# prince hall oklahoma lodges in the middle east?



## middle east traveller (May 19, 2015)

I have been traveling all over the middle east for quite some time now , and i have noticed that a majority of lodges from 
dubai , saudi, iraq , qatar , afghanistan all operate under the jurisdiction of the MW prince hall lodge of oklahoma, Im just curious on how this came to be.

When did these middle east countries become part of oklahoma jurisdiction? 

I know they call all their lodges military lodges, and a majority of them operate a lodge inside a us military base
which is technically still us soil, which supposedly legitimizes their charter

but what about the land of shinar lodge in dubai? is it inside a us base? if not does this still make their charter
valid if they are operating a lodge on foreign soil?

just looking for further information on these lodges bretheren


----------



## dfreybur (May 19, 2015)

middle east traveller said:


> When did these middle east countries become part of oklahoma jurisdiction?



That's the part of the question that I can address.  When there is not yet a native jurisdiction in a region/country/state/province then any regular jurisdiction may charter lodges there.  Eventually the lodges there will band together and form their own jurisdiction but until that point any regular jurisdiction may charter lodges there.  What MWPHGLofOK is doing is colonizing Masonry in the region according to the original tradition.  It's a noble project and I applaud them for doing so.

As to diplomatic status of a specific spot of land, that effects the law and as such determines if a local country is able to ban Masonry at that location.  As long as Masonry is not banned in a country being on a military base is not material to the eventual formation of a local jurisdiction.

The parts of the question I can't answer -

I am also interested in the history of why Oklahoma in particular chose to be the channel for colonization.

Another strangeness with Oklahoma is they have recognition within the US but not with UGLE.  I don't know if they decided against asking or if their request was forgotten.


----------



## Glen Cook (May 19, 2015)

Well, not always. As an example, though there was no GL of Lebanon, NY suspended relations with D.C. when D.C. chartered a lodge there without permission of NY and Scotland. See http://freemasonsfordummies.blogspot.com/2008/11/gl-of-new-york-suspends-amity-with-gl.html

Also, just to clarify, though a GL may be formed, the prior GLs may continue to have lodges there.


----------



## VW jubelum (May 20, 2015)

As long as Masonry is not banned in a country being on a military base is not material to the eventual formation of a local jurisdiction.

for the information of the less informed bretheren, freemasonry is NOT free and accepted in the aforementioned middle east countries
the only exception is if the lodge is inside a us base, you will never find a lodge displayed in public view for some reason freemasonry 
is interpreted here as a religion hence it is not permitted by the goverment

so another question i have is, are prince hall oklahoma masons considered regular or irregular masons?


----------



## dfreybur (May 20, 2015)

VW jubelum said:


> so another question i have is, are prince hall oklahoma masons considered regular or irregular masons?



MWPHGLofOK is recognized by all US PHA jurisdictions and is thus regular -

http://www.conferenceofgrandmasterspha.org/gjlinks.asp  Interesting that no web page is listed.

MWPHGLofOK has been recognized by GLofOK since 2004 and is thus regular -

http://bessel.org/masrec/phachart.htm

MWPHGLofOK is not yet recognized by UGLE showing that regularity and recognition are not automatically the same thing -

http://www.ugle.org.uk/about/foreign-grand-lodges  See the North America tab.


----------



## VW jubelum (May 21, 2015)

"MWPHGLofOK is recognized by all US PHA jurisdictions and is thus regular -"

dont get me wrong brother, its already a known fact that all PHA's recognize each other in the US,is that alone proof of regularity?

"MWPHGLofOK has been recognized by GLofOK since 2004 and is thus regular -"

i have been to this site before bessel.org , and was skeptical at first, so if most but not all PHA masons are already recognized
by their mainstream counterparts and thus are all regular, would it be safe to say that all PHA masons are considered mainstream?

"MWPHGLofOK is not yet recognized by UGLE showing that regularity and recognition are not automatically the same thing "

can you elaborate on this bro MWPHGLOK is regular but not recognized?


----------



## Glen Cook (May 21, 2015)

Prince Hall of Oklahoma is recognized by the Grand Lodge of Oklahoma and other Prince Hall Grand Lodges.   They simply aren't in amity  at this time with United Grand Lodge of  England.   Such Amity is not required for regularity. 

Another example: many grand lodges are not in Amity with the Grand Lodge of Monaco. However, it is a regular Grand Lodge. Many Grand Lodges are not in amity with Malta.  It is also regular

 The Commission on Information on Recognition has previously provided it's opinion that Prince Hall Freemasonry is regular. See http://www.recognitioncommission.org/publish/2006/03/28/2006-commission-report/index.html

Note, that some grand lodges  prohibit members from attending Lodges which which are under Grand Lodges not recognized.  Because they are not recognized, they may be considered clandestine. Some grand lodges do not divide the question of regularity and recognition


----------



## dfreybur (May 21, 2015)

VW jubelum said:


> "MWPHGLofOK is recognized by all US PHA jurisdictions and is thus regular -"
> 
> dont get me wrong brother, its already a known fact that all PHA's recognize each other in the US,is that alone proof of regularity?



Notice that there are a ton of jurisdictions that use Prince Hall in their names but that do not have regular origins.  It is an important step that there be recognition among the members of this branch of our family because it serves as a filter to easily eliminate clandestine jurisdictions from consideration.

As to being sufficient proof in an of itself, no.  There are clusters of jurisdictions that are not regular but that do recognize each other, like female only Masonic jurisdictions that aren't regular.

That's why I added extra steps.



> "MWPHGLofOK has been recognized by GLofOK since 2004 and is thus regular -"
> 
> i have been to this site before bessel.org , and was skeptical at first, so if most but not all PHA masons are already recognized
> by their mainstream counterparts and thus are all regular, would it be safe to say that all PHA masons are considered mainstream?



Both branches of our family in the US predate the country so both branches are "mainstream" but the word does not have a useful definition.  What matters are regularity (ability for other jurisdictions to recognize) and recognition (ability of members to visit).



> "MWPHGLofOK is not yet recognized by UGLE showing that regularity and recognition are not automatically the same thing "
> 
> can you elaborate on this bro MWPHGLOK is regular but not recognized?



Regular means they follow all of the landmarks, have a valid lineage from the mother jurisdictions, probably some other requirements.  They could, and should, be recognized on request.  I remember in California MWPHGLofCA+HI was declared regular a few years before there was recognition.  It was part of our process.

Recognized, in addition to requiring regularity, requires either jurisdiction to have acknowledged the other.  At it's best recognition is mutual but that's not always the case.  At its best recognition is by request but that's not always the case.  Recognition happens by vote or delegates at communication and/or by edict.

Often when a jurisdiction is founded someone goes on a world tour asking for recognition.  I remember a brother from Latvia at one GL I attended.

In the US some jurisdictions issue blanket recognition.  The bessel.org web site is no longer maintained so it has a list of jurisdictions that issue blanket recognition as of the point its maintenance stopped.  At least MWPHGLofAR now does blanket recognition -

Since GLofTX and MWPHGLofTX recognize each other, MWPHGLofAR recognizes both by the blanket.  Whether GLofTX returns the recognition or not.  Because GLofAR does not recognize MWPHGLorAR, GLofTX does not return their recognition.  It's not mutual yet.  Blanket recognition works that way so it does not have to be mutual.  In this case most GLofXX jurisdictions only recognize when the local jurisdictions recognize each other so it's definitely not returned.  I don't think it's returned by any GLofXX jurisdiction.  I think it was a smart strategy by MWPHGLofAR to issue the invitation.

Mutual recognition is interesting.  California offered mutual recognition to nearly all PHA jurisdictions.  I've bugged the Gr Sec about the rest but this year I missed the deadline to submit legislation to force a correction.  Only about half of PHA jurisdictions have returned the offer.  So far.  If California were my only jurisdiction I could present myself to many PHA jurisdictions and it would be up to them to figure out if they can accept me.


----------



## middle east traveller (May 21, 2015)

that is a very very elaborate explanation regarding  recognition, regularity and amity relations thank you very much for sharing your knowledge regarding this matter brother.

going back to the original question about MWPHGLOK lodges here in the middle east, another reason i made this query is because i know a couple of filipino nationals that was raised in iraq a few years back under the MWPHGLOK in military bases, the lodges in iraq are of course gone and the filipinos are back in the philippines, there is no mutual recognition or amity relations between the MWGLP and the MWPHGLOK, so they are currently in a so called lodge of holding (which i dont understand what that is) they are still sending their dues to oklahoma every year.

I can imagine that it would be very frustrating to be in their situation being raised in a blue lodge and also going through all the appendant bodies in iraq only to come home to their home country and find out that they cannot communicate masonicly with their home country bretheren nor even enter any regular lodge in the philippines and receive the basic rights and benefits of being a mason

hence now they are they are now questioning the validity of their own jurisdiction

should they continue to send their dues every year?

can anyone give any brotherly advise to these disgruntled bretheren?


----------



## dfreybur (May 21, 2015)

middle east traveller said:


> going back to the original question about MWPHGLOK lodges here in the middle east, another reason i made this query is because i know a couple of filipino nationals that was raised in iraq a few years back under the MWPHGLOK in military bases, the lodges in iraq are of course gone and the filipinos are back in the philippines, there is no mutual recognition or amity relations between the MWGLP and the MWPHGLOK, so they are currently in a so called lodge of holding (which i dont understand what that is) they are still sending their dues to oklahoma every year.



Argh.  Recognition issues.  They either have to go through their degrees again (lodges are very generous about proficiencies for these brothers) or "healing" which is learning an extra proficiency or wait for recognition.

Recognition is slow but it should be possible.  Grand Lodge of Philippines works closely with Grand Lodge of California.  There are a lot of shared members and much travel between the lodges.  GLofCA recognizes MWPHGLofOK.  They should be willing to recognize each other if requested.  But recognition often takes a couple of years.  Worse, because MWPHGLofOK has not requested recognition by United Grand Lodge of England it's not certain to happen.  Is it worth 2-3 years for a process that only has an 80-90% chance of happening?

I suggest they offer to go through their degrees again.  It's going to be faster.Send a letter of Demit to their OK lodge the day their degrees are scheduled.


----------



## middle east traveller (May 21, 2015)

believe it or not brother when i told them about the option of taking the degrees of masonry again for the second time, they looked at me like i had a penis growing on my forehead and looked at me with disgust, (pardon my language) , call it pride who wants to take the degrees again right? 

on the other hand if they want it that bad they have to bite the bullet i guess,


----------



## dfreybur (May 22, 2015)

Active members do it all the time at practices, but suggest that someone do it on a scheduled degree night and the reaction is totally different.  It's weird how that happens.

Do they want to fix the problem (several years of work and it still might not succeed) or do they want to get over the hurdle?  It's noble to solve the problem but I question if it's worth it.  Get over the hurdle.  Go through the line so you have a vote at GL.  Submit legislation to recognize your original jurisdiction.  When your proposal gets tot he floor tell the brief version of your tale so the delegates know it is a real issue that actually happened not a theoretical issue that has not happened.

That's the sale pitch I'd use.  Which includes inviting a brother into the line.  Funny how that little bit got inserted into the process.  ;^)


----------



## middle east traveller (May 22, 2015)

got word from the MWGLP and they are firm on their stand, regarding filipino prince hall masons who want to be 
recognized by the most worshipful grand lodge of the philippines, they have to start from zero , they have to start from the beginning and take the 
degrees of masonry also all their appendant bodies which they received from MWPHGLOK is not recognized, they are S.O.L.


----------



## Katiponero (Aug 5, 2015)

Good day sir, I just have a few question, what happen if this Prince Hall mason create a GL in this said country, for there is no existing GL? Is there any rules regarding the territorial jurisdiction within the counter part GL or mainstream GL? as far as i know 3 lodges can create a GL, correct me if am wrong sir, Good day and God Bless.


----------



## dfreybur (Aug 5, 2015)

To create a local GL in a region not previously covered by its own GL, it takes 3 or more lodges all from regular and recognized jurisdictions.

The problem with MWPHGLofOK is they don't seem to have applied to UGLE for recognition.  Very many GLs follow the example of UGLE when it comes to recognition so very many GLs do not recognize these OK chartered lodges.  I figure nearly everyone will agree that they are regular as they trace their lineage to African 459 and from them to the Premier GL of England.  Plus they are recognized by GLofOK and thus many other US lodges.  But to be a founding lodge of a new jurisdiction it behooves your parent jurisdiction to petition UGLE for recognition.

OK PHA brothers - Is there a reason your GL has not yet requested recognition from UGLE?  It should be a rubber stamp approval at this point.

Maybe it's specifically because MWPHGLofOK is so aggressive chartering new lodges - They have less to worry about invader status.


----------



## VW jubelum (Aug 5, 2015)

_OK PHA brothers - Is there a reason your GL has not yet requested recognition from UGLE? It should be a rubber stamp approval at this point.

Maybe it's specifically because MWPHGLofOK is so aggressive chartering new lodges - They have less to worry about invader status._
_
Great question brother, i spoke with a brother from the ugle and yes MWPHGLOK up til now, still has no recognition from the UGLE which is weird considering a majority of prince hall jurisdictions have already been granted recognition . It is not a secret that MWPHGLOK is notorious when comes chartering new lodges in countries where regular freemasonry is not accepted, that is why they have never even tried to seek recognition from the UGLE, for if they do, they know that would definitely be denied recognition 

for if you ask any PHOK mason why they are not recognized by the UGLE , they cant answer you, all they can tell you is that they are regular masons

because of certain questionable practices they have been accustomed to,
1. they aggressively charter new lodges everywhere in the world  with no regard for jurisdiction issues
2. their current grandmaster has been in office for more than 20 years,? need i say more
3. active recruitment when a lodge is opened

long story short i would never recommend anyone to take the degrees of masonry with them 
just my honest opinion bretheren_


----------



## Glen Cook (Aug 5, 2015)

W


VW jubelum said:


> _OK PHA brothers - Is there a reason your GL has not yet requested recognition from UGLE? It should be a rubber stamp approval at this point.
> 
> Maybe it's specifically because MWPHGLofOK is so aggressive chartering new lodges - They have less to worry about invader status.
> ...t is not a secret that MWPHGLOK is notorious when comes chartering new lodges in countries where regular freemasonry is not accepted, that is why they have never even tried to seek recognition from the UGLE, for if they do, they know that would definitely be denied recognition
> ...



where do you get this information?  Are you a PGM?  You don't sit on CIOR for CGMNA. You don't appear to be a UGLE mason.


----------



## Katiponero (Aug 6, 2015)

dfreybur said:


> To create a local GL in a region not previously covered by its own GL, it takes 3 or more lodges all from regular and recognized jurisdictions.



Then the answer is yes? they can create a GL in this said country (middle east) for their no existing GL, right? because this PHAOK is a regular and recognized jurisdiction  in the world, maybe there an exemption if the MM who travel don't know that kind of story or we can say less inform mason?     



> The problem with MWPHGLofOK is they don't seem to have applied to UGLE for recognition.  Very many GLs follow the example of UGLE when it comes to recognition so very many GLs do not recognize these OK chartered lodges.  I figure nearly everyone will agree that they are regular as they trace their lineage to African 459 and from them to the Premier GL of England.  Plus they are recognized by GLofOK and thus many other US lodges.  But to be a founding lodge of a new jurisdiction it behooves your parent jurisdiction to petition UGLE for recognition.



May be sir they are waiting for the right wave regarding this issue, success don't need much time for less the informed, right?


----------



## Katiponero (Aug 6, 2015)

VW jubelum said:


> Great question brother, i spoke with a brother from the ugle and yes MWPHGLOK up til now, still has no recognition from the UGLE which is weird considering a majority of prince hall jurisdictions have already been granted recognition . It is not a secret that MWPHGLOK is notorious when comes chartering new lodges in countries where regular freemasonry is not accepted, that is why they have never even tried to seek recognition from the UGLE, for if they do, they know that would definitely be denied recognition



Sir don't be rude,you are questioning the right of your brother, you are mason right? temperance sir =)
base on what I read MWPHGOK is just doing what is right, they making a lodge inside the US base and there is no existing GL, so what's the problem?more specially in middle east, if this other mainstream lodge can do that let it be.

May be sir wait until this all Prince Hall mason create a GL for them to work in a better working knowledge.



> _because of certain questionable practices they have been accustomed to,
> 1. they aggressively charter new lodges everywhere in the world  with no regard for jurisdiction issues
> 2. their current grandmaster has been in office for more than 20 years,? need i say more
> 3. active recruitment when a lodge is opened_



1. If this is happened, no mainstream GL in US can accept this so called PHA mason if they aggressively charter without the consent of there counter part
    lodge or GL, I meet same of PHA mason and there are so professional regarding there words, I think the main issue for this is racism, better know the history sir.

2. No mason can give there trust to the unworthy, right? even Grand Master have a hidden darkness, what do you think sir?

3. I think there's a phrase, 2B1ask1, there is no recruitment in masonry, em I right sir? 



> _long story short i would never recommend anyone to take the degrees of masonry with them
> just my honest opinion bretheren_



An individual opinion cannot speak as a whole, let your honest opinion be on your side and let them study and experience this
knowledge of light truth masonry, need further light sir? =)


----------



## Katiponero (Aug 6, 2015)

Glen Cook said:


> W
> 
> 
> where do you get this information?  Are you a PGM?  You don't sit on CIOR for CGMNA. You don't appear to be a UGLE mason.



May be sir an honest individual who want to share his opinion regarding Prince Hall mason.


----------



## dfreybur (Aug 6, 2015)

Katiponero said:


> Then the answer is yes? they can create a GL in this said country (middle east) for their no existing GL, right? because this PHAOK is a regular and recognized jurisdiction  in the world, maybe there an exemption if the MM who travel don't know that kind of story or we can say less inform mason?



It looks like you are asking that question hoping there is a clear binary/integer yes/no answer.  As suggested in the rest of the thread it's not completely clear cut.  The answer is very much a floating point number in between yes and no.

MWPHGLofOK is regular in origin and nearly all of their practices, but they are a bit too aggressive in chartering lodges in places where Masonry is banned.  The traditions allow chartering lodges in places where no Grand Lodge holds authority, but the traditions on chartering lodges where Masonry is banned are much more vague.  OK PHA are just a little bit rogue.  Just rogue enough that someone aggressive about Masonry like myself rather likes their practices.  Just rogue enough that someone more conservative about Masonry like the brothers who give advice on recognition might not like their practices.

For a group of lodges in a region to form their own Grand Lodge that will get recognized worldwide, those lodges have to be from jurisdictions that are BOTH regular AND recognized.  MWPHGLofOK is definitely regular.  But recognition of MWPHGLofOK is far from worldwide.  They have asked for and been granted recognition by many (most?) US GLs.  They have not asked for recognition from the Untied Grad Lodge of England UGLE.  Most GLs in the world follow the lead of UGLE for most recognition matters.  Not all, but most.  In general once UGLE recognizes so will almost everyone else.

I asked MWPHGLofOK brothers why they chose to not ask UGLE for recognition.  I did not expect a formally authoritative answer.  Sure enough the answer that was given was un-official and not authoritative.  It was much as I expected - Thanks!

There is even more floating point between the yes and the no if lodges do want to form their own GL.  The lodges chartered by OK PHA can turn in their charters and switch to a jurisdiction that is widely recognized, and then participate in forming a new GL.  The lodges charted by OK PHA can wait while other recognized jurisdictions have enough lodges to form a GL and then the OK PHA lodges can switch.  Either way it's more complex but it works.


----------



## dfreybur (Aug 6, 2015)

Untied Grad Lodge - Dyslexics of the whorled untie!


----------



## Glen Cook (Aug 6, 2015)

Really, no one knows why the Phillipines made the decision. This is really gross speculation.

May I provide another general view from one who  handles fraternal recognitions matters?

Recognition by UGLE is of no moment  in the decision making as to the regularity pf PHA masons. I have never heard voiced from CGMNA or the Home GLs  that PHAOK is too aggressive.  I have seen US GLs recognise GLs not in amity with UGLE.


----------



## Brother H (Dec 5, 2015)

Brethren,

MWPHGL of Oklahoma is not recognised by UGLE as you have said, but not even by some big mainstream Grand Lodges in USA.

Just had this question/discussion with a Master Mason belonging to QML#210, working under the Jurisdiction of the above mentuon GL, District 15.
Fraternally,


----------



## Glen Cook (Dec 5, 2015)

Brother H said:


> Brethren,
> 
> MWPHGL of Oklahoma is not recognised by UGLE as you have said, but not even by some big mainstream Grand Lodges in USA.
> 
> ...


Again, recognition by UGLE is not determinative. PHA GLs are considered regular and PHA OK is in amity with its State GL counterpart.


----------



## Keith D. McKeever Jr. (Feb 3, 2016)

dfreybur said:


> Notice that there are a ton of jurisdictions that use Prince Hall in their names but that do not have regular origins.  It is an important step that there be recognition among the members of this branch of our family because it serves as a filter to easily eliminate clandestine jurisdictions from consideration.
> 
> As to being sufficient proof in an of itself, no.  There are clusters of jurisdictions that are not regular but that do recognize each other, like female only Masonic jurisdictions that aren't regular.
> 
> ...


This is great information!!  I am from District #1 of MWPHGLofSC and I just recently got out here to Bagram, Afghanistan and I was looking to travel to other houses with-in the MWPHGLofOK, but wanted to make sure that I am able to so.  I was talking to my Manager who is also out of MWPHGLofOK and said everything is good and I should have no problems being conferred.


----------



## dfreybur (Feb 3, 2016)

Keith D. McKeever Jr. said:


> This is great information!!  I am from District #1 of MWPHGLofSC and I just recently got out here to Bagram, Afghanistan and I was looking to travel to other houses with-in the MWPHGLofOK, but wanted to make sure that I am able to so.  I was talking to my Manager who is also out of MWPHGLofOK and said everything is good and I should have no problems being conferred.



See this link http://www.conferenceofgrandmasterspha.org/gjlinks.asp for a list of PHA jurisdictions that all recognize each other.  MWPHGLofOK and MWPHGLofSC are both on the list.  You should be good to pass the tiler and attend members only meetings.


----------



## Bloke (Feb 3, 2016)

Glen Cook said:


> Again, recognition by UGLE is not determinative. PHA GLs are considered regular and PHA OK is in amity with its State GL counterpart.



Hi Glen

I note 


Glen Cook said:


> Well, not always. As an example, though there was no GL of Lebanon, NY suspended relations with D.C. when D.C. chartered a lodge there without permission of NY and Scotland. See http://freemasonsfordummies.blogspot.com/2008/11/gl-of-new-york-suspends-amity-with-gl.html
> 
> Also, just to clarify, though a GL may be formed, the prior GLs may continue to have lodges there.



My first thought was that sounds like sour grapes but thanks for the link. I checked it. "_Further, the charter was issued *in the name of several Masons who are under formal suspension from the GLofNY.*  According to the GLofNY, both actions run afoul of rules of the Conference of Grand Masters of North America, and of generally recognized Masonic jurisprudence_." 

Chartering a lodge with a petition for a warrant carrying names of suspended members ... then having recognition pulled sounds fair and correct. Seems a last resort though..

However I am wondering about "both actions run afoul" - does this means now that it is  "first in best dressed" in relation to new lodges in an area where there is no GL ? It GL's have sovereignty (they do) then why would they need to check if another GL has lodges in an area where there is no GL ? Just interested. I understand that these days of modern communication is not the same as in the past where it could take months to get a warrant, and thinking has obviously changed sine the 1800's. I guess I am interested in the Evolution of that from your perspective..


----------



## Bloke (Feb 3, 2016)

Katiponero said:


> 3. I think there's a phrase, 2B1ask1, there is no recruitment in masonry, em I right sir?



Not so here. It differs from jurisdiction to jurisdiction regardless of regularity.


----------



## BroBook (Feb 3, 2016)

We do understand, that we are MASONS, even if we don't / can't visit RIGHT!!!


----------



## Keith D. McKeever Jr. (Feb 3, 2016)

dfreybur said:


> See this link http://www.conferenceofgrandmasterspha.org/gjlinks.asp for a list of PHA jurisdictions that all recognize each other.  MWPHGLofOK and MWPHGLofSC are both on the list.  You should be good to pass the tiler and attend members only meetings.


I greatly appreciate it Brother!!


----------



## acjohnson53 (Mar 1, 2016)

Them Oklahoma Masons are putting in Work, I was raised an Oklahoma Mason while stationed in Germany in the early 90's...Other Jurisdiction's have a strong presence outside the United States, Maryland, Georgia etc..


----------



## acjohnson53 (Mar 1, 2016)

Reading some of those passed were deep. in a nut shell what he said...SMH..Couldn't explain it any better...


----------



## Dontrell Stroman (Mar 1, 2016)

acjohnson53 said:


> Them Oklahoma Masons are putting in Work, I was raised an Oklahoma Mason while stationed in Germany in the early 90's...Other Jurisdiction's have a strong presence outside the United States, Maryland, Georgia etc..


What do you mean by strong presence ? Is the MWPHGL of GA operating outside the US ? And you were raised in a PHA Oklahoma lodge in Germany, did you have to demit once you got back to the states or did you hail from Oklahoma originally ?


----------



## acjohnson53 (Mar 3, 2016)

I demitted when I came back to the States. I now reside in California.. There is nothing wrong with demitting to another jurisdiction, because when you just visit you have know rights. All you are doing is keeping up on your Masonry skills. Once you demit you allow yourself to vote, and have a voice in the Lodge..As a dues card carrying member....Trust me I love the jurisdiction I hailed from, but change is good...


----------



## Ripcord22A (Mar 3, 2016)

acjohnson53 said:


> I demitted when I came back to the States. I now reside in California.. There is nothing wrong with demitting to another jurisdiction, because when you just visit you have know rights. All you are doing is keeping up on your Masonry skills. Once you demit you allow yourself to vote, and have a voice in the Lodge..As a dues card carrying member....Trust me I love the jurisdiction I hailed from, but change is good...


 
I know there are some jurisdictions that only aloow you to be amember of one lodge or one jurisdiction.  I have been lucky enough that my home jurisdiction and the one that i moved to allow plural/dual memberships.  Check with your Secretary of the jurisdiction you are leaving and the one you are going to and see if they allow it, if not then you have to make a choice....demit and join the new lodge or keep membership in your mother jurisdiction and just be an active visitor in your new jurisdiction.


----------



## Dontrell Stroman (Mar 3, 2016)

jdmadsenCraterlake211 said:


> I know there are some jurisdictions that only aloow you to be amember of one lodge or one jurisdiction.  I have been lucky enough that my home jurisdiction and the one that i moved to allow plural/dual memberships.  Check with your Secretary of the jurisdiction you are leaving and the one you are going to and see if they allow it, if not then you have to make a choice....demit and join the new lodge or keep membership in your mother jurisdiction and just be an active visitor in your new jurisdiction.


I don't know of any PH GL that allows plural membership.


----------



## Bloke (Mar 3, 2016)

We (UGLV) allow plural membership - of any lodge under any regular jurisdiction..


----------



## acjohnson53 (Mar 3, 2016)

That''s one thing i know in Prince Hall Masonry you can't be a member in two different Jurisdictions at the same time...That is the purpose of the demit


----------



## Mindovermatter Ace (Mar 8, 2016)

acjohnson53 said:


> That''s one thing i know in Prince Hall Masonry you can't be a member in two different Jurisdictions at the same time...That is the purpose of the demit



That's not true. There are some Prince Hall jurisdictions that allow dual membership. Many PHA jurisdictions don't.


----------



## Mindovermatter Ace (Mar 8, 2016)

Keith D. McKeever Jr. said:


> I greatly appreciate it Brother!!


This is not a list of recognition but merely a list of Prince Hall Grand Lodges. Also, not all Prince Hall Grand Lodges recognize each other anymore.


----------



## Dontrell Stroman (Mar 8, 2016)

Mindovermatter Ace said:


> That's not true. There are some Prince Hall jurisdictions that allow dual membership. Many PHA jurisdictions don't.


Please name  PHA GL's that allow plural membership. And what PHA Grand lodges does not recognize each other ?


----------



## MRichard (Mar 12, 2016)

Travelling Man91 said:


> Please name  PHA GL's that allow plural membership. And what PHA Grand lodges does not recognize each other ?



MWPHGLMN and I have also heard Delaware, Rhode Island, and Ohio. I am pretty sure about MN. A Prince Hall mason told me about the others so I can only take his word. 

There are six PHA grand lodges that don't recognize the PHA grand lodge in Louisiana. I believe I showed you documentation in a private message on here.


----------



## Dontrell Stroman (Mar 12, 2016)

MRichard said:


> MWPHGLMN and I have also heard Delaware, Rhode Island, and Ohio. I am pretty sure about MN. A Prince Hall mason told me about the others so I can only take his word.
> 
> There are six PHA grand lodges that don't recognize the PHA grand lodge in Louisiana. I believe I showed you documentation in a private message on here.


Than you. I believe you did


----------



## The Traveling Man (Mar 13, 2016)

MRichard said:


> MWPHGLMN and I have also heard Delaware, Rhode Island, and Ohio. I am pretty sure about MN. A Prince Hall mason told me about the others so I can only take his word.
> 
> There are six PHA grand lodges that don't recognize the PHA grand lodge in Louisiana. I believe I showed you documentation in a private message on here.



I have never heard of this. Is there an official statement from a Grand Lodge or a site I can go to to read more on this?


----------



## MRichard (Mar 13, 2016)

The Traveling Man said:


> I have never heard of this. Is there an official statement from a Grand Lodge or a site I can go to to read more on this?



Which statement are you referring to?


----------



## The Traveling Man (Mar 13, 2016)

I was referring to PHA Grand Lodges not recognizing other PHA Grand Lodges.


----------



## Dontrell Stroman (Mar 19, 2016)

Question : Can a GL be clandestine but regular ?

Sent from my 831C using My Freemasonry Pro mobile app


----------



## The Traveling Man (Mar 20, 2016)

Travelling Man91 said:


> Question : Can a GL be clandestine but regular ?



I don't believe a GL can be Clandestine and Regular, but one can be Regular but Unrecognized,  Irregular but Legitimate, or Irregular in Initiation but Regular in practice...

Then again that also depends on someones interpretation of Clandestine and Regular (as well as irregular, recognition, etc.)


----------



## dfreybur (Mar 20, 2016)

Travelling Man91 said:


> Question : Can a GL be clandestine but regular ?



Maybe in theory.  Clandestine lodges are generally forces for good in their communities.  The majority of members do not know of their clandestine status or they would have joined a regular lodge in the first place.  Since clandestine jurisdictions jurisdictions tend to use published ritual and reference well known books about Masonry they can observe those landmarks not about lineage. 

The treatment for clandestine status is about lineage not about landmarks.  Many clandestinely raised brothers can be healed to regular Brothers.  We have a number of Brothers on this board who are shining examples of this process.  An entire lodge can apply for a charter with a regular jurisdiction and be healed.  I read rumors that this has happened but such an event would be understandably under heralded.  A clandestine jurisdiction could request consolidation into a regular jurisdiction to heal all of their lodges and members.


----------



## Dontrell Stroman (Mar 20, 2016)

That's where I was going with it. Clandestine meaning no lineage, but regular because they follow the same rituals and ancient landmarks.

Sent from my 831C using My Freemasonry Pro mobile app


----------



## Glen Cook (Mar 20, 2016)

Travelling Man91 said:


> Question : Can a GL be clandestine but regular ?
> 
> Sent from my 831C using My Freemasonry Pro mobile app


Well, PHA is regular. However, GLs which _define _clandestine as a GL which is unrecognized, present the situation of clandestine but regular.


----------



## Dontrell Stroman (Mar 21, 2016)

Bro. Cook, if you would please define "regular" in layman's terms please 

Sent from my 831C using My Freemasonry Pro mobile app


----------



## Ripcord22A (Mar 21, 2016)

TM91 see above for explainations


----------



## Dontrell Stroman (Mar 21, 2016)

jdmadsenCraterlake211 said:


> TM91 see above for explainations


I'm trying to understand what makes a GL regular, is it following ancient landmarks or certain rituals ?


----------



## Ripcord22A (Mar 21, 2016)

A regular GL is on that follows the landmarks.  You  cannot be a reg GL if you admit women, athiests ect ect.  there are plenty of bogus GLs that are regular but are not the true GL in their jurisdiction.  Plain and simple if it is not the GLoSTATE(AF&AM, F&AM, FAAMofDC, AFMofSC) or the MWPHGLofState with the Stringer and Union exception(F&AM, Or AF&AM of Libera)  If a GL claims to be PHA and are AF&AM they are automatically clandestine.  Now they may be regular but are clandestine.

general Rule of thumb:

Clandestine: No valid lineage

Regular: Follows landmarks

Recognized: the GL of a jurisdiction that other regular and recognized GLs recognized as the valid jurisdiction in that area. 
Inorder to be Regular and recognized a GL must be able to trace its Lineage to some GL that can track its lineage to the UGLE or the lodges that formed it. and be regular in its workings.

Now each jurisdiction has its definition of those words so call your Sec or GrSec and ask him.


----------



## Glen Cook (Mar 21, 2016)

jdmadsenCraterlake211 said:


> A regular GL is on that follows the landmarks.  You  cannot be a reg GL if you admit women, athiests ect ect.  there are plenty of bogus GLs that are regular but are not the true GL in their jurisdiction.  Plain and simple if it is not the GLoSTATE(AF&AM, F&AM, FAAMofDC, AFMofSC) or the MWPHGLofState with the Stringer and Union exception(F&AM, Or AF&AM of Libera)  If a GL claims to be PHA and are AF&AM they are automatically clandestine.  Now they may be regular but are clandestine.
> 
> general Rule of thumb:
> 
> ...


These definitions are not necessarily accepted. For some, a GL which is irregular is by definition clandestine. For instance, if you admit women, you are considered clandestine by these GLs.

Really, there is no need to be hung up on these definitions. The issue is whether they meet the criteria for recognition and leave it at that.

It would be better to refer to the Standards for Recognition used by CGMNA and the Principles of Recognition used by UGLE. The citations have previously been provided.

A GL could also trace back to Scotland or Ireland.

As noted, PHA Liberia is AF&AM.


----------



## Ripcord22A (Mar 21, 2016)

Glen Cook said:


> These definitions are not necessarily accepted. For some, a GL which is irregular is by definition clandestine. For instance, if you admit women, you are considered clandestine.
> 
> Really, there is no need to be hung up on these definitions. The issue is whether the meet the criteria for recognition and leave it at that.
> 
> ...


 
Much better explaination my Brother!!


----------



## rjxhanjj (Jan 5, 2018)

Hi there, if this is true...I need to continue my petition and later on earn a degree to be a full pledged MM. I am from the Philippines when I knock in the Grand Lodge of Free and Accepted Masons in the Philippines way back 2014, however, opportunity knocks for me in Abu Dhabi (+971 58 994 6711; kindly call if you are in Abu Dhabi or in Dubai right now) since I am a family man. Once you have read this, kindly inform me ASAP!. Thank you brothers...- John Raey Resumadero


----------



## rjxhanjj (Jan 5, 2018)

middle east traveller said:


> I have been traveling all over the middle east for quite some time now , and i have noticed that a majority of lodges from
> dubai , saudi, iraq , qatar , afghanistan all operate under the jurisdiction of the MW prince hall lodge of oklahoma, Im just curious on how this came to be.
> 
> When did these middle east countries become part of oklahoma jurisdiction?
> ...


====

Hi there, if this is true...I need to continue my petition and later on earn a degree to be a full pledged MM. I am from the Philippines when I knock in the Grand Lodge of Free and Accepted Masons in the Philippines way back 2014, however, opportunity knocks for me in Abu Dhabi (+971 58 994 6711; kindly call if you are in Abu Dhabi or in Dubai right now) since I am a family man. Once you have read this, kindly inform me ASAP!. Thank you brothers...- John Raey Resumadero


----------



## acjohnson53 (Jan 7, 2018)

MWPHGLOK is keeping Brothers working, and jumping at every opportunity to leave their mark on Masonry. I was raised an Oklahoma Mason in the early 90's in Germany...And loving every minute of it.


----------



## BRO RUNDAY (Aug 25, 2019)

Just an update Brethren  mwglofok has an amity with UGLE....


----------



## TonyT2020 (Mar 21, 2020)

Mindovermatter Ace said:


> That's not true. There are some Prince Hall jurisdictions that allow dual membership. Many PHA jurisdictions don't.


This is good and new information to me. Is there a location that you can direct me to that would have a list of MWPHGL(s) that allow dual/multiple memberships?


----------



## TonyT2020 (Mar 21, 2020)

MRichard said:


> MWPHGLMN and I have also heard Delaware, Rhode Island, and Ohio. I am pretty sure about MN. A Prince Hall mason told me about the others so I can only take his word.
> 
> There are six PHA grand lodges that don't recognize the PHA grand lodge in Louisiana. I believe I showed you documentation in a private message on here.


The MWPHGLofLA situation seems to be rectified. Over the last few months I've seen a few Grand Lodges re-establish recognition... it was not recognized from 2015 to early 2020.


----------



## Glen Cook (Mar 21, 2020)

TonyT2020 said:


> This is good and new information to me. Is there a location that you can direct me to that would have a list of MWPHGL(s) that allow dual/multiple memberships?


That's a four year old post.  He may not be watching.  

On FB, you can go to the Prince Hall Think Tank group and ask.


----------

