# GLoTX Resolutions



## Blake Bowden (Jan 15, 2017)

The other night was the first time I read the various resolutions being proposed and some of them didn't make any sense. Per the request of the GLoTX, I won't post the various resolutions in detail, but I think a discussion is warranted.


----------



## Bill Lins (Jan 15, 2017)

I personally AM in favor of #1 because, besides seeing reasons that it could be beneficial, it leaves the decision up to the individual Lodges- something  which I generally prefer unless there is overwhelming evidence that Grand Lodge guidance is needed.

I am AGAINST 2014 #11, because it removes all prohibitions against the Board members borrowing, loaning, or receiving MH&S funds. WHY?

I AM in favor of #13, although I find it sad that sometimes we cannot seem to get enough Brethren together to hold a proper Masonic funeral service, especially on a weekday. Better to have the option of a service that can be performed by one Brother than not have a service at all.


----------



## Raymond Walters (Jan 16, 2017)

*[Grand Masters Recommendation No. 3. (I DO NOT SUPPORT)* This one basically gives a fast track to deadbeat EA's and FC's a way to skip learning the work in favor of some program. In my opinion, something like this will ultimately lead to one day classes.

Your thoughts?*]*


Without having access to the actual resolution and based on your description, I would be against this specific resolution also. 

Many years ago, when my employment required me to be in another part of the United States,  my Texas lodge arranged for courtesy work to be done in the state I was transferred to, but I was still required to learn and return a GLoTx proficiency to my lodge in San Antonio, which I did do after having learned and returned proficiency in the lodge that performed courtesy work for my lodge... if I can do it, so can all others who come after.


----------



## dfreybur (Jan 16, 2017)

To me the prohibition on weapons is a part of the preparation of candidates not applicable to members.  My bias is my mother lodge had a lot of current law enforcement officers who kept their pieces in a bag under their chair during meetings.

I read through this year's list and nothing made me want to stand up and shout.  Routine list this year.  I liked that one of the proposals was written by Br Bill Lins a regular poster here.


----------



## JJones (Jan 16, 2017)

I'm against recommendation # 3 for the same reasons as Blake. It will cheapen the fraternity just to create a few more dues paying masons.

There was another resolution, I don't recall which it was, but it would effectively increase the minimal dues around the state to around $70. I don't mind higher dues, so long as they are supporting local lodges. I'll be honest, this strikes me as another attempt to get more money for the Grand Lodge building.


----------



## Blake Bowden (Jan 16, 2017)

JJones said:


> I'll be honest, this strikes me as another attempt to get more money for the Grand Lodge building.



Seems to be the trend lately.


----------



## Brother JC (Jan 18, 2017)

JJones said:


> There was another resolution, I don't recall which it was, but it would effectively increase the minimal dues around the state to around $70. I don't mind higher dues, so long as they are supporting local lodges. I'll be honest, this strikes me as another attempt to get more money for the Grand Lodge building.



I'm not sure how raising dues at a lodge level would fund the grand lodge building, unless per capita was specifically raised as well.


----------



## JMartinez (Jan 18, 2017)

I'm surprised the "Mason in a day" program is actually being seriously considered. I'll be going to the GLoTX this weekend. Hope to see some best friends I didn't know I had.


Sent from my iPhone using My Freemasonry


----------



## JJones (Jan 18, 2017)

Brother JC said:


> I'm not sure how raising dues at a lodge level would fund the grand lodge building, unless per capita was specifically raised as well.



What I mean is that I don't mind paying higher dues if its a local lodge decision and the dues benefit the lodge. In this case the minimal dues would increase by almost $50 and the money goes to Grand Lodge.


----------



## David Duke (Jan 18, 2017)

JJones said:


> What I mean is that I don't mind paying higher dues if its a local lodge decision and the dues benefit the lodge. In this case the minimal dues would increase by almost $50 and the money goes to Grand Lodge.



I assume we are talking about #3. The way I read it all above the per capita will go to the Lodge. All it is saying is local Dues must be a minimum of $50 + per-capita. Nothing but the per-capita will go to GL. 


David Duke
Secretary 
Sam B Crawford #1418
New Caney,  TX


----------



## JJones (Jan 20, 2017)

David Duke said:


> I assume we are talking about #3. The way I read it all above the per capita will go to the Lodge. All it is saying is local Dues must be a minimum of $50 + per-capita. Nothing but the per-capita will go to GL.
> 
> 
> David Duke
> ...



I just re-read and you appear to be correct. Thank you for clearing that up.


----------



## Bill Lins (Jan 20, 2017)

Don't worry- it failed.


----------



## texasmason84 (Jan 22, 2017)

I spoke against resolution number 3. I am glad it failed. I do not like the idea of Grand Lodge telling the constituent Lodges how much they have to charge.


----------



## JJones (Jan 22, 2017)

JamestheJust said:


> >This resolution would basically allow handguns into the Lodge room
> 
> Is there any other country in the world that takes guns into the lodge?



It was my understanding that this resolution passed?

Can anyone that was present for the entire session post the results?


----------



## Benjamin Baxter (Jan 22, 2017)

Ok this is what I have from this weekend:

Grand Master's recommendation no.3 hold over 2015 - Passed

Resolution no.11 hold over 2014 -Passed

Resolution no.14 hold over 2015 - Passed

Resolution no.1 - Passed

Resolution no.2 - Passed

Resolution no.3 - Failed

Resolution no.4 - Passed

Resolution no.5 - Failed

Resolution no.6 - Failed

Resolution no.7 - Failed

Resolution no.8 - Tabled till 2018

Resolution no.9 - Passed

Resolution no.10 - Failed

Resolution no.11 - Failed

Resolution no.12 - Passed with amendment

Resolution no.13 - Failed

Resolution no.14 - Failed

Resolution no.15 - Passed

Resolution no.16 - Passed

Resolution no.17 - Passed

Resolution no.18 - 
Withdrawn

Resolution no.19 - Failed

GM Recommendation no.1 -  Passed

GM Recommendation no.2 -  Passed

GM Recommendation no.3 -  Failed

Also, New Grand Junior Warden is Paul D. Underwood





Sent from my iPhone using My Freemasonry


----------



## JJones (Jan 22, 2017)

Thank you!


----------



## Benjamin Baxter (Jan 22, 2017)

JJones said:


> Thank you!



No problem, brother...


Sent from my iPhone using My Freemasonry


----------



## Benjamin Baxter (Jan 22, 2017)

Oh yeah, I forgot to mention the new Grand Master Kirby came in to the Star Wars imperial march. Pretty cool!


Sent from my iPhone using My Freemasonry


----------



## Bill Lins (Jan 22, 2017)

One thing to mention- GM's recommendation no.3 hold over 2015 passed *as amended. *The parts removing all prohibitions against the Board members borrowing, loaning, or receiving MH&S funds were reinstated. We were told they were not intended to be removed. Also, there was a Resolution #20, involving the changing of a Lodge's name, that was inadvertently left out of the booklet. To be considered thus required a 4/5ths vote to allow. It was allowed & subsequently passed.


----------



## dfreybur (Jan 23, 2017)

JamestheJust said:


> Is there any other country in the world that takes guns into the lodge?



My mother lodge in California has a lot of members who are current or retired police officers.  The current ones have their piece in a bag under their chairs, always have.  The directions in the lecture are only explicit about the preparation of the candidate so the directions do not refer to the Brothers who are already members.  We are all bound by stronger ties now that we are no longer candidates.

The rules in California are silent on the topic other than the directions in the lecture so each lodge gets to decide if those directions apply to more than just the candidate.  Some lodges never consider the possibility that the directions don't apply to everyone in the room, but there is no mention of that in the lecture.  My mother lodge had to consider it many decades ago because of the high percentage of police officers in our membership.

Last year a lunatic broke into a meeting at my mother lodge.  He barged past the Tiler and came through the closed door.  He was escorted out and sent to jail.  First time in living memory anything remotely like that had happened.


----------



## Bloke (Jan 29, 2017)

dfreybur said:


> My mother lodge in California has a lot of members who are current or retired police officers.  The current ones have their piece in a bag under their chairs, always have.  The directions in the lecture are only explicit about the preparation of the candidate so the directions do not refer to the Brothers who are already members.  We are all bound by stronger ties now that we are no longer candidates.
> 
> The rules in California are silent on the topic other than the directions in the lecture so each lodge gets to decide if those directions apply to more than just the candidate.  Some lodges never consider the possibility that the directions don't apply to everyone in the room, but there is no mention of that in the lecture.  My mother lodge had to consider it many decades ago because of the high percentage of police officers in our membership.
> 
> Last year a lunatic broke into a meeting at my mother lodge.  He barged past the Tiler and came through the closed door.  He was escorted out and sent to jail.  First time in living memory anything remotely like that had happened.



You know, if we had members who brought firearms to lodge, I'd almost expect them to have them in the lodge room where they would be under their control rather than with Tyler who might go for a leak etc..


----------



## Bro. Stewart P.M. (Jan 29, 2017)

Bloke said:


> You know, if we had members who brought firearms to lodge, I'd almost expect them to have them in the lodge room where they would be under their control rather than with Tyler who might go for a leak etc..



Without speaking for everyone and every circumstance, the idea or suggestion of leaving a firearm "with the Tiler" has different meaning than suggested. At my Lodge when weapons are checked prior to the meeting (per Lodge Bylaws), the weapons are stored in locked and secured areas, not in the personal hands of the person serving the duty of Tiler.



Stewart M. Owings, P∴ M∴
Lead Moderator


----------



## Bloke (Jan 29, 2017)

Bro. Stewart P.M. said:


> Without speaking for everyone and every circumstance, the idea or suggestion of leaving a firearm "with the Tiler" has different meaning than suggested. At my Lodge when weapons are checked prior to the meeting (per Lodge Bylaws), the weapons are stored in locked and secured areas, not in the personal hands of the person serving the duty of Tiler.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Thanks for the clarification


----------



## Plustax (Nov 25, 2017)

Any updates for resolutions for 2018?

Sent from my LG-H910 using My Freemasonry mobile app


----------



## JJones (Nov 26, 2017)

Oh boy, it's getting close to that time again.

Finding out what's being proposed is always like Christmas morning. Except everybody is so out of touch with you that they have no idea what you really want so you cross your fingers and hope you get one or two good ones. It's the thought that counts, after all.


----------



## Benjamin Baxter (Dec 2, 2017)

Surely we must be getting close. Does anyone have them yet?


Sent from my iPhone using My Freemasonry


----------



## David Duke (Dec 2, 2017)

They are available on the Secretary’s database but haven’t been mailed to he Lodges or at least we haven’t gotten ours. 


Sent from my iPhone using My Freemasonry


----------



## Bill Lins (Dec 2, 2017)

I emailed them to Blake a while back- mebbe, if you ask nicely, he'll post them.


----------



## Benjamin Baxter (Dec 4, 2017)

Oh ok. I know Brother Blake is a busy guy. I will wait the time with patience.


Sent from my iPhone using My Freemasonry


----------



## Benjamin Baxter (Dec 12, 2017)

Blake, can you post them? Please.


Sent from my iPhone using My Freemasonry


----------



## David612 (Dec 12, 2017)

I’m so glad we don’t have to deal with these issues in my neck of the woods


----------



## Ripcord22A (Dec 12, 2017)

David612 said:


> I’m so glad we don’t have to deal with these issues in my neck of the woods



Your GL doesn’t make changes?


----------



## David612 (Dec 12, 2017)

They do but things like firearms in lodge arnt an issue


----------



## chrmc (Dec 12, 2017)

I just saw that the latest Tx Masons magazine is up, and on page 10 there is an abbreviated version of the resolution, but they don't say much. 
http://grandlodgeoftexas.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Tx-Mason-2018.pdf

2018 RESOLUTIONS ANDS RECOMMENDATIONS
HOLD OVER RESOLUTION # 4—2017
This Resolution was voted on and passed at the 2017 Grand Annual Communication, it being a Constitutional
change must be voted on in the 2018 Communication.
RESOLUTIONS 2018
Resolution # 1—This is to change Dist. 60-A and 60- B into one District. As several Lodges in this
District have merged. It would be better served as one District. Submitted by Joseph R. Bailey, Five
Points # 1137, John E. Wood, El Paso # 130, and Thomas E. Jenkins, Omar Bradley # 1028. ( P&P)
Resolution # 2-- Art. 272 and Art. 273 be amended to read. If the Master has to leave the east, the
Past Master who takes over the East, may keep his Past Master Jewel on. Submitted by Thomas F.
Boone, Anson Jones # 1416. (P&P—MJC)
Resolution # 3-- Amend Art. 380, as to the visiting process of Texas Lodges. Submitted by James K.
Scales, Italy # 647. (Fin. – MJC)
Resolution # 4 -- Delete Art. 417, who may vote, and Replace with new Art. 417. Submitted by
Charles D. Gaulden, Greenville # 335. (P&P)
Resolution # 5—Amend Art. 512 of the Laws of the Grand Lodge of Texas to provide suspension of
Masonic activity when accused of a disciplinary violation
Involving the abuse of children. Submitted by Leonard P. Harvey, Keystone # 1143. Orville L. O’Neill,
White Rock # 234. (P&P—MJC)
Resolution # 6-- Amend Art. 512. Status of a Mason under allegations of a Masonic Disciplinary
Violation. Submitted by Robin W. Winslett, Danbury # 1432. Jay H. Hicks, Tucker # 297. (P&P—
MJC)
Resolution # 8—Delete Art. 401 and Form # 27. Submitted by Roger A. Jacobsen, St. Johns # 51.
(P&P—MJC)
Resolution # 9 – Amend Art. 236. Who may preside while conferring Degrees. Add new Art. 226-
A.Submitted by William (Bill) Lins, Wharton # 621. (P&P—MJC)
Resolution # 10— Finance Committee Change Art. 122 Thru Art. 126. Submitted by Ronald Wise,
Roy Stanley # 1367. (FIN.)
Resolution # 11 – Amend Art. 412. Committee Duties and Report. Adding information to second
paragraph. Submitted by Terrence A. Maxwell, Carrollton # 1400. (P&P—MJC)
Resolution # 12 – Amend Art. 163. Fees, Dues and Contributions. To repeal paragraph # 9, and
Amend paragraph # 10. Submitted by Thomas W. Ellison, Milam # 2. (FIN)
Resolution # 13—Amend Art. 53, as the Grand Lodge has changed their fiscal year to end on
December 31st. Submitted by Thomas W. Ellison, Milam # 2. (P&P— MJC)
Resolution # 14 – Amend Art. 311 by adding paragraph # 2,about credit and debit cards. Submitted
by Thomas W. Ellison, Milam # 2. (MJC)
Resolution # 15 – Amend Art. 361. Who may conduct ceremony. Having all deceased Brethren
during that Masonic year be read and entered in the minutes of that date. Submitted by C. D. Siems,
Gary Krzysicki, Bellaire # 1336 (P&P)
Resolution # 16 -- That the Golden Trowel Award forms be included in the Masonic Forms section of
the Laws of the Grand Lodge of Texas. Submitted by
C.D. Siems, and Gary Krzysicki, Bellaire # 1336 (P&P)
Resolution # 17 – Amend Art. 319. Automatic Suspension to February 1st and Art. 320 Notice of
Suspension by March 1st .
Resolution #18— Merge Lodges in Masonic District 120 with District 37A and Masonic District 120
be abolished – S. B. Mosser Lodge 912
GRAND MASTER RECOMMENDATION # 1—Amend Art. # 129, paragraph # a,( by adding the
sentence or brothers who are proficient in the esoteric work and lectures of the first three degrees in
Masonry.)


----------



## dfreybur (Dec 12, 2017)

As to districts - Doesn't the MWGM have the authority to reorganize them?  DDGM does stand for District Deputy Grand Master after all.  Having these reorganizations happen by vote seems like a lot more work than just informing the next MWGM to include it in his planned.  Voting on the floor works and is binding, but it isn't the method I'd want to use.

As to jewels while sitting pro tem - Texas is more fussy than that detail compared to other jurisdictions I know.  In my other jurisdictions, the few times I wanted to speak on a topic I've put my hat on the chair and stepped to the floor to speak.  Though I don't recall ever doing that the year I was in the east in California.  My very foggy crystal ball predicts this one will not be approved.

I'll now download the file.  I figure the hard copy will arrive in my mailbox in a few days.


----------



## chrmc (Dec 12, 2017)

dfreybur said:


> As to districts - Doesn't the MWGM have the authority to reorganize them?  DDGM does stand for District Deputy Grand Master after all.  Having these reorganizations happen by vote seems like a lot more work than just informing the next MWGM to include it in his planned.  Voting on the floor works and is binding, but it isn't the method I'd want to use.



I agree. And hopefully it's more districts that are up for revision than just the ones mentioned. I believe both Houston and Dallas have some districts that are fairly out of wack.


----------



## Glen Cook (Dec 12, 2017)

chrmc said:


> I agree. And hopefully it's more districts that are up for revision than just the ones mentioned. I believe both Houston and Dallas have some districts that are fairly out of wack.


There is now the temptation for an Okie to make a comment about Dallas and Houston generally being out of whack. I wouldn’t do so, of course. .


----------



## Bro. David F. Hill (Dec 13, 2017)

#4 is the one that I am most interested in.

Sent from my SM-G955U using My Freemasonry mobile app


----------



## dfreybur (Dec 13, 2017)

chrmc said:


> I just saw that the latest Tx Masons magazine is up, and on page 10 there is an abbreviated version of the resolution, but they don't say much.
> http://grandlodgeoftexas.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Tx-Mason-2018.pdf
> 
> Resolution # 4 -- Delete Art. 417, who may vote, and Replace with new Art. 417. Submitted by
> Charles D. Gaulden, Greenville # 335. (P&P)



None of these entries have enough context for discussion on the floor.  Of course GL delegates will get a packet that contains complete documentation.

There isn't much discussion on you gets to vote.  Visitors don't vote and I doubt that's the issue.  I figure this one is to switch back to the world wide standard of charging EAs dues and allowing them to vote.  I'm for that in general votes.  I have not considered if this includes the ballot box and am on the fence on that bit.


----------



## chrmc (Dec 13, 2017)

The package came out today. Resolution 4 reads

WHEREAS, it would be best that Masons from other Lodges, not being a member of the Lodge acting, should not be allowed to vote or ballot upon matters of said Lodge, so as not to influence the outcome on said matters, and therefore, guests and visiting Brethren, not members of said Lodge, should not be allowed to vote or ballot on any matters of said Lodge, including membership; and

WHEREAS, in voting and balloting on Petitions and Applications, other than for the three degrees of Masonry, it should be clear that only members present of the Lodge acting shall be entitled to vote;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that Article 417 be deleted in its entirety and a new Article 417 be substituted to read as follows:
Art. 417. (458). Who May Vote. In balloting on petitions for the three degrees, or any of them, only members who are in good standing of the Lodge acting are entitled to vote, and all members in good standing of said Lodge who are present must vote.
In balloting or voting on petitions for affiliation; reinstatement; restoration; or applications for dimit; certificate of good standing; waiver of jurisdiction; certificate of dismissal; or voting on examinations for proficiency; or the business transactions of the


----------



## dfreybur (Dec 13, 2017)

Interesting.  Currently in Texas all members of that specific lodge must ballot, any member of a GLofTX may ballot.

To me this means someone with determination can go around visiting seeing to it that a specific man can't get degrees.  Until or unless that gets abused I'm not sure it's a bad possibility.

But it also means someone with determination can go around visiting seeing to it that specific lodges can't accept candidates.  If that's ever been abused it's definitely bad.  But if I suspect that might have happened I'd object to any visitors during a ballot.  Attending your own lodge is a landmark right; visiting is a privilege and it may be objected to by a member.


----------



## Bill Lins (Dec 13, 2017)

dfreybur said:


> I'd object to any visitors during a ballot.  Attending your own lodge is a landmark right; visiting is a privilege and it may be objected to by a member.


Totally incorrect. The ONLY time a GLoTX Brother may be excluded from any GLoTX Lodge is if he is laboring under Masonic charges. Otherwise, visiting other GLoTX Lodges IS a right. See Art. 383.


----------



## Ripcord22A (Dec 13, 2017)

Bill Lins said:


> Totally incorrect. The ONLY time a GLoTX Brother may be excluded from any GLoTX Lodge is if he is laboring under Masonic charges. Otherwise, visiting other GLoTX Lodges IS a right. See Art. 383.



So a Master can’t exclude a GLoTX Brother from his(the masters) lodge if there is contention with a member of that lodge?


----------



## Bill Lins (Dec 13, 2017)

Ripcord22A said:


> So a Master can’t exclude a GLoTX Brother from his(the masters) lodge if there is contention with a member of that lodge?


Not preemptively. If a Brother causes contention in a tiled Lodge & continues to do so after the WM orders him to stop, the WM may either have that Brother removed or close the Lodge, at his option.


----------



## Ripcord22A (Dec 13, 2017)

Bill Lins said:


> Not preemptively. If a Brother causes contention in a tiled Lodge & continues to do so after the WM orders him to stop, the WM may either have that Brother removed or close the Lodge, at his option.



Hmmmm interesting.  In NM and OR a Master can exclude any and all brothers who are not members.

As for the voting....in OR lodge members must vote District members may vote. NM ONLY lodge members can vote


----------



## dfreybur (Dec 14, 2017)

Bill Lins said:


> The ONLY time a GLoTX Brother may be excluded from any GLoTX Lodge is if he is laboring under Masonic charges. Otherwise, visiting other GLoTX Lodges IS a right. See Art. 383.



Not a landmark, of course.  But local jurisdiction bylaws are binding on every member lodge in the jurisdiction.

Has this ever been abused that you know of?  I see at least one proposal this year that hints of it.  The one about who votes.

Not a completely hypothetical example. - I could start attending some lodge that I'm not a member of and drop cubes on every candidate.  If I'm not the only brother doing so that lodge starves.  I knew of an Illinois lodge where one of their own members was starving his own lodge by dropping cubes on every candidate.  He didn't admit to it and no one may ask so it was technically only a guess as to who was doing it, but he was rejected from visiting any other lodge in quite some distance.  As he was a disaffected member he did not attend any district, area or GL events so it never came up how to exclude him from them.

Rules requiring more than one cube tend to be the reaction if this abuse ever happens, but such rules have their own set of problems.


----------



## chrmc (Jan 20, 2018)

Just got back and can report as follows.

Hold over resolution #4 - Passed.
Resolution #1 - Passed.
Resolution #2 - Withdrawn.
Resolution #3 - Withdrawn.
Resolution #4 - Failed.
Resolution #5 - Failed.
Resolution #6 - Passed.
Resolution #7 - Passed.
Resolution #8 - Passed.
Resolution #9 - Failed.
Resolution #10 - Passed.
Resolution #11 - Passed, but just barely. 1347 to 1345 votes.
Resolution #12 - Tabled.
Resolution #13 - Passed.
Resolution #14 - Passed.
Resolution #15 - Passed.
Resolution #16 - Passed.
Resolution #17 - Failed.
Resolution #18 - Passed.
Grand Master's recommendation #1 - Passed.
Grand Master's recommendation #2 - Amended, then Passed.

Brother Ken Curry was elected to the Grand South, and brother Jim Rumsey was elected to the Committee of Work.

Of other notable events can be mentioned that the GM fell head first when stepping down from the podium on Friday, and nearly got a concussion. The visitation with Prince Hall was made easier, and the need to go through the Grand Secretaries office was removed. Freedom lodge from Houston had their charter taken away for multiple account of Masonic irregularities, and the recognition of the Grand Lodge of Cuba was suspended.


----------



## Dontrell Stroman (Jan 20, 2018)

chrmc said:


> Just got back and can report as follows.
> 
> Hold over resolution #4 - Passed.
> Resolution #1 - Passed.
> ...


Why was recognition pulled from the GL of Cuba ?

Sent from my LG-LS997 using My Freemasonry mobile app


----------



## Bill Lins (Jan 20, 2018)

chrmc said:


> Resolution #17 - Passed.


My notes show that #17 failed. Also, GM's Recommendation #2 was amended to increase the fee from $20 to $50 and passed as amended.


----------



## Plustax (Jan 20, 2018)

Correct

Sent from my LG-H910 using My Freemasonry mobile app


----------



## Bill Lins (Jan 20, 2018)

Travelling Man91 said:


> Wht was recognition pulled from the GL of Cuba ?


It was reported that they had invaded the territory of the Grand Lodge of Florida & opened Lodges there, that they had promised to close said Lodges, and had failed to do so.


----------



## Dontrell Stroman (Jan 20, 2018)

Where can I find more information on this ?

Sent from my LG-LS997 using My Freemasonry mobile app


----------



## Glen Cook (Jan 20, 2018)

Travelling Man91 said:


> Where can I find more information on this ?
> 
> Sent from my LG-LS997 using My Freemasonry mobile app


http://freemasonsfordummies.blogspot.com/2017/02/gm-of-florida-again-rescinds.html


----------



## chrmc (Jan 21, 2018)

Bill Lins said:


> My notes show that #17 failed. Also, GM's Recommendation #2 was amended to increase the fee from $20 to $50 and passed as amended.



You're right. It was late in the day, so my notes are likely off. That one did fail as you say. I've amended the original post


----------



## BroBill (Jan 21, 2018)

Bill Lins said:


> My notes show that #17 failed. Also, GM's Recommendation #2 was amended to increase the fee from $20 to $50 and passed as amended.


I also show 17 as not adopted. BTW, it was good to meet you finally, even if it was only 6.5 seconds as I passed out of the auditorium! Perhaps other opportunities will present and we can actually chat!

Sent from my QTASUN1 using My Freemasonry mobile app


----------



## dfreybur (Jan 21, 2018)

chrmc said:


> The visitation with Prince Hall was made easier, and the need to go through the Grand Secretaries office was removed.



Are we now at full and traditional recognition without restriction, or is there some sort of complexity remaining?  I don't like having recognition compacts as that establishes second class citizenship running in both directions.


----------



## Bro. David F. Hill (Jan 21, 2018)

More information will probably be coming soon with guidelines but the change has come. 

Doug, I sent you a text message. Not sure if you got it. 

Sent from my SM-G955U using My Freemasonry mobile app


----------



## David Duke (Jan 21, 2018)

dfreybur said:


> Are we now at full and traditional recognition without restriction, or is there some sort of complexity remaining?  I don't like having recognition compacts as that establishes second class citizenship running in both directions.



It is my understanding that we are as you say full and traditional recognition. Visitation procedures will be as if you are visiting say Oklahoma or Louisiana.


----------



## Bill Lins (Jan 21, 2018)

dfreybur said:


> Are we now at full and traditional recognition without restriction, or is there some sort of complexity remaining?


AFAIK, the following from 2015 is still in effect- my resolution was intended to correct the part of this regarding degree work but was not adopted:

_*"Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Texas:* 
The implementation of the Treaty with the Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Texas continues to move forward in an orderly manner. Visitations of members between the two Grand Jurisdictions have been ongoing by following the visitation process outlined and effective May 1, 2015. 

There have been recent questions regarding activities between members of Lodges under each Jurisdiction that Lodges, Officers, and Members should be aware. First, members of one Grand Jurisdiction cannot participate in the conferral of any Masonic degree as a member of the degree team in the other Grand Jurisdiction. This includes speaking and non-speaking parts and extends to giving the lectures or any other activity associated with the degree conferral. 

Nothing prevents members from the other Grand Jurisdiction attending the degree and observing the conferral of the degree in the other Grand Jurisdiction subject to the visitor gaining approval of his visitation request. _

_Second, the use of Lodge Rooms and Anterooms are subject to the Statues of the Grand Lodge of Texas, specifically Arts. 224 and 225. Unless an organization is listed in these articles, it is not appropriate for those organizations to rent or use our Lodge rooms. 

Therefore, it is not appropriate for our Lodges to allow Lodges operating under the Jurisdiction of the Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Texas to rent or use our Lodge Rooms or Anterooms nor our Lodges to request to rent or use their Lodge Rooms or Anterooms. 

Third, members of either Grand Jurisdiction may attend open Lodge events and participate in open Lodge activities subject to the guidelines and Statutes of each Grand Lodge. For example, if the activity requires a dispensation to undertake an activity in the Grand Lodge of Texas and your Lodge wishes to participate in a similar activity with a Lodge under the Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Texas, your Lodge must still obtain a dispensation from the Grand Lodge of Texas. 

Finally, please remember that each Grand Lodge maintains its sovereignty over the Lodges and members of its Grand Jurisdiction. If we visit a Lodge in another Grand Jurisdiction, we are subject to the bylaws, rules, and regulations of that Grand Lodge as well as our home Grand Lodge. In addition, proper protocol must be observed at all times by communicating through the Grand Secretary of your Grand Lodge when your Lodge wishes to communicate with a Lodge in another Grand Jurisdiction."_


----------



## dfreybur (Jan 22, 2018)

Bill Lins said:


> AFAIK, the following from 2015 is still in effect- my resolution was intended to correct the part of this regarding degree work but was not adopted:
> 
> _*"Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Texas:*
> The implementation of the Treaty with the Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Texas continues to move forward in an orderly manner. Visitations of members between the two Grand Jurisdictions have been ongoing by following the visitation process outlined and effective May 1, 2015.
> ...



This is a very sad vote outcome and I am grateful you put it forward.  If someone knows our work, they know our work and that "should" be enough for visitors from recognized jurisdictions.  I've known Brothers who lived close to a state border who visited a lot and knew both rituals.

The time I've seen the most visiting Brothers participate is at the actual raising.  If Dad's here from another, I want him to be able to raise Son and as long as the ritual is close I'm okay with that.



> _Therefore, it is not appropriate for our Lodges to allow Lodges operating under the Jurisdiction of the Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Texas to rent or use our Lodge Rooms or Anterooms nor our Lodges to request to rent or use their Lodge Rooms or Anterooms._



My mother lodge in California has a tenant lodge chartered by the MWPHGLofCA so I am biased on this detail.



> _Finally, please remember that each Grand Lodge maintains its sovereignty over the Lodges and members of its Grand Jurisdiction. If we visit a Lodge in another Grand Jurisdiction, we are subject to the bylaws, rules, and regulations of that Grand Lodge as well as our home Grand Lodge. In addition, proper protocol must be observed at all times by communicating through the Grand Secretary of your Grand Lodge when your Lodge wishes to communicate with a Lodge in another Grand Jurisdiction."_



Standard issue recognition commentary.

Okay, one topic down, two more to go.  Some progress is better than no progress.


----------



## Bill Lins (Jan 22, 2018)

dfreybur said:


> The time I've seen the most visiting Brothers participate is at the actual raising.  If Dad's here from another, I want him to be able to raise Son and as long as the ritual is close I'm okay with that.


Agreed. It would be an absolute shame not to allow it.


----------



## Bro Mathews (Jan 26, 2018)

Mr. Bill thanks for the clarification


----------



## dfreybur (Jan 26, 2018)

Bro. David F. Hill said:


> Doug, I sent you a text message. Not sure if you got it.



I'll discuss with my wife when she'd like to visit either direction in the neighborhood.


----------



## hfmm97 (Feb 12, 2018)

dfreybur said:


> I'll discuss with my wife when she'd like to visit either direction in the neighborhood.







Sent from my iPhone using My Freemasonry mobile app


----------

