAoTX is full normal recognition, not the restricted recognition which GLoTX and PHAoTX give one another. That's why I'm in the unusual posiiton, as a UGLE member, of having visiting rights to both TX jurisdictions. However, an odd side-effect of the situation is that if I were to dual-affiliate as a member in one of the TX jurisdictions, then I'd instantly lose my visiting rights to the other TX jurisdiction, even though I might (perfectly legally) have visited the other TX jurisdiction in the same town the previous day! That's a rather weird-feeling thought.

T & F,

Huw


----------



## Robert G (Jun 24, 2010)

Huw said:


> Hi Robert.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
I must say that I have to agree with you. The word 'solely' was an interpretation on my part and not stated in the compact. I, for one, would love to visit PHA lodges, but my GL (Florida) does not recognize its corresponding PH GL. Interestingly, though, our district instructor stated that if we were visiting in a jurisdiction which recognizes PH masonry and we happened to be sitting in a lodge in which there was a PH visitor admitted we could stay and not excuse ourselves. The idea being that as a visitor we would be conforming to the masonic law as it applies to the lodge being visited. I thought that that was rather a new and generous concept since in the past one was supposed to leave under such circumstances.


----------



## Huw (Jun 24, 2010)

Hi Robert.



Robert G said:


> Interestingly, though, our district instructor stated that if we were visiting in a jurisdiction which recognizes PH masonry and we happened to be sitting in a lodge in which there was a PH visitor admitted we could stay and not excuse ourselves. The idea being that as a visitor we would be conforming to the masonic law as it applies to the lodge being visited. I thought that that was rather a new and generous concept since in the past one was supposed to leave under such circumstances.


 
That certainly isn't the rule for me in UGLE, and I don't think it's the rule for most other GLs either.  As you say, the normal rule is that you must withdraw if someone attends who is not recognised by your own GL, regardless of whether or not the local GL recognises him.  I don't see how you can vary this rule without changing your Obligations, so this is a very interesting subject.

I think you ought to check carefully whether your District Instructor is right about this - even senior Brethren sometimes get the rules wrong!  And if that is indeed now the rule under GLoFL, then I'd be very interested to hear more about when GLoFL adopted this new rule, and what the wording of the resolution or edict was which brought in this change.  If you can find out and report back on here, then I'd be grateful.

T & F,

Huw


----------



## Robert G (Jun 24, 2010)

Huw said:


> Hi Robert.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
I contacted the former district instructor discussed above. This is what he wrote: "My experience has been as you mentioned. I asked a Grand Master that very question years ago and he gave me the same answer." 

Here is an interesting section from the Florida Masonic Digest (Law): "ACTS OF OTHER GRAND JURISDICTIONS Regulations 15.02 The Grand Lodge of Florida shall give full force and effect to the actions of other recognized Grand Jurisdictions not inconsistent with the jurisprudence of this Grand Jurisdiction."

The former DI also wrote this: "The only person who can interpret the digest is the GM...all others simply give opinions. If you are perplexed by this question I would suggest contacting GL for the GM's interpretation. My opinion is that I will continue to sit in a lodge whose jurisdiction is accepted by our GL without worrying about who they accept as regular. There is a toll free number for GL. The GM will publish his ruling and decision."


----------



## Huw (Jun 29, 2010)

Very interesting, Robert, thanks.

If your GM does indeed publish a ruling and decision at some point, then it'd be interesting to know what he says.  Obviously your rules are a matter for your own GL and GM to decide, but personally I'm not convinced that it can be regular for Brethren to sit in Lodge with those whom you don't recognise - it looks to me like a breach of Obligation (because it would be for me, under my Obligations), although I don't know the exact wording of the Obligations under GLoFL.

Your rule about "Acts of other Grand Jurisdictions" is curious.  What is (or is not) "inconsistent" with your home jurisprudence is inevitably going to be a matter for interpretative rulings in most situations, so looking at the the rule alone it appears to leave it all hanging in the air and undecided until case-by-case rulings are issued ... in which case, what was the point of introducing the rule at all?  I assume that the drafters of this rule actually did have some specific objective in mind, but it's not obvious to me what it was, so it'd be interesting to know more about why they invented it.

T & F,

Huw


----------



## Wingnut (Jun 29, 2010)

or under whos jurisdiction you may become...

When in Rome, you do as the Romans do.  While Texas does recognize PHA, we dont allow visition.  IF however Im in OK which DOES allow visitation, and a OK PHA is visiting that lodge, I do NOT have to leave that lodge.  We are both recognized visitors in that lodge.


----------



## Huw (Jul 1, 2010)

Hi Wyndell.



Wingnut said:


> or under whos jurisdiction you may become...


 
In English ritual, we have a line similar to that about obeying the civil law of wherever you are, but it's very clearly about civil law and not masonic rules.  In UGLE, masonic jurisdiction is defined by membership, not territory, so all of our members are under our rules wherever they are (although simultaneously under the rules of another place if they're dual-affiliated).



Wingnut said:


> When in Rome, you do as the Romans do.


 
One of the most widely-abused and confusing quotations in all of scripture.  I think it's generally a poor guide for conduct - the Romans did many wrong things, and I don't think it's an excuse for me to do wrong.  I've always seen the scriptural injunction as permission to go along with local rules when necessary, rather than a command to sell out my principles for momentary expediency.



Wingnut said:


> While Texas does recognize PHA, we dont allow visition. IF however Im in OK which DOES allow visitation, and a OK PHA is visiting that lodge, I do NOT have to leave that lodge. We are both recognized visitors in that lodge.


 
Are you certain?  I'm sure that some other GLoTX Brethren here in MoT have previously told me that the GLoTX rule on this point is the same as what I'm used to in UGLE, i.e. that if my own GL doesn't recognise someone as a Brother then I may not sit in Lodge with him (regardless of whether I'm in a place where the local GL recognises him).

T & F,

Huw


----------



## Wingnut (Jul 2, 2010)

Yes Im positive thats the way it is.  I was told that by 2 different PGMs.

LOL You make it sound like the Romans are the only people that ever did things they should be ashamed of...  But then I can think of many things that other countries have done I would be ashamed of, but thats beside the point.  Dont be so literal good grief.

To your final point, thank the GAOTU that we are past that and have moved on.  If they were expelled, suspended, unrecognized I can see that.  As I said, 2 PGMs have told me that is the way it is, I beleive its in the Additional Lodge Light book also, Ill have to double check the wording.  I cant see visiting a lodge in Scotland/Hawaii/Canada and then having to determine if every member inside the lodge is recognize by the GLoTx!  How exactly would that work?  If the brothers of a recognized lodge let people into the lodge room I have to assume that everyone in there a properly vouched for Mason.


----------



## rhitland (Jul 2, 2010)

For what it is worth Brother Wing I was told the same thing on numerous occasions the highest ranking whom told me this was the GS.


----------



## Robert G (Jul 3, 2010)

I'd like to add some thoughts to this discussion. First of all, it seems to me that I am not a deputized policeman of the GL of Florida when I am traveling. It's not up to me to discern the masonic bona fides of everyone sitting in a lodge I'm visiting. In fact, it's not up to me to decide who sits in their lodge. So, what do I do? Do I go to the WM and ask him who the visitors are and then consult my own trusty GL of FL list of recognized lodges which I just happen to have in my back pocket and then decide if I will deign to allow this lodge to welcome me as a fellow mason? It's just too over-the-top arrogant. And...let's be honest, the second issue is that we all know is that among the grand jurisdictions which are in amity with the United Grand Lodge of England more or less recognize the same jurisdictions as regular. Certainly, if I'm in Nebraska I don't have to worry that they've admitted masons from the Grand Orient of France. The odds are that I don't have to worry about anyone being there who is considered clandestine by the body of UGLE-related masonry. There will be no one there from _Le Droit Humain_, or any of the continental grand orients in amity with the Grand Orient of France. When we get right down to it, any differences beyond that are simply politics. Today Florida doesn't recognize Prince Hall Masonry, but next year they might. If I'm in a lodge in Nebraska with a PHA mason, how would I know that's what he is? Maybe he's simply a member of a mainstream jurisdiction who happens to be black. Who am I do be concerned about that? Who's going to call me on it, some other member from Flrorida also sitting in that lodge? When we get home do we file masonic charges against each other so that we can both be expelled? Let's face it, the issue is absurd.


----------



## Huw (Jul 5, 2010)

Thanks for the correction, Wyndell, evidently I had previously got the wrong idea about what the GLoTX rule is on this.

However, although you can't see yourself going visiting elsewhere and being expected to verify that everyone present is actually recognised by your own GL, nevertheless that is precisely what UGLE rules expect me to do, and yes that definitely is also the rule for most other regular GLs outside the US as well (in fact, I don't know of any regular GL anywhere outside the US which doesn't have this rule, although of course there may be some because obviously I don't know everyone's rules). The usual mechanism is to consult the Secretary of the Lodge and enquire if there are any other visitors present from other jurisdictions, and if so which other jurisdictions. Before we go visiting anywhere, we're expected to have checked which other jurisdictions our hosts recognise which we don't recognise, and thereby be aware in advance of which ones to look out for, and withdraw if any such are present.

Of course it might be the case that accidents occur, and we end up sitting with someone we don't recognise without realising it. That'd probably earn a warning for sloppy checking, but probably wouldn't get us expelled. But if we did it deliberately, then yes, it's an expulsion offence.

Robert, you say it's not up to you to discern everyone's bona fides. Neither is it ours in respect of those who are members of our host jurisdiction, of course - if we're allowed to visit there at all, then we assume that they've correctly established the bona fides of their own members. But in the case of other visitors, coming from third-party jurisdictions, then yes, we're expected to know whether or not we're allowed to sit with them. It's not a matter of deciding who can sit in our host Lodge, obviously that's their business, but it's a matter of deciding if we ourselves can sit in their Lodge, which is our own business. You ask who are you to be concerned about it, the answer is that you're a Brother with an Obligation to follow the rules ... if GLoFL doesn't have this particular rule, then you needn't worry about it, but for those of us who come from GLs which have this rule (i.e. most GLs), then yes, we're each expected to "police" ourselves to ensure that we act regularly. As for who's going to call you on it if you violate your Obligation, then in the first instance your own conscience should do so ... but if you don't realise that there's an unrecognised person present, then probably no-one will call you on it, unless it subsequently happens to come to light some other way. But in UGLE (and I suspect in many other non-US GLs as well), we're constantly warned about the dangers of meeting unrecognised persons when visiting other jurisdictions, so there's certainly an expectation laid upon each of us to exercise due diligence in checking who's present. (As an example of the constancy of warnings here, many of our Lodges will print a warning about this issue on every summons for every meeting!)  Yes, this does make it quite complicated to visit other jurisdictions!

T & F,

Huw


----------



## Squire Bentley (Jul 14, 2010)

Gerald.Harris said:


> Brother Miley, The reason that things are the way that they are, is because that is precisely what the PH Masons asked the Grand Lodge of Texas to do several years ago. They did not seek visitation rights . They simply asked for recognition. I believe that if enough of the members of the PHGL  and the GLOT want this to happen then it will .


 
This is just not true.  Take it from a Prince Hall Mason who knows!


----------



## Robert G (Jul 14, 2010)

Squire Bentley said:


> This is just not true.  Take it from a Prince Hall Mason who knows!


 
Brother, please tell us the history of this.


----------



## Gerald.Harris (Jul 20, 2010)

Squire Bentley said:


> This is just not true.  Take it from a Prince Hall Mason who knows!


 
What part is not true Brother Bentley? That is not what the Pricce Hall Grand Lodge asked for, or that if enough of us want it, it will become so? I for one was present , when the committe made their report at the Grand Lodge of Texas, and that is exactly what was reported to the membership of GLOT. If your answer is the other and there are others who do want visitation rights, then I believe there are just not enough of us yet to make it happen.


----------

