# Grand Lodge of Alabama and PH Grand Lodge of Alabama



## goomba (Nov 14, 2017)

I don't know all the details but today the Grand Lodge of Alabama and the Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Alabama officially recognize each other.  However, at this time there is no visitation between the grand jurisdictions or their members.  As a former Mason of the Grand Lodge of Alabama this is great news.  I heard the vote wasn't even close and the estimate was around 90% in favor.


----------



## MarkR (Nov 15, 2017)

I just don't understand the concept of "recognition without visitation."  What is the point of that?  Has that ever been done between a U.S. Grand Lodge and a Grand Lodge of any country?  If you can't sit in lodge with each other, are you really recognized?


----------



## goomba (Nov 15, 2017)

MarkR said:


> I just don't understand the concept of "recognition without visitation."  What is the point of that?  Has that ever been done between a U.S. Grand Lodge and a Grand Lodge of any country?  If you can't sit in lodge with each other, are you really recognized?


It was said the PH GM insisted on this provision. My gut tells me it's the method they use to calm the objections of some closed minded Masons.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk


----------



## Mosaic (Nov 15, 2017)

MarkR said:


> I just don't understand the concept of "recognition without visitation."  What is the point of that?  Has that ever been done between a U.S. Grand Lodge and a Grand Lodge of any country?  If you can't sit in lodge with each other, are you really recognized?



There are a lot of people on both sides that are not pleased with this outcome. You'd have to live here to fully understand why it was approached this way. 

Alabama still has Master Masons who were very much alive and well in the 40s, 50s and 60s. Allowing intervisitation from day 1 would likely cause too much confusion in the temple. 

As I understand, both GLs did this with the understanding that visitation would be a future goal. 

"Wait with patience..."


----------



## CLewey44 (Nov 15, 2017)

I heard about this today also. Hopefully it'll cull out any of the racists 'brethren' still hanging around.


----------



## coachn (Nov 15, 2017)

Where ya'll hearing all this?


----------



## goomba (Nov 15, 2017)

Various private Facebook groups and lecturers in Alabama. 

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk


----------



## Warrior1256 (Nov 15, 2017)

MarkR said:


> I just don't understand the concept of "recognition without visitation."





MarkR said:


> If you can't sit in lodge with each other, are you really recognized?


That's the way it was here in Kentucky until last year when both GLs voted to allow visitation.


goomba said:


> My gut tells me it's the method they use to calm the objections of some closed minded Masons.


Hadn't thought of this but it makes sense.


----------



## CLewey44 (Nov 15, 2017)

coachn said:


> Where ya'll hearing all this?


I done heard about it on that there internet.... lol


----------



## dfreybur (Nov 15, 2017)

MarkR said:


> I just don't understand the concept of "recognition without visitation."  What is the point of that?  Has that ever been done between a U.S. Grand Lodge and a Grand Lodge of any country?  If you can't sit in lodge with each other, are you really recognized?



Sometimes it happens early on so the GLs can exchange lists of member lodges, then get them all published in next year's List of Lodges Masonic.  I remember that happening when California recognition happened.  It took a bit under two years for the paperwork exchange to happen.  By then we already had a MWPHGLofCA lodge as a tenant in our building so our visit consisted of marching down the hall to the next room.  Very bizarre how different issues go through at different rates.  We'd gone straight to our mutual GLs when the PH lodge leased their building and wanted to be a tenant, so it went through in a few months after the recognition vote.  Yet neither of us was on the other's list to visit until a slower paperwork process settled.

One issue with making the change in a list of steps is the farther along the process you get, the more Brothers consider the issue resolved and lose interest.  This leads to assorted restrictions that no one ever bothers to resolve.

California - No cross affiliation.  Apparently because MWPHGLofCA is a single affiliation jurisdiction and they asked for it.  Unfortunately that detail got copied to every invitation for recognition GLofCA has sent.

Texas.  Extra form to be processed by both GrSec offices and voted on by both lodges before a member gets preapproved to visit.

These random seeming restrictions are why I favor just plain "full and traditional" recognition without details.  Any details result in a type of second class citizenship that runs in both directions.  To me it's unbecoming.  But if the step by step process happens, may as well celebrate at each step and keep submitting the paperwork for the next step.

I should react to this vote - Happy dance!


----------



## Warrior1256 (Nov 15, 2017)

dfreybur said:


> These random seeming restrictions are why I favor just plain "full and traditional" recognition without details. Any details result in a type of second class citizenship that runs in both directions. To me it's unbecoming. But if the step by step process happens, may as well celebrate at each step and keep submitting the paperwork for the next step.


Agreed. At least we are making progress, slow as it may be.


----------



## hanzosbm (Nov 15, 2017)

dfreybur said:


> Sometimes it happens early on so the GLs can exchange lists of member lodges, then get them all published in next year's List of Lodges Masonic.



Exactly.  I can just imagine day one, a man shows up and says "Hi, I'd like to visit your lodge, I'm from such and such a lodge with the Prince Hall Grand Lodge, here's my dues card".  Great.  What do you check that against?  Would you even know the difference between a valid dues card and monopoly money? I know I wouldn't.


----------



## MWS (Nov 15, 2017)

"Exactly. I can just imagine day one, a man shows up and says "Hi, I'd like to visit your lodge, I'm from such and such a lodge with the Prince Hall Grand Lodge, here's my dues card". Great. What do you check that against? Would you even know the difference between a valid dues card and monopoly money? I know I wouldn't."

They are still separate GL's, I'm sure the requirement would be to go up the chain through their Grand Sec. for visitation, no?


----------



## dfreybur (Nov 15, 2017)

hanzosbm said:


> Exactly.  I can just imagine day one, a man shows up and says "Hi, I'd like to visit your lodge, I'm from such and such a lodge with the Prince Hall Grand Lodge, here's my dues card".  Great.  What do you check that against?  Would you even know the difference between a valid dues card and monopoly money? I know I wouldn't.



It is often trivial to trace the chain of recognition.  We're on-line, so we will have learned how to figure out real versus fake web sites by looking them up in an authoritative list first not just doing a web search.  Find the exact name generally MWPHGLofSTate.  Look up in UGLE's list to get to their web site.  Look on their web site to find that particular lodge.  This method does not work every single time but it does most of the time.  This method is more reliable than looking them up in the printed List of Lodges Masonic as it's more up to date.

Then do a belt and suspenders double check.  Go to the Conference of Grand Masters Prince Hall site and look up the web site.  Confirm it's the same one as in the UGLE list.  By the way, this method is even more certain than the UGLE list as it lists all of the regular PHA jurisdictions that will ever have recognition.  It's just easier to start at UGLE because that's where to look up every world jurisdiction as a starting point.

Note to MWPHGLofAL - By now you Brothers have already mailed off the package requesting UGLE recognition, right?  ;^)

When it comes to dues cards, they have always been trivial to fake.  It's a check on how sincere the visitor is more than it is a check on actual identity.

Swearing the Tyler's test oath is the same.  Guys can lie, but what for?  To come watch us pay our bills, what a let down.


----------



## Brother JC (Nov 15, 2017)

GLCA posts a list of GLs it recognizes each year in the Proceedings of the Annual Communication, both foreign and domestic. It comes in handy when a visitor comes a’knocking.


----------



## goomba (Nov 15, 2017)

http://www.alafreemasonry.org/pages/announce.php

For Coach and the rest of you scoundrels.


----------



## hanzosbm (Nov 15, 2017)

goomba said:


> http://www.alafreemasonry.org/pages/announce.php
> 
> For Coach and the rest of you scoundrels.


"You like me because I'm a scoundrel. There aren't enough scoundrels in your life."


----------



## Warrior1256 (Nov 16, 2017)

goomba said:


> http://www.alafreemasonry.org/pages/announce.php
> 
> For Coach and the rest of you scoundrels.


Short, simple and to the point.


----------



## Glen Cook (Nov 16, 2017)

dfreybur said:


> It is often trivial to trace the chain of recognition.  We're on-line, so we will have learned how to figure out real versus fake web sites by looking them up in an authoritative list first not just doing a web search.  Find the exact name generally MWPHGLofSTate.  Look up in UGLE's list to get to their web site.  Look on their web site to find that particular lodge.  This method does not work every single time but it does most of the time.  This method is more reliable than looking them up in the printed List of Lodges Masonic as it's more up to date.
> 
> Then do a belt and suspenders double check.  Go to the Conference of Grand Masters Prince Hall site and look up the web site.  Confirm it's the same one as in the UGLE list.  By the way, this method is even more certain than the UGLE list as it lists all of the regular PHA jurisdictions that will ever have recognition.  It's just easier to start at UGLE because that's where to look up every world jurisdiction as a starting point.
> 
> ...


TBMK PHA OK has not requested UGLE recognition


----------



## dfreybur (Nov 20, 2017)

Glen Cook said:


> TBMK PHA OK has not requested UGLE recognition



It is often trivial to follow the chain of delegation.  But it's not always trivial.  The exceptions are rare enough that the method works nearly all the time.  The double check of the Conference of Grand Masters Prince Hall handles all exceptions, including Oklahoma.

The exceptions are interesting on their own.  The MWPHGLofOK, which has local recognition by most of the US GLs, does not mention on their web site why they have chosen to not request recognition from the United Grand Lodge of England.  As they sponsor lodges abroad I wonder if it's to have wider freedom in doing so.  Both they and UGLE tend to charter lodge in assorted countries.  If they exchanged recognition they would need to coordinate closely when doing so.  That's my speculation on the topic.


----------



## Bill Lins (Nov 20, 2017)

Mosaic said:


> You'd have to live here to fully understand why it was approached this way.


Not necessarily- a number of GLoS-PHA recognitions began the same way. Once the sky didn't fall, enlightened Brethren worked toward, and gained, the privileges of intervisitation. Much work remains to be done, however.


----------



## Bill Lins (Nov 20, 2017)

hanzosbm said:


> Exactly.  I can just imagine day one, a man shows up and says "Hi, I'd like to visit your lodge, I'm from such and such a lodge with the Prince Hall Grand Lodge, here's my dues card".  Great.  What do you check that against?  Would you even know the difference between a valid dues card and monopoly money? I know I wouldn't.


You would (and should be able to) handle it the exact same way you would handle ANY visitor from a different Grand Lodge- look up his Lodge in the List of Lodges Masonic. If listed therein, then examine him to ascertain that he is a Mason of the appropriate degree, and admit him.


----------



## Dontrell Stroman (Nov 21, 2017)

Bill Lins said:


> You would (and should be able to) handle it the exact same way you would handle ANY visitor from a different Grand Lodge- look up his Lodge in the List of Lodges Masonic. If listed therein, then examine him to ascertain that he is a Mason of the appropriate degree, and admit him.


Excatly. Brothers are making this more complicated than it needs to be. It would be no different if a brother from the GL of Russia came to visit. Same procedure.

Sent from my LG-LS997 using My Freemasonry mobile app


----------



## Warrior1256 (Nov 21, 2017)

Bill Lins said:


> You would (and should be able to) handle it the exact same way you would handle ANY visitor from a different Grand Lodge- look up his Lodge in the List of Lodges Masonic. If listed therein, then examine him to ascertain that he is a Mason of the appropriate degree, and admit him.





Travelling Man91 said:


> Excatly. Brothers are making this more complicated than it needs to be. It would be no different if a brother from the GL of Russia came to visit. Same procedure.


Good info! Thanks Brothers.


----------



## goomba (Nov 21, 2017)

I see it exactly the opposite. The PHA Grand Master wanted to play a hand he knew he'd win. So while it may be complicated it's just the right amount to accomplish the end goal.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk


----------



## Dontrell Stroman (Nov 21, 2017)

What did it accomplish ? Did it determine anything new that we didnt already know. "Your regular and were regular". Why not completely be in full recognition ?

Sent from my LG-LS997 using My Freemasonry mobile app


----------



## goomba (Nov 21, 2017)

Travelling Man91 said:


> What did it accomplish ? Did it determine anything new that we didnt already know. "Your regular and were regular". Why not completely be in full recognition ?
> 
> Sent from my LG-LS997 using My Freemasonry mobile app


It accomplished recognition.  As our brother said earlier you'd have to live there too understand how big of a deal this is.  Why not full visitation?  Because that would have been probably voted down. This is a win.

Not all places can take great leaps at a time. They have to get there in small steps. Why bash them for improvement?

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk


----------



## Dontrell Stroman (Nov 21, 2017)

Im not bashing. I live and im from the deep South brother. Im 20 minutes from Alabama. I have family in fort payne, huntsville, Courtland Alabama. It accomplished recognition ? Meaning to say we are Freemasons and you are Freemasons that's it. They can't even hold Masonic communication. I understand this is a small step but if they voted for recognition why couldn't they go ahead and vote on visitation what would be the issue on visitation. And its my understanding this was the issue on thr PH side.

Sent from my LG-LS997 using My Freemasonry mobile app


----------



## goomba (Nov 21, 2017)

A morbidly obese person loses five pounds and is on track to lose all their weight and be healthy years down the road.

Would we ask them "why don't you lose all 300 pounds today?" No we wouldn't ask them that.  We would understand it took a long time to get to 500 pounds and it will take a long time to get to a healthy weight.

This is the journey in Alabama.  It has been the journey in other states. The honest answer is none of our Masonic father's should have let this racial split happen. But they were human and not perfect.  So hundreds of years later the fix will not be quick but perfect. But hopefully the teachings of our Craft will prevail.

It wasn't until 2015 that a black man was raised in the Grand Lodge of Alabama.  Now in 2017 they and the PHA Grand Lodge recognize each other.  This is huge and wonderful. To treat it otherwise is to dismiss history and human nature.

Would I rather have an instant fix? No I'd rather Most Worshipful Prince Hall have been accepted into a lodge as any other man of good character.  But alas that I can't have.  So I'll take any progress that's possible to make the craft as a whole better.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk


----------



## Dontrell Stroman (Nov 21, 2017)

Im not debating the fact it's progress. Thats common sense. What was voted on to me is some what small. They voted to say we recognize you as Freemasons, but we cant treat you like our fellow Freemasons are treated. Im a realist not a pacifist

Sent from my LG-LS997 using My Freemasonry mobile app


----------



## Dontrell Stroman (Nov 21, 2017)

Furthermore to me its a way of continuing racism but pacify the mainstream. 

Sent from my LG-LS997 using My Freemasonry mobile app


----------



## Warrior1256 (Nov 22, 2017)

goomba said:


> It accomplished recognition. As our brother said earlier you'd have to live there too understand how big of a deal this is. Why not full visitation? Because that would have been probably voted down. This is a win.


I have to agree that this is a positive step forward. Kentucky did the same thing. First each of the GLs voted for mutual recognition. A couple of years later PHGL voted to extend visitation rights. The following year the GL of Kentucky did the same. Now the two are in complete amity.


----------



## Dontrell Stroman (Nov 22, 2017)

Warrior1256 said:


> I have to agree that this is a positive step forward. Kentucky did the same thing. First each of the GLs voted for mutual recognition. A couple of years later PHGL voted to extend visitation rights. The following year the GL of Kentucky did the same. Now the two are in complete amity.


I just cant fathom why not do the whole thing. Why wait ?

Sent from my LG-LS997 using My Freemasonry mobile app


----------



## Warrior1256 (Nov 22, 2017)

Travelling Man91 said:


> I just cant fathom why not do the whole thing. Why wait ?


In our case it was simply because both sides decided that it would be better to take the steps gradually and give everyone time to get used to the idea rather than "take the plunge" and risk one or both sides voting it down.


----------



## Dontrell Stroman (Nov 22, 2017)

If both are regular and recognized why would it get voted down? Is there documentation of GL of state lodges taking gradual steps back in the day to recognize each other and have full recognition with other GL of state lodges ?

Sent from my LG-LS997 using My Freemasonry mobile app


----------



## Warrior1256 (Nov 22, 2017)

Travelling Man91 said:


> If both are regular and recognized why would it get voted down? Is there documentation of GL of state lodges taking gradual steps back in the day to recognize each other and have full recognition with other GL of state lodges ?


Because racism still exists on both sides. In our case doing it the way we did brought about the desired and right results.


----------



## Dontrell Stroman (Nov 22, 2017)

I just cant fathom it man. Honestly it causes bitterness to me

Sent from my LG-LS997 using My Freemasonry mobile app


----------



## Warrior1256 (Nov 22, 2017)

Travelling Man91 said:


> I just cant fathom it man. Honestly it causes bitterness to me


I totally understand Brother. It causes sadness in me that we have to go through this rigamaroll simply to bring about the right and just results. But the good thing is that positive things are happening....slowly, but they ARE happening.


----------



## Brent Heilman (Nov 22, 2017)

Travelling Man91 said:


> I just cant fathom it man. Honestly it causes bitterness to me
> 
> Sent from my LG-LS997 using My Freemasonry mobile app


I can't understand it either. It boggles my mind how people can be that way when the ritual states we regard no man for the external, but for the internal. Why race can make a difference kills me.


----------



## CLewey44 (Nov 22, 2017)

I'm not touching this subject with a ten foot tyler's sword.


----------



## Dontrell Stroman (Nov 22, 2017)

Your right, it is sad but this is why young PHA brothers like myself come into freemasonry and learn that there is still segregation and are completely sidewiped and later in life resent southern  GL of state masons.

Sent from my LG-LS997 using My Freemasonry mobile app


----------



## Bill Lins (Nov 22, 2017)

Travelling Man91 said:


> Your right, it is sad but this is why young PHA brothers like myself come into freemasonry and learn that there is still segregation and are completely sidewiped and later in life resent southern  GL of state masons.


If such is the case, your ashlar is in dire need of further work.


----------



## Dontrell Stroman (Nov 22, 2017)

It is what it is. When you deal with racism from so called brothers for so long it hardens your heart some time.

Sent from my LG-LS997 using My Freemasonry mobile app


----------



## Dontrell Stroman (Nov 22, 2017)

Bill Lins said:


> If such is the case, your ashlar is in dire need of further work.


Bill Lins understand my statement wasnt directed towards non racist freemason, but rather the bigots that operate in darkeness

Sent from my LG-LS997 using My Freemasonry mobile app


----------



## goomba (Nov 22, 2017)

Travelling Man91 said:


> Your right, it is sad but this is why young PHA brothers like myself come into freemasonry and learn that there is still segregation and are completely sidewiped and later in life resent southern  GL of state masons.
> 
> Sent from my LG-LS997 using My Freemasonry mobile app


I'm on the other side of the fence and I agree 100% with you.  It's an absolute embarrassment that after hundreds of years this is still an issue.  I lost friends over this issue and almost cut ties with some family.  

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk


----------



## Dontrell Stroman (Nov 22, 2017)

It is sad. I have some good friends that are GL of State masons, but we are still at a distance considering our situation that we neither agree with. Your absolutely right, after 100 of years........ Thats why I say forget just a vote to recognize, vote for full recognition. Im ready to see our counterparts practice Freemasonry as well.

Sent from my LG-LS997 using My Freemasonry mobile app


----------



## Bro. David F. Hill (Nov 22, 2017)

I am old in years (60) but young in masonry.  I understand the frustration that our young brothers feel and I have felt the same way BUT I also have experienced overt and covert racism in my life.  Fortunately most of the younger generations haven't had to face it as much as my or my parents generations have.  Now to explain why baby steps had to be made.  In 2007 the GL of Texas and the PHGL of Texas agreed to recognition without visitation. This was done because the makeup of most Grand Lodges leans towards older members.  We have younger members joining but many of them don't attend Annual Sessions to be able to voice their opinions and vote.  This leaves the older members, many with lingering negative feelings and experiences, to determine the direction that the craft will go and they were and are comfortable with the separation.   When Texas finally approved visitation in 2016, there were some members from both sides that loudly voiced negative opinions about it. To change the culture thus move masonry forward, we need our our younger members to get involved.   Lead the change.


----------



## Ripcord22A (Nov 23, 2017)

Travelling Man91 said:


> Your right, it is sad but this is why young PHA brothers like myself come into freemasonry and learn that there is still segregation and are completely sidewiped and later in life resent southern  GL of state masons.
> 
> Sent from my LG-LS997 using My Freemasonry mobile app



But you you do realize that from my understanding, and know I️ have NEVER been present at a GL vote for PHA recognition as all my jurisdictions already have full recognition, but my understanding is in the last few recognition votes it was PHA that didn’t want visitation.  And in Texas it was PHA who wanted that confounded system of approval to visit.  PHAoOK has had local recognition but still hasn’t requested UGLE recognition, why?

PHA is just as if not more guilty of overt and covert racism then the state GLs.  So before you resent someone make sure you look in the mirror at your own side of the family tree my brother!


----------



## Dontrell Stroman (Nov 23, 2017)

I beg to differ. It doesnt make you racist just because a group of people over 400 years were racist to you and now you are uneasy about them. I have looked in the mirror and what I see is mainly PHA just trying to get a little progress because they know what type of battle they are fighting

Sent from my LG-LS997 using My Freemasonry mobile app


----------



## Bro. David F. Hill (Nov 23, 2017)

That's what I said. Many people that have never been the object of discrimination don't understand what these older people feel. Fortunately our younger members have not faced Jim Crow laws or have been attacked by racist groups.  But our older members have and they still carry the anger and hurt. Our future is our younger members but there's still many older ones on both sides that harbor negative feelings. Some have passed their views on to the younger generation but fortunately the number that feels that way is dwindling.

Sent from my SM-G955U using My Freemasonry mobile app


----------



## Warrior1256 (Nov 23, 2017)

Bro. David F. Hill said:


> Our future is our younger members but there's still many older ones on both sides that harbor negative feelings. Some have passed their views on to the younger generation but fortunately the number that feels that way is dwindling.


True, but the way things are slowly coming about gives me great hope.


----------



## Dontrell Stroman (Nov 23, 2017)

Bro. David F. Hill said:


> That's what I said. Many people that have never been the object of discrimination don't understand what these older people feel. Fortunately our younger members have not faced Jim Crow laws or have been attacked by racist groups.  But our older members have and they still carry the anger and hurt. Our future is our younger members but there's still many older ones on both sides that harbor negative feelings. Some have passed their views on to the younger generation but fortunately the number that feels that way is dwindling.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G955U using My Freemasonry mobile app


Yes the younger generation has not experienced as much as the older generation, but that is not to take anything away from what is still going on. Although I understand the Era they faced, I still dont see how many white GL justify it as if they were the ones being oppressed. They were the oppressors.

Sent from my LG-LS997 using My Freemasonry mobile app


----------



## Warrior1256 (Nov 23, 2017)

Well....I have made my feelings known on the matter. I hope that everyone understands that I wish only the best for everyone, especially my Brothers. Therefore, this is my last post on this subject.


----------



## hanzosbm (Nov 27, 2017)

Bill Lins said:


> You would (and should be able to) handle it the exact same way you would handle ANY visitor from a different Grand Lodge- look up his Lodge in the List of Lodges Masonic. If listed therein, then examine him to ascertain that he is a Mason of the appropriate degree, and admit him.


I think you're missing my point.  At this time, there is no List of Lodges Masonic that include this particular PHA Grand Lodge.  A list of the those lodges would need to be provided from the PHA Grand Lodge then new Lists of Lodges Masonic would need to be printed and distributed to all of the lodges in that jurisdiction.  That takes time.  And until that is completed, you can't tell who is from a legitimate Prince Hall Lodge and who is not, so allowing a visitor becomes difficult.
Yes, they could do the wonderful Grand Secretary correspondence dance, but we all know that's a nightmare and I can only imagine that large number of Masons from both sides simultaneously submitting requests would make the two Grand Secretaries' heads explode.


----------



## Bill Lins (Nov 27, 2017)

hanzosbm said:


> I think you're missing my point.  At this time, there is no List of Lodges Masonic that include this particular PHA Grand Lodge.  A list of the those lodges would need to be provided from the PHA Grand Lodge then new Lists of Lodges Masonic would need to be printed and distributed to all of the lodges in that jurisdiction.  That takes time.  And until that is completed, you can't tell who is from a legitimate Prince Hall Lodge and who is not, so allowing a visitor becomes difficult.


Perhaps they should follow GLoTX's lead. Before PHA-TX was included in the List of Lodges Masonic, PHA-TX provided all GLoTX Lodges with a list of their blue Lodges along with all contact information and photographs of their old & new dues cards. I'm sure GLoTX provided PHA-TX Lodges with the same information. Problem solved.


----------



## hanzosbm (Nov 28, 2017)

Bill Lins said:


> Perhaps they should follow GLoTX's lead. Before PHA-TX was included in the List of Lodges Masonic, PHA-TX provided all GLoTX Lodges with a list of their blue Lodges along with all contact information and photographs of their old & new dues cards. I'm sure GLoTX provided PHA-TX Lodges with the same information. Problem solved.


I completely agree, I think that makes the most sense, and my guess is that's exactly what they will be doing.  But, again, that takes time.  My guess is that this is exactly what is being done between recognition and visitation and the cause for the delay.  It wouldn't make sense to include PHA lodges in the List of Lodges Masonic if you don't recognize them.  So, extend recognition first, then update the lists, then allow visitation.  Seems like a logical progression to me.


----------



## Brother JC (Nov 28, 2017)

Even PHA GLs that are recognized by state GLs aren’t necessarily in the List of Lodges. GLCA proceedings mark both foreign and domestic GLs with an asterisk if they aren’t listed and give the page number if they are.


----------



## BullDozer Harrell (Dec 7, 2017)

There's something that happens on both sides which is often overlooked.

Grand Lodges are not always diligent in responding to matters.

I've found this out as a researcher. 

People in offices are not doing their jobs.







Sent from my SM-T377P using My Freemasonry mobile app


----------



## Symthrell (Dec 7, 2017)

I look forward to the day when all of this is behind us and we can freely visit each others lodges and freely call each other Brother! That is one thing I like about this forum, we can freely discuss masonry and not worry about GL affiliations. 

I think MLK said it best when he said " I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will *not* be *judged* by the *color of their skin*, but by the content of *their* character." Isn't that what we as masons should do? The masons should want men of good character!


----------



## coachn (Dec 7, 2017)

BullDozer Harrell said:


> People in offices are not doing their jobs.


OR... they are executing the job that is not in line with the principles of the organization and very much in line with their personal biases.


----------



## LK600 (Dec 7, 2017)

Travelling Man91 said:


> I beg to differ. It doesnt make you racist just because a group of people over 400 years were racist to you and now you are uneasy about them.



Two things... the first is, yes it very well could.  Judging a group of people based on skin color is by definition racist.  Two wrongs don't make a right.  Second thing is, nobody did anything to you 400 years ago unless you've found the best anti aging cream ever made!    I did nothing to you and by your very statement, you are judging me by skin tone and by the sins of my ancestors (not really because my family got here in like 1902). 

All Joking aside, I totally get your meaning though.  It's human to harbor resentment based on past wrongs even though the people standing in front of you weren't those people at all.  I do it... everyone does it whether they admit to it or not.  I sincerely wish we all could move past it because we all lose out on so many possibilities to learn and grow. 

It's sad how our past has been so tragic, and by far it's been whites causing pain to others (within the last 3-400 years).  But to me it's much worse that we STILL can't seem to come together.  Someone has to take the first steps.


----------



## Dontrell Stroman (Dec 7, 2017)

LK600 said:


> Two things... the first is, yes it very well could.  Judging a group of people based on skin color is by definition racist.  Two wrongs don't make a right.  Second thing is, nobody did anything to you 400 years ago unless you've found the best anti aging cream ever made!    I did nothing to you and by your very statement, you are judging me by skin tone and by the sins of my ancestors (not really because my family got here in like 1902).
> 
> All Joking aside, I totally get your meaning though.  It's human to harbor resentment based on past wrongs even though the people standing in front of you weren't those people at all.  I do it... everyone does it whether they admit to it or not.  I sincerely wish we all could move past it because we all lose out on so many possibilities to learn and grow.
> 
> It's sad how our past has been so tragic, and by far it's been whites causing pain to others (within the last 3-400 years).  But to me it's much worse that we STILL can't seem to come together.  Someone has to take the first steps.


Brother, I get what you are saying and to a degree I agree, but let me tell you why your wrong in a sense. Although slavery, oppression, murder, hangings, etc happened over 400 years ago we are still dealing with racial inequality in this counry that is post civil war ear and post 50s and 60s era. Prime example : Segregation in masonic lodges. We can use " exclusive territory" as crutch all day to justify not recognizing each other but in the end of the day racism is the driving force. Id like to quote a very controversial Masonic scholar who may not have liked Black Masons but had the decency to recognize PH masnory Albert Pike"  Prince Hall Lodge was as regular a Lodge as any Lodge created by competent authority. It had a perfect right to establish other Lodges and make itself a Mother Lodge."  I also like to quote the late JFK when discussing why there is still hate and racism. Its a moral issue in the heart of man. " law alone cannot make men see right. We are confronted primarily with a moral issue. It is as old as the Scriptures and is as clear as the American Constitution.”






Sent from my LG-LS997 using My Freemasonry mobile app


----------



## Dontrell Stroman (Dec 7, 2017)

coachn said:


> OR... they are executing the job that is not in line with the principles of the organization and very much in line with their personal biases.


Intresting. Put it into perspective

Sent from my LG-LS997 using My Freemasonry mobile app


----------



## Dontrell Stroman (Dec 7, 2017)

R. Jacques Johnson said:


> As a former Mason of the Most Worshipful Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Alabama I have mixed emotions.  While I am happy to see "progress."  I am wondering is it really?  After reading the official decree from the Grand Lodge of Alabama I am embarrassed for all Prince Hall Mason's in the State of Alabama.
> 
> "Our two Grand Bodies have shared this jurisdiction without interference from the other for 147 years. It is our goal to formally acknowledge one another but to maintain our separate existence."
> 
> ...


Did I read this correctly, the GL of Alabama voted to recognize them but want to maintain separation ? Lastly did it state this could not be brought back up for 10 years ? Meaning to not be voted on ? Where can I find this resolution ?

Sent from my LG-LS997 using My Freemasonry mobile app


----------



## goomba (Dec 7, 2017)

Travelling Man91 said:


> Did I read this correctly, the GL of Alabama voted to recognize them but want to maintain separation ? Lastly did it state this could not be brought back up for 10 years ? Meaning to not be voted on ? Where can I find this resolution ?
> 
> Sent from my LG-LS997 using My Freemasonry mobile app



http://alafreemasonry.org/documents/PHA_Amity_Recognition.pdf


----------



## LK600 (Dec 8, 2017)

Travelling Man91 said:


> Brother, I get what you are saying and to a degree I agree, but let me tell you why your wrong in a sense. Although slavery, oppression, murder, hangings, etc happened over 400 years ago we are still dealing with racial inequality in this counry that is post civil war ear and post 50s and 60s era. Prime example : Segregation in masonic lodges. We can use " exclusive territory" as crutch all day to justify not recognizing each other but in the end of the day racism is the driving force. Id like to quote a very controversial Masonic scholar who may not have liked Black Masons but had the decency to recognize PH masnory Albert Pike"  Prince Hall Lodge was as regular a Lodge as any Lodge created by competent authority. It had a perfect right to establish other Lodges and make itself a Mother Lodge."  I also like to quote the late JFK when discussing why there is still hate and racism. Its a moral issue in the heart of man. " law alone cannot make men see right. We are confronted primarily with a moral issue. It is as old as the Scriptures and is as clear as the American Constitution.”



Brother, there is absolutely nothing you just said that I disagree with.  I was trying to point out that regardless of reason or excuse, judging a race by the actions of people either long dead or transferring those individuals actions to an entire group is by definition racist( not referring you personally or anyone else).  

Don't think for a minute that I am trying to circumvent, realign, shift blame, or any other thing in an attempt to try and remove or cover up the massive amounts of abuse committed in the past, and as you pointed out, abuses still taking place (and I completely believe that they are in places).  Maybe to much pain has been caused for some people to move past, I don't know.  I know that every day the separation of our two groups continues is an embarrassment to myself, and should be to all Masons.


----------



## Dontrell Stroman (Dec 8, 2017)

Agreed brother

Sent from my LG-LS997 using My Freemasonry mobile app


----------



## Dontrell Stroman (Dec 8, 2017)

goomba said:


> http://alafreemasonry.org/documents/PHA_Amity_Recognition.pdf


Thank you for sharing. In my own opinion, I dont believe anything was accomplished. This may be harsh, but what was voted on may have done more bad than good. Reasoning, due to the last part of the edict

Sent from my LG-LS997 using My Freemasonry mobile app


----------



## Glen Cook (Dec 11, 2017)

R. Jacques Johnson said:


> ...Are there racist black masons? No!  Its not a hate because of your skin color its a hate because of your treatment of blacks past present and future.  If the PHA Grand Lodge was racist why would it seek recognition from the UGLE?....  .



My brother, by this comment, you have demonstrated the issue. Because of racist treatment by some whites and even white controlled institutions, you ascribe that attribute to all, even to those not yet born.

Hang around the FB groups, and you will see racism on both sides—the Hotep devotees claiming the white man stole Masonry from Egypt (one actually said Geo Washington did so) would be an example.

You also make the logical error of comparing a group (a whole GL) with individuals within the group.  Clearly, the actions by individual members in GL of AL demonstrate this is inaccurate—they are  acting to overcome the institutional racism. Similarly, because some PHA GLs (not all) have sought recognition from UGLE, does not exclude racism by individual members within that Grand Lodge.

Finally, to claim that racism cannot exist in a racial group confounds common sense.  Indeed, is that not an argument that one race cannot demonstrate the same emotions as another?

To be clear, no one  here denies the cultural and institutional racism embedded even in the founding documents of this country.  No one denies that racism still taints the actions of  predominately white Grand Lodges.

But please don’t claim the right to “hate” my children because of acts of a century ago.


----------



## coachn (Dec 11, 2017)

R. Jacques Johnson said:


> ...Are there racist *black* masons? No!


The irony... it escapes you...  There are racist masons, they exist everywhere and even in places one might least expect.


R. Jacques Johnson said:


> ...Its not a hate because of your skin color *its a hate because of your treatment of blacks past present and future.*



Race does not exist.
Seeing something that doesn't exist, and acting as if it does exist, is delusional.
Racism is delusional.
Labeling anyone by race is a racist act and delusional.
Hating anyone based upon treatment that has not yet occurred is delusional and irrational and is an indication of a wounded soul warped by unresolved hurt.
Hating anyone based upon a stereotype which is further based upon a racist label is itself racist.
When you label masons as "black" and asked if there were any "racists black masons", did you truly believe your actions were not being seen for what they are?


R. Jacques Johnson said:


> ... I have personally raised white men in every state into PHA lodges.  *We are not racist!*


So, let me get this straight...

Race does not exist.
Seeing anyone through a racial lens is racist.
Labeling a man by race is a racist act.
You label a man "white" and yourself a PHA that has been around and earnestly want your readers to believe that racism doesn't exist within your organization?



R. Jacques Johnson said:


> ...However, we have human reactions to the mistreatment that we get unfairly.



Is it fair to say that you are labeling men as either "black" or "white"?
Is it fair to say that you hate based upon future imaginings?
Is it fair to way that you want to continue labeling men racially and have the privilege of not being considered racist for doing so?
Brother, you have a lot of passion.  It could be further circumscribed until you realize the mixed message you're sending.


----------



## LK600 (Dec 11, 2017)

R. Jacques Johnson said:


> Are there racist black masons? No!



So... your removing the possibility of racism based on... race?  Your realize sir, that's racist?



R. Jacques Johnson said:


> Its not a hate because of your skin color its a hate because of your treatment of blacks past present and future.


 
Having been treated extremely badly (yourself or ancestry) does not negate racism.  It may be a reason one is racist (based on past wrongs) but it is still racism.  Nobody gets a "I'm allowed to be racist card" because of any excuse, race, or creed.


----------



## Ripcord22A (Dec 11, 2017)

He just played the Alt Left SJW BLM I cant be rascist cause  I’m black card?  WOW 


Sent from my iPhone using My Freemasonry


----------



## coachn (Dec 11, 2017)

Ripcord22A said:


> He just played the Alt Left SJW BLM I cant be rascist cause  I’m black card?  WOW
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using My Freemasonry


I've never seen one.  Have you an example?


----------



## Symthrell (Dec 11, 2017)

I am not sure I like the directions this thread is going. I believe that in the end there are people on both sides of the fence that have views which are not helpful. I would hope that we all can work together as brothers to improve things within Masonry and set an example for others to follow.


----------



## Dontrell Stroman (Dec 11, 2017)

After speaking with the Grand Sec. of the GL of Alabama today I would like to retract my statement concerning no progress. As I was speaking from an uninformed position. 

Sent from my LG-LS997 using My Freemasonry mobile app


----------



## Dontrell Stroman (Dec 11, 2017)

Question : Now that the GL of Alabama has recognized the PHA GL of Alabama can other GLS extend recognition to the PHA GL of Alabama or does visitation, full recognition have to be established first ?

Sent from my LG-LS997 using My Freemasonry mobile app


----------



## coachn (Dec 11, 2017)

Travelling Man91 said:


> Question : Now that the GL of Alabama has recognized the PHA GL of Alabama can other GLS extend recognition to the PHA GL of Alabama or does visitation, full recognition have to be established first ?
> 
> Sent from my LG-LS997 using My Freemasonry mobile app


I understand full recognition has already been established.  Just not visitation.


----------



## Dontrell Stroman (Dec 11, 2017)

Does visitation have to be established first before Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Alabama can sit in other Grand Lodge of States Lodge ? Or is visitation optional?

Sent from my LG-LS997 using My Freemasonry mobile app


----------



## CLewey44 (Dec 11, 2017)

coachn said:


> I understand full recognition has already been established.  Just not visitation.


But thats like legalizing weed and then saying you cant sell it, buy it or smoke/use it....


----------



## Dontrell Stroman (Dec 11, 2017)

I understand what both GL's of Alabama did but does this affect other GL of states GL's from entering full recognition with the PH GL of Alabama since visitation wasnt included ?

Sent from my LG-LS997 using My Freemasonry mobile app


----------



## goomba (Dec 11, 2017)

Travelling Man91 said:


> After speaking with the Grand Sec. of the GL of Alabama today I would like to retract my statement concerning no progress. As I was speaking from an uninformed position.
> 
> Sent from my LG-LS997 using My Freemasonry mobile app


I don't know what you heard but brother it takes a big man to do this. Truly Masonry at work!  

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk


----------



## goomba (Dec 11, 2017)

Travelling Man91 said:


> I understand what both GL's of Alabama did but does this affect other GL of states GL's from entering full recognition with the PH GL of Alabama since visitation wasnt included ?
> 
> Sent from my LG-LS997 using My Freemasonry mobile app


I don't think it does.  But that's just my opinion.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk


----------



## Glen Cook (Dec 11, 2017)

Travelling Man91 said:


> Question : Now that the GL of Alabama has recognized the PHA GL of Alabama can other GLS extend recognition to the PHA GL of Alabama or does visitation, full recognition have to be established first ?
> 
> Sent from my LG-LS997 using My Freemasonry mobile app


It would not be an issue for Utah, as there is a treaty to share the territory.


----------



## Ripcord22A (Dec 12, 2017)

Glen Cook said:


> It would not be an issue for Utah, as there is a treaty to share the territory.



So Utah can extend recognition to PHA AL?


----------



## Dontrell Stroman (Dec 12, 2017)

This is all fascinating to me. Say the GL of UT recognized the PHA GL of Alabama and both were there to visit a subordinate lodge in UT with the current resolution both Alabama GLS have drawn up would the Alabama GL of State mason have to leave since they have no visitation PH ?

Sent from my LG-LS997 using My Freemasonry mobile app


----------



## Glen Cook (Dec 12, 2017)

Travelling Man91 said:


> This is all fascinating to me. Say the GL of UT recognized the PHA GL of Alabama and both were there to visit a subordinate lodge in UT with the current resolution both Alabama GLS have drawn up would the Alabama GL of State mason have to leave since they have no visitation PH ?
> 
> Sent from my LG-LS997 using My Freemasonry mobile app


That is a Q for an AL Mason. UT Masons do not have to withdraw if visiting a  recognized jurisdiction and a member of an unrecognized grand Lodge is present. Arkansas has the opposite view, and the Arkansas Mason must withdraw.


----------



## Glen Cook (Dec 12, 2017)

Ripcord22A said:


> So Utah can extend recognition to PHA AL?


Yes, but they [PHA]  may place the same Visitation limits as done with their Alabama counterparts.


----------



## Dontrell Stroman (Dec 12, 2017)

Glen Cook said:


> Yes, but they may place the same Visitation limits as done with their Alabama counterparts.


Why do you believe they may place the same limitations ? Is this a custom or tradition ?

Sent from my LG-LS997 using My Freemasonry mobile app


----------



## dfreybur (Dec 12, 2017)

Once recognition is in place, with or without visitation, other GLs are free to recognize, with or without visitation.

When I arrived in Texas 5 years ago there was local recognition without visitation.  I held membership in California and Illinois.  I looked up the recognition list in California - MWPHGLofTX was in the list so I was free to visit.  I looked up the recognition list in Illinois - Illinois has "blanket" recognition so the day they learned of local recognition they set a welcome-to-recognition letter so I was free to visit.  I looked up MWPHGLofTX, found the nearest lodge and showed up.

Even though the locals couldn't visit according to their rules at that time, I wasn't a local so I could visit.  So I did visit.

A comment on who is or isn't and who can and can't be racist - Be very cautious about making any conclusions.  When reading about restrictions like visitation, first find out who requested that restriction.  In nearly every case it was the PHA jurisdiction requesting the restriction.  Step away from any claim you might have been ready to make.  The reality is a two edged sword where leveling claims will certainly cut you at least as bad as it cuts your target.


----------



## Dontrell Stroman (Dec 12, 2017)

dfreybur said:


> Once recognition is in place, with or without visitation, other GLs are free to recognize, with or without visitation.
> 
> When I arrived in Texas 5 years ago there was local recognition without visitation.  I held membership in California and Illinois.  I looked up the recognition list in California - MWPHGLofTX was in the list so I was free to visit.  I looked up the recognition list in Illinois - Illinois has "blanket" recognition so the day they learned of local recognition they set a welcome-to-recognition letter so I was free to visit.  I looked up MWPHGLofTX, found the nearest lodge and showed up.
> 
> ...


Thank you brother and thanks to all other brothers that gave postive feed back. As I am learning, recognition can be a complicated issue. 

Sent from my LG-LS997 using My Freemasonry mobile app


----------



## Dontrell Stroman (Dec 12, 2017)

Although, I am puzzled why some PHA GLS requests no visitation.

Sent from my LG-LS997 using My Freemasonry mobile app


----------



## hanzosbm (Dec 12, 2017)

Just as an anecdote, I faced an unusual situation for a time.  I am a member of both GLoCA and GLoKY.  Both have recognition of PHA, but KY at that time did not allow visitation.  It dawned on me that if I was sitting in my lodge in CA and a PHA Mason came to visit...what do I do?  While realistically KY would never know, and in addition, the restriction on KY visitation was at the behest of MWPHGLoKY, which wouldn't be the visitor, I would likely excuse myself just to avoid any possible issues.
My point is, things can definitely get confusing.


----------



## dfreybur (Dec 12, 2017)

Travelling Man91 said:


> Although, I am puzzled why some PHA GLS requests no recognition.



More issues than just recognition.  All sorts of details have happened.

MWPHGLofOK has local recognition but they have not requested recognition from UGLE.  They don't say why. Many of us have guesses that have been mentioned in other threads, but anyone not present during their annual/quarterly Communications is just guessing.  Not having UGLE recognition means that world wide, their members can't visit.  As they sponsor lodges on military bases all over the word it's very puzzling to not want to visit.

MWPHGLofCA requested that no cross affiliation be included in their agreement.  This strange feature has been included in every PHA recognition that GLofCA has offered ever since.  MWPHGLofCA are (were?) a single affiliation jurisdiction so anyone petitioning for affiliation would be required to demit anyways.  That means the request doesn't actually matter or make sense.  We could guess there was a different intent than the actual wording but that's just guessing.  I think the intent was to prevent PHA members from transferring but that's not what the agreement said.

Either MWPHGLofAL or GLofAL requested that no visitation happen for 10 years.  They also don't say why.  As seen in this thread, guessing has an extremely high failure rate as we technically don't even know which side requested that feature.  The 10 year timing isn't unique - Texas waited about that long before setting up visitation details.

Search around and I bet there will be other restrictions in one compact or another.



hanzosbm said:


> Just as an anecdote, I faced an unusual situation for a time.  I am a member of both GLoCA and GLoKY.  Both have recognition of PHA, but KY at that time did not allow visitation.  It dawned on me that if I was sitting in my lodge in CA and a PHA Mason came to visit...what do I do?



Most jurisdictions have an "act like the locals" rule when visiting.  As a member you aren't visiting but since you would be in a California lodge at the time, local would mean California.  Visits between MWPHGLofCA and GLofCA are very common.  My mother lodge has a PHA lodge as a tenant so we only have to walk to the next room.  You would act like a local and welcome the visitor to your own lodge.


----------



## hanzosbm (Dec 12, 2017)

dfreybur said:


> Most jurisdictions have an "act like the locals" rule when visiting.  As a member you aren't visiting but since you would be in a California lodge at the time, local would mean California.  Visits between MWPHGLofCA and GLofCA are very common.  My mother lodge has a PHA lodge as a tenant so we only have to walk to the next room.  You would act like a local and welcome the visitor to your own lodge.


Well, thankfully now, it's a non-issue since visitation has been granted in both jurisdictions.  That being said, I've yet to actually make a visit.  It's been on my list of to-do's for awhile, but...I just haven't done it.  I need to fix that.


----------



## Ripcord22A (Dec 12, 2017)

hanzosbm said:


> Just as an anecdote, I faced an unusual situation for a time.  I am a member of both GLoCA and GLoKY.  Both have recognition of PHA, but KY at that time did not allow visitation.  It dawned on me that if I was sitting in my lodge in CA and a PHA Mason came to visit...what do I do?  While realistically KY would never know, and in addition, the restriction on KY visitation was at the behest of MWPHGLoKY, which wouldn't be the visitor, I would likely excuse myself just to avoid any possible issues.
> My point is, things can definitely get confusing.



When i was in NM. We had a brother from SC visit and it just happened to be a night we had the Sitting GM and a sitting Master and a couple brothers from the local MWPHGLoNM.  SC doesn’t have recognition at all with PHA.  He stayed as it would have cause disharmony had he left.....I believe that we left his name off the register though just in case


Sent from my iPhone using My Freemasonry mobile app


----------



## Dontrell Stroman (Dec 12, 2017)

New Mexcio is on my bucket list to visit. 

Sent from my LG-LS997 using My Freemasonry mobile app


----------



## BullDozer Harrell (Dec 13, 2017)

coachn said:


> OR... they are executing the job that is not in line with the principles of the organization and very much in line with their personal biases.


Better said than me. Thanks.

Sent from my SM-T377P using My Freemasonry mobile app


----------



## Ripcord22A (Dec 13, 2017)

Travelling Man91 said:


> New Mexcio is on my bucket list to visit.
> 
> Sent from my LG-LS997 using My Freemasonry mobile app



Cerrillos #19 in Santa Fe 


Sent from my iPhone using My Freemasonry mobile app


----------



## Mosaic (Dec 13, 2017)

Travelling Man91 said:


> Although, I am puzzled why some PHA GLS requests no visitation.
> 
> Sent from my LG-LS997 using My Freemasonry mobile app



Would you, as a Grand Master, knowingly or wittingly send your craft into a possible hostile territory?

Really think about this...


----------



## Dontrell Stroman (Dec 13, 2017)

Good question, in my own opinion yes. Being and staying stagnant doesnt produce progress. In order to break these barriers we must keep moving forward regardless if it be a crawl or a slow jog. There are hostile lodges and districts that are in States were amity has already happened.  (Some hostile on PHA side and some hostile on GL of State side). 

Sent from my LG-LS997 using My Freemasonry mobile app


----------



## coachn (Dec 13, 2017)

Mosaic said:


> Would you, as a Grand Master, knowingly or wittingly send your craft into a possible hostile territory?
> 
> Really think about this...


Yep.  When we raise men, it is not an issue at all.


----------



## Glen Cook (Dec 14, 2017)

Mosaic said:


> Would you, as a Grand Master, knowingly or wittingly send your craft into a possible hostile territory?
> 
> Really think about this...


You mean like when the GM sends an officer to sit in the East to ensure proper behavior in a lodge. Yep.  That happens. .


----------



## dfreybur (Dec 14, 2017)

Glen Cook said:


> You mean like when the GM sends an officer to sit in the East to ensure proper behavior in a lodge. Yep.  That happens. .



A tough situation, but yes.  In our 3rd degree we are taught how to handle an erring Brother.  A lodge is made of Masons so we are to improve each other in such fashion as individuals.  A grand lodge is made of Lodges so our lodges are to improve each other in such fashion as organizations.

On the one hand, recognition compacts that are presented have to be approved by the delegates at Annual Communication.  On the other hand, the end goal is full and traditional recognition.

Anything less than full and traditional is a compromise and should be viewed as a temporary crutch.  Members here, as individuals, have the luxury of wanting to move immediately to the end point.  GL officers, having to deal with delegates, don't.  Any restriction that has been in place for several years, it should be time to send in the paperwork to move towards "full and traditional recognition without reservations", with a realistic view on timing to give it a good chance of passing the vote on the floor.


----------



## LK600 (Dec 14, 2017)

Travelling Man91 said:


> Good question, in my own opinion yes. Being and staying stagnant doesnt produce progress. In order to break these barriers we must keep moving forward regardless if it be a crawl or a slow jog.



^^^ This all day.  ^^^


----------



## Bro. David F. Hill (Dec 15, 2017)

dfreybur said:


> A tough situation, but yes.  In our 3rd degree we are taught how to handle an erring Brother.  A lodge is made of Masons so we are to improve each other in such fashion as individuals.  A grand lodge is made of Lodges so our lodges are to improve each other in such fashion as organizations.
> 
> On the one hand, recognition compacts that are presented have to be approved by the delegates at Annual Communication.  On the other hand, the end goal is full and traditional recognition.
> 
> Anything less than full and traditional is a compromise and should be viewed as a temporary crutch.  Members here, as individuals, have the luxury of wanting to move immediately to the end point.  GL officers, having to deal with delegates, don't.  Any restriction that has been in place for several years, it should be time to send in the paperwork to move towards "full and traditional recognition without reservations", with a realistic view on timing to give it a good chance of passing the vote on the floor.


That time has come pending approval of Grand Lodge of Texas Resolution #3.

Sent from my SM-G955U using My Freemasonry mobile app


----------



## Dontrell Stroman (Dec 16, 2017)

Bro. David F. Hill said:


> That time has come pending approval of Grand Lodge of Texas Resolution #3.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G955U using My Freemasonry mobile app


Are they voting to have the full traditional recognition ?

Sent from my LG-LS997 using My Freemasonry mobile app


----------



## Bro. David F. Hill (Dec 17, 2017)

Yep. It's up to the GL of Texas to approve. PH has already approved it.

Sent from my SM-G955U using My Freemasonry mobile app


----------



## Dontrell Stroman (Dec 17, 2017)

Bro. David F. Hill said:


> Yep. It's up to the GL of Texas to approve. PH has already approved it.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G955U using My Freemasonry mobile app


Thats awesome. I pray that it passes.

Sent from my LG-LS997 using My Freemasonry mobile app


----------



## Bill Lins (Dec 17, 2017)

Bro. David F. Hill said:


> That time has come pending approval of Grand Lodge of Texas Resolution #3.


Bro. Hill, I am confused as to what resolution you are referring- the following is the text of the "Resolution #3" that was sent out to us:  
*"RESOLUTION NO. 3*
Referred to Committee on Finance & Jurisprudence
WHEREAS in The Laws of the Grand Lodge of Texas Art. 380 set the criteria for a member in good standing as a receipt from his Lodge showing his dues are current; and WHEREAS the current wording of Art. 380 is less than clear and precise as to “dues current at the time of visit”.
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that Art. 380 be amended as follows: Art. 380. Good Standing. Upon notification to the Worshipful Master, and at his discretion, a member of a Lodge under the jurisdiction of this Grand Lodge may visit any Texas Masonic Lodge working under this jurisdiction without the avouchment and or examination process providing that he is in good standing and presents a receipt his current dues card from his Lodge showing that his dues are current at the time of said visitation along with a photo identification; except in cases provided for in Art. 382. Current dues are defined as dues paid for the current calendar year of January 1 through December 31 and do not include any grace period prior to suspension.. Sojourning Masons from other jurisdictions must possess a current dues card and shall be vouched for or examined in accordance with Art. 381.
James “Ken” Kenneth Scales, PM
Italy Lodge No. 647


----------



## David Duke (Dec 17, 2017)

Bill Lins said:


> Bro. Hill, I am confused as to what resolution you are referring- the following is the text of the "Resolution #3" that was sent out to us:
> *"RESOLUTION NO. 3*
> Referred to Committee on Finance & Jurisprudence
> WHEREAS in The Laws of the Grand Lodge of Texas Art. 380 set the criteria for a member in good standing as a receipt from his Lodge showing his dues are current; and WHEREAS the current wording of Art. 380 is less than clear and precise as to “dues current at the time of visit”.
> ...



I’ve been trying to figure that out also. 


Sent from my iPhone using My Freemasonry mobile app


----------



## Bro. David F. Hill (Dec 18, 2017)

I'm just going from what was posted. I have no clue what is in your list. I can just go by the title.  That being said, the issue I mentioned is in your court. If people are as progressive as some believe then we don't have to hope as we already passed it. 

Sent from my SM-G955U using My Freemasonry mobile app


----------



## Bill Lins (Dec 18, 2017)

Bro. David F. Hill said:


> I'm just going from what was posted.


"What was posted" where? Have you the text of what was passed by PHA?


----------



## dfreybur (Dec 18, 2017)

Bill Lins said:


> Bro. Hill, I am confused as to what resolution you are referring- the following is the text of the "Resolution #3" that was sent out to us:
> *"RESOLUTION NO. 3*
> Sojourning Masons from other jurisdictions must possess a current dues card and shall be vouched for or examined in accordance with Art. 381.



Could this be a back door way of dropping the requirement for special paperwork to visit from MWPHGLofTX to GLofTX?  I think it likely that a different proposal was meant.  I didn't see anything obvious in the list.  But if MWPHGLofTX dropped their requirement for the special form and special process for us to visit them, it's high time for us to no longer require them to fill out the form and go through the process.  We don't require that to receive a visitor from the Grand Lodge of Lithuania or any other GL.

Technicality - Most jurisdictions outside of the Americas do not issue dues cards.  They issue letters of introduction, letters of standing, a form recording their proficiency.  All variations on the theme of membership qualification.  If I were to define a "dues card" as a form printed by a GL and signed by a local lodge secretary that states a Brother is in good standing, that definition would match foreign forms of this sort.


----------



## Bro. David F. Hill (Dec 18, 2017)

Yes I do but I'm not going to post it on here. It's not a backdoor proposal but one that was agreed to.  I now hate that I brought it up in the first place. 

Sent from my SM-G955U using My Freemasonry mobile app


----------



## Bill Lins (Dec 18, 2017)

dfreybur said:


> Could this be a back door way of dropping the requirement for special paperwork to visit from MWPHGLofTX to GLofTX?


I don't think so. The only difference between the existing Art. 380 & the proposal is the addition of the following wording: _"Current dues are defined as dues paid for the current calendar year of January 1 through December 31 and do not include any grace period prior to suspension."_


----------



## Bill Lins (Dec 18, 2017)

As far as I can tell, the only resolution that even remotely conforms to Bro. Hill's statement is my own:
*
RESOLUTION NO. 9*
Referred to Committee on Purposes and Policies & Jurisprudence

*WHEREAS* it would be in the best interests of Masonry in general, and of Entered Apprentices and Fellowcrafts, in particular;

*NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED* that Art. 236 be amended to read as follows:

*Art. 236 (274). Who May preside During The Conferral of While Conferring Degrees. *Any Master Mason who is a member in good standing of a Lodge in this jurisdiction, or of a Lodge in a Grand Jurisdiction recognized by this Grand Lodge, may preside over a Lodge during the conferral of any Degree, provided that only the work approved by the Committee on Work shall be used.

*Art. 236a. (New) Who May Participate In The Conferral Of Degrees. *Any Master Mason who is a member in good standing of a Lodge in this jurisdiction, or of a Lodge in a Grand Jurisdiction recognized by this Grand Lodge, may participate in the conferral of any Degree.

Any Entered Apprentice Mason who is under the jurisdiction of any constituent Lodge of The Grand Lodge of Texas may participate in the conferral of an Entered Apprentice Mason’s Degree in any station or place except that of the Worshipful Master.

Any Fellowcraft Mason who is under the jurisdiction of any constituent Lodge of The Grand Lodge of Texas may participate in the conferral of an Entered Apprentice or Fellowcraft Mason’s Degree in any station or place except that of the Worshipful Master.

In all instances, only the work approved by the Committee on Work shall be used.


----------



## Bro. David F. Hill (Dec 18, 2017)

Y'all posted the list of proposals for your Grand Lodge. 

Sent from my SM-G955U using My Freemasonry mobile app


----------



## Bill Lins (Dec 19, 2017)

Bro. David F. Hill said:


> Y'all posted the list of proposals for your Grand Lodge.


You originally posted the following: "That time has come pending approval of Grand Lodge of Texas Resolution #3."

Did you mean PHA Grand Lodge of Texas Resolution #3? If so, we have no knowledge of it.


----------



## bupton52 (Jan 2, 2018)

Bill Lins said:


> You originally posted the following: "That time has come pending approval of Grand Lodge of Texas Resolution #3."
> 
> Did you mean PHA Grand Lodge of Texas Resolution #3? If so, we have no knowledge of it.



Bro Bill, y’all have had your annual communication by now, correct? Did anything regarding our current visitation process change?


Sent from my iPhone using My Freemasonry mobile app


----------



## MRichard (Jan 2, 2018)

bupton52 said:


> Bro Bill, y’all have had your annual communication by now, correct? Did anything regarding our current visitation process change?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using My Freemasonry mobile app



Brother Upton, 

The Annual Communication has been moved to January now and has not happened. I have no idea what they are talking about either.


----------



## Bill Lins (Jan 2, 2018)

Bro. Byron, our annual communication will be held Jan. 18-20.


----------



## MRichard (Jan 8, 2018)

Bro. David F. Hill said:


> That time has come pending approval of Grand Lodge of Texas Resolution #3.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G955U using My Freemasonry mobile app



Brother Hill was correct. I submitted a visitation request for my Bridge Builders group (shameless plug) this morning and the secretary of the Grand Secretary (per a phone conservation) told me that visitation requests had been suspended pending the Annual Communication. Apparently, the issue is whether the grand lodges will be involved. If approved, I think she said you could apply directly to the lodge or something to that effect. I am not sure of the resolution # or anything like that.


----------



## dfreybur (Jan 9, 2018)

MRichard said:


> Brother Hill was correct. I submitted a visitation request for my Bridge Builders group (shameless plug) this morning and the secretary of the Grand Secretary (per a phone conservation) told me that visitation requests had been suspended pending the Annual Communication. Apparently, the issue is whether the grand lodges will be involved. If approved, I think she said you could apply directly to the lodge or something to that effect. I am not sure of the resolution # or anything like that.



The Communication of MWPHGLofTX happened after the deadline for submitting legislation to the GLofTX this year.  There are two obvious ways to deal with that timing.  Submit legislation for next year, or make a motion on the floor.

I expect the matter to be included in the report on fraternal relations bundled with other recognition issues for the year like recognizing Azerbaijan.  Approve the report and bingo, no more paperwork in either direction.  With the backup of submitting legislation next year and forcing the issue.


----------

