# Has this occurred?



## Cblack (Sep 28, 2013)

With all the discussion about visitation...How many times have members of the GLoTX jurisdiction stood up in GL Session and addressed intervisitation with the  PHGLOTX? 

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Freemason Connect HD mobile app


----------



## Blake Bowden (Sep 28, 2013)

Both sides have and continue to ignore the issue. I've emailed Grand Masters and Grand Lodge Officers from both GL's and none have responded.

My Freemasonry HD


----------



## Cblack (Sep 28, 2013)

Has it been brought up during GL Session? 

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Freemason Connect HD mobile app


----------



## tomasball (Sep 28, 2013)

Yes.  It was brought up two sessions ago.  The brethren were informed that the MWPHGLoT had asked for a conversation on intervisitation.  The Grand Master ordered the Committee on Fraternal Relations to meet with representatives of the PHGL to work it out and report back at the next grand lodge meeting.  The brethren voted to approve the Grand Masters action.  The next year, the Committee on Fraternal Relations reported that they had set a date with the PHGL to meet to discuss the subject, but before the date arrived, the PH representatives cancelled the meeting.  The Committee on Fraternal Relations stated that they were still ready to meet anytime their PH counterparts wanted to.  The membership of Grand Lodge voted to approve their report.  So we have twice voted to pursue the matter.  I would be interested to know what has been reported and voted on at the MWPHGLoT grand communications.


----------



## Cblack (Sep 28, 2013)

We have resolution that have been submitted and will be heard in November at Mid Winter..one specifically for an immediate request to amend the current compact with the GLoTX...I will be at Mid Winter Session this year so I can assure you that it will not get passed over...there are a lot of us that want this to take place but I don't mind being the speaker...I'll make sure I keep you all posted on the outcome concerning this

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Freemason Connect HD mobile app


----------



## Brother JC (Sep 29, 2013)

Cblack said:


> I'll make sure I keep you all posted on the outcome concerning this


Thank you, Brother, I'll be keeping my fingers crossed for a favourable outcome.


----------



## dfreybur (Sep 29, 2013)

Cblack said:


> We have resolution that have been submitted and will be heard in November at Mid Winter..one specifically for an immediate request to amend the current compact with the GLoTX..



Excellent.  Take the moral high ground.  At this point what is not needed is response by the grand lines, discussion with the grand lines, whatever.  The time for that was the year after the current compact was ratified.  It's far past that point.  What's needed legislation through the standard process to have a direct vote on the floor, bypassing any possibility of stalling by either grand line.

If either jurisdiction passes a vote on the floor to amend the compact the other jurisdiction immediately occupies the moral low ground.  Acceptance should be rapid.


----------



## Blake Bowden (Sep 30, 2013)

I understand why full visitation wasn't included when the Compact was originally signed in 2007. There were Lodges under the Jurisdiction of the Grand Lodge of Texas A.F. & A.M. who would refuse visitation, much less membership to African Americans in their Lodge. That is a fact. I've been informed that both sides are concerned with racism as many Prince Hall Lodges are content with maintaining the status quo and that "mainstream" are as well. 

That being said, both sides have made little to no effort to extend relations.

Will the Grand Lodge of Texas A.F. & A.M. take the initiative? Of course not. What's in it for them? Why chance upsetting a small percentage of racists members when they (GLOTX) won't receive any compensation in the form of dues from Prince Hall Masons? I'm not throwing out the word "racists" if I didn't know first hand. I've been called all sorts of names, received threatening emails, etc. Maybe if PHA Masons contributed to the building fund, things would change.

To bring about real change would require the PHGLOTX to make the first move as it would send shockwaves throughout the South and if the GLOTX refused to extend relations how would that look? Not good. Every Freemason Blog, Facebook, Google, Magazine, Newsletter, Twitter and Website would be on this which is why it would be approved and other southern jurisdictions would follow. Plain and simple. 

Unfortunately all of my communication to M.W. Wilbert Curtis has been ignored. In my correspondence I informed him that he has an opportunity to fundamentally change Freemasonry. Ignored. 

Freemasonry in Texas is a mess and if you think anyone wearing GL (both sides) regalia will do anything, you're in for a surprise. It'll take pressure from YOU.


----------



## tomasball (Sep 30, 2013)

Brother Blake, I've read a number of your posts where you seem to think that if a Grand Lodge officer doesn't take time to personally correspond with you, it's part of a conspiracy of silence.  Grand Masters report at great length to their Grand Lodges every year on their actions and decisions.  I imagine that they get thousands of letters from individual masons asking them why they do or don't do certain things.  It would unimaginable to me for a Grand Master to regard it as his job to personally report on his actions to every mason who asked.  

Tom Ball


----------



## dfreybur (Sep 30, 2013)

Blake Bowden said:


> I understand why full visitation wasn't included when the Compact was originally signed in 2007.



You're beyond me in understanding, then.  To me if there's recognition there's visitation.  If there's no visitation then any claim there is recognition is a word game.  I don't care how much a buzzard claims to be a swan - Recognition is fake until the day visitation is allowed.



> I'm not throwing out the word "racists" if I didn't know first hand. I've been called all sorts of names, received threatening emails, etc.



When my daughter got married recently my then-not-yet SIL's Mom asked if it was okay to have a controversial minister perform the ceremony.  Oh yeah, my wife and I definitely wanted the controversial one!  Then I asked why the minister is controversial.  "She's black".  "No really, why is she controversial".  I think I asked three times before it got through my thick head that that WAS the reason.  Turns out the minister was so disgusted with her reception in that town she'd already arranged a transfer and that wedding was her last ministerial act before she moved to civilization.  Not a town I'll voluntarily set foot in going forward.

So please be sure to send me threatening emails, too.  If you don't favor visitation and if you care who's going to be upset by visitation then you're not living up to our principles so be sure to flame me in email.  I look forward to them.



> To bring about real change would require the PHGLOTX to make the first move as it would send shockwaves throughout the South and if the GLOTX refused to extend relations how would that look? Not good. Every Freemason Blog, Facebook, Google, Magazine, Newsletter, Twitter and Website would be on this which is why it would be approved and other southern jurisdictions would follow. Plain and simple.



I am thrilled to read there is legislation to be voted on at the MWPHAGLofTX annual communication.  Take that moral high ground my brothers!



> Unfortunately all of my communication to M.W. Wilbert Curtis has been ignored. In my correspondence I informed him that he has an opportunity to fundamentally change Freemasonry. Ignored.



I'm with brother Thomas on that - One letter to the committee on recognition with a CC to the grand line asking when they intend to put a motion on the floor plus an offer to write the legislation yourself.  If no response and no legislation on the floor that year, write it and submit it for the next year.

I am currently working through this process in California to amend allowing dual affiliation in their offered agreements.


----------



## Blake Bowden (Sep 30, 2013)

tomasball said:


> Brother Blake, I've read a number of your posts where you seem to think that if a Grand Lodge officer doesn't take time to personally correspond with you, it's part of a conspiracy of silence.  Grand Masters report at great length to their Grand Lodges every year on their actions and decisions.  I imagine that they get thousands of letters from individual masons asking them why they do or don't do certain things.  It would unimaginable to me for a Grand Master to regard it as his job to personally report on his actions to every mason who asked.
> 
> Tom Ball



There is one exception and that would be PGM Gene Carnes who personally called me. I also worked with current Grand Lodge officers and spent numerous hours at RW Jerry Martins house, not to mention emails and phone calls while working on his presentation as Grand Orator. When I'm needed or the subject matter is something they wish to discuss, the lines of communication are wide open, however mention Prince Hall and things become very quiet. Just ask some of my Moderators, especially the older ones - they've seen the hateful messages sent here. So what you're saying is that every Grand Lodge Officer that I've contacted since 2008 has no time to respond to a single email, especially when the Prince Hall issue is such an important one? I guess sending out letters to install air conditioners at Grand Lodge, sell merchandise or tell us the same story every year on how awesome the Craft is doing in Texas is more important. We see how well that's working out. I would also like to add that we could not obtain a copy of the 2007 Compact from the Grand Lodge of Texas and that it was the Prince Hall Grand Lodge who made it available. Sad really. You can put words in my mouth or make excuses but that is my experience.


My Freemasonry HD


----------



## BroBook (Sep 30, 2013)

Blake Bowden said:


> There is one exception and that would be PGM Gene Carnes who personally called me. I also worked with current Grand Lodge officers and spent numerous hours at RW Jerry Martins house, not to mention emails and phone calls while working on his presentation as Grand Orator. When I'm needed or the subject matter is something they wish to discuss, the lines of communication are wide open, however mention Prince Hall and things become very quiet. Just ask some of my Moderators, especially the older ones - they've seen the hateful messages sent here. So what you're saying is that every Grand Lodge Officer that I've contacted since 2008 has no time to respond to a single email, especially when the Prince Hall issue is such an important one? I guess sending out letters to install air conditioners at Grand Lodge, sell merchandise or tell us the same story every year on how awesome the Craft is doing in Texas is more important. We see how well that's working out. I would also like to add that we could not obtain a copy of the 2007 Compact from the Grand Lodge of Texas and that it was the Prince Hall Grand Lodge who made it available. Sad really. You can put words in my mouth or make excuses but that is my experience.
> 
> 
> My Freemasonry HD



I think , not know , that the racist on both sides have a right to be until they cross over the real jordon and find they do not have a pass, word or grip that works, but what about the rest of us 
Outside of lodge rooms do we walk and talk as if there is a brotherhood of man and fatherhood of GOD no modes of recognition needed except for those you should have had on being entered 
Good men better not bad men good that is GOD's job.


BroBook


My Freemasonry HD


----------



## BroBook (Sep 30, 2013)

Blake Bowden said:


> I understand why full visitation wasn't included when the Compact was originally signed in 2007. There were Lodges under the Jurisdiction of the Grand Lodge of Texas A.F. & A.M. who would refuse visitation, much less membership to African Americans in their Lodge. That is a fact. I've been informed that both sides are concerned with racism as many Prince Hall Lodges are content with maintaining the status quo and that "mainstream" are as well.
> 
> That being said, both sides have made little to no effort to extend relations.
> 
> ...



Masons do have the right not to allow individuals into their lodge or grand lodge for that matter but maybe just maybe that why the world is such a mess the Master sends stones for the building and the fellows of the craft throw 
Them into the rubbish pile. 


BroBook


My Freemasonry HD


----------



## brother josh (Sep 30, 2013)

Agreed on that my brother just as if this yr Kentucky recognizes ph as brother but visitation is not allowed I so hope one day this will change we are all made in the image of GOD color should not matter ( race creed or religion) brothers keep fighting for it we know as level head ppl what is right at least what seems reasonable 

SMIB


My Freemasonry HD


----------



## Brother JC (Sep 30, 2013)

Once again I thank the Supreme Architect that I was Raised in a (slightly) enlightened state, and have had the pleasure of sitting in Lodge with my PH Brethren.


----------



## Bro. Stewart P.M. (Oct 1, 2013)

BroBook said:


> I think , not know , that the racist on both sides have a right to be until they cross over the real jordon and find they do not have a pass, word or grip that works, but what about the rest of us
> Outside of lodge rooms do we walk and talk as if there is a brotherhood of man and fatherhood of GOD no modes of recognition needed except for those you should have had on being entered
> Good men better not bad men good that is GOD's job.
> 
> ...



And here is where I have to disagree with your opinon. Racism has no part in Freemasonry, period. This underlying racism on both sides of the fence is exactly what is keeping this joint recognition from happening. To assume that everyone "waits until the elders die off" will not fix the issue. Remember, racism is taught not hereditary. As long as "the rest of us" allow this crap to go on, the longer it will continue to happen... old or young.


----------



## chrmc (Oct 1, 2013)

I do agree that racism may play a part in it, but as far as I understand a much more fundamental piece also is in there - Money. 
As I've heard the story, one of the hesitations for the PH side to allow visitation is that their dues often is much higher than on the other side. What would prevent members from being entered, passed and raised in a GLOTX lodge, but just keep visiting the PH lodge of their choice, without having to pay?


----------



## Brother JC (Oct 1, 2013)

The Lodges I am a member of all have different dues. The Lodges I visit also have different dues. If you are a visitor, you can't vote, hold office, or be a true part of that Lodge's dynamics, so I can't see how this would be an issue.


----------



## brother josh (Oct 1, 2013)

trysquare said:


> Once again I thank the Supreme Architect that I was Raised in a (slightly) enlightened state, and have had the pleasure of sitting in Lodge with my PH Brethren.



I hope one day my state will realize how none masonic it is for not allowing the visitation 


My Freemasonry HD


----------



## BroBook (Oct 1, 2013)

Money? I heard that as a young mason 
About the two bodies claiming PH in fl ,I 
Believed the brother I think he later achieved 
G.M. I must add that I considered him as a brother although we did not hang out.


My Freemasonry HD


----------



## BroBook (Oct 1, 2013)

brother josh said:


> I hope one day my state will realize how none masonic it is for not allowing the visitation
> 
> 
> My Freemasonry HD



SMIB world wide forever "members only"


My Freemasonry HD


----------



## BroBook (Oct 1, 2013)

chrmc said:


> I do agree that racism may play a part in it, but as far as I understand a much more fundamental piece also is in there - Money.
> As I've heard the story, one of the hesitations for the PH side to allow visitation is that their dues often is much higher than on the other side. What would prevent members from being entered, passed and raised in a GLOTX lodge, but just keep visiting the PH lodge of their choice, without having to pay?



I think I just realized what was implied 
"You want to pay bills over there and come here and eat"

BroBook 


My Freemasonry HD


----------



## BroBook (Oct 1, 2013)

Just had a bad thought we/they/us may not want visitation because we/they/us are like sports teams or whatever our particular blank may be , we do not want anyone watching us practice if they are not on our team


My Freemasonry HD


----------



## brother josh (Oct 1, 2013)

chrmc said:


> I do agree that racism may play a part in it, but as far as I understand a much more fundamental piece also is in there - Money.
> As I've heard the story, one of the hesitations for the PH side to allow visitation is that their dues often is much higher than on the other side. What would prevent members from being entered, passed and raised in a GLOTX lodge, but just keep visiting the PH lodge of their choice, without having to pay?



I to have heard this 


My Freemasonry HD


----------



## Blake Bowden (Oct 1, 2013)

brother josh said:


> I to have heard this
> 
> 
> My Freemasonry HD



I have as one of the arguments on the Prince Hall side. Doesn't make much sense though.


----------



## dfreybur (Oct 2, 2013)

chrmc said:


> ... as far as I understand a much more fundamental piece also is in there - Money.
> As I've heard the story, one of the hesitations for the PH side to allow visitation is that their dues often is much higher than on the other side. What would prevent members from being entered, passed and raised in a GLOTX lodge, but just keep visiting the PH lodge of their choice, without having to pay?



There is a mechanism in place.  When I first moved to Texas I visited lodges in both jurisdictions before petitioning a lodge in one of them.  The MWPHAGLofTX has a rule limiting number of visits.  Visit more than some number of times and you're expected to petition.  They allow "associate membership" so it's not a requirement to demit your other lodge memberships but you would have to start paying dues.  I heard two different limits on the number of visits but that's something that would become well known in the details should it start happening regularly.  As to money during visits there is the charity bucket that gets passed around so it's not free to visit.

I've been told that the GLofTX has a similar limit on the books but it rarely gets enforced.  I pay for meals after I've visited once, usually even on my first visit.


----------



## chrmc (Oct 2, 2013)

dfreybur said:


> There is a mechanism in place.  When I first moved to Texas I visited lodges in both jurisdictions before petitioning a lodge in one of them.  The MWPHAGLofTX has a rule limiting number of visits.  Visit more than some number of times and you're expected to petition.  They allow "associate membership" so it's not a requirement to demit your other lodge memberships but you would have to start paying dues.  I heard two different limits on the number of visits but that's something that would become well known in the details should it start happening regularly.  As to money during visits there is the charity bucket that gets passed around so it's not free to visit.
> 
> I've been told that the GLofTX has a similar limit on the books but it rarely gets enforced.  I pay for meals after I've visited once, usually even on my first visit.



Thanks for the info. I was not aware of that.


----------



## Bill Lins (Oct 2, 2013)

dfreybur said:


> I've been told that the GLofTX has a similar limit on the books but it rarely gets enforced.


The GLoTX rule is somewhat different. It states that an *unaffiliated* Mason (one who does not belong to *any* Lodge) may only visit a particular Lodge 3 times without submitting a petition for affiliation. It is to prevent a "Brother" from enjoying the hospitality of a Lodge without contributing toward its upkeep. There are other restrictions on unaffiliated Masons, as shown below:

*Art. 373. (410). Non-Affiliates: Privileges Allowed and Denied.* 
An unaffiliated Mason, holding a dimit or its equivalent granted by a regular Lodge or the authorized Grand Secretary of this or any other Grand Jurisdiction with which we are in fraternal relations, may:
1. Visit a Lodge as provided in Art. 382.
2. Sign a petition for a new Lodge Under Dispensation (Art. 184), or for a new chartered Lodge (Art. 205) or affiliate with any Lodge in this State; provided that such unaffiliate, in any case, is domiciled in this Grand Jurisdiction.
3. March in a Funeral or other Masonic Procession or appear Masonically clothed at a Masonic funeral, when properly accredited and permitted by the Worshipful Master, upon satisfactorily accounting for his non-affiliation.

He shall not:
1. Preside over or fill any station or place in any Lodge.
2. Confer, or otherwise participate in conferring any degree.
3. Vote by ballot or otherwise on any matter coming before any Lodge, or lodge any protest whatever.
4. Address the Lodge or speak upon any matter before it, unless invited thereto by the Master presiding.
5. Participate in any official capacity, or in any organization or body whose membership is limited to Master Masons.
Unaffiliated Masons are amenable to Masonic Law and subject to Masonic discipline. (See Art. 495.)

*Art. 382. (418). Non-Affiliates.* 
A non-affiliated Mason may not visit any Lodge in this jurisdiction more than three times unless he shall petition a Lodge for membership. If his petition is rejected he may be allowed to visit Lodges for one year thereafter, when he should again petition.


----------



## BroBook (Oct 3, 2013)

Bill_Lins77488 said:


> The GLoTX rule is somewhat different. It states that an *unaffiliated* Mason (one who does not belong to *any* Lodge) may only visit a particular Lodge 3 times without submitting a petition for affiliation. It is to prevent a "Brother" from enjoying the hospitality of a Lodge without contributing toward its upkeep. There are other restrictions on unaffiliated Masons, as shown below:
> 
> *Art. 373. (410). Non-Affiliates: Privileges Allowed and Denied.*
> An unaffiliated Mason, holding a dimit or its equivalent granted by a regular Lodge or the authorized Grand Secretary of this or any other Grand Jurisdiction with which we are in fraternal relations, may:
> ...



That's something !


My Freemasonry HD


----------



## otherstar (Oct 3, 2013)

Bill_Lins77488 said:


> The GLoTX rule is somewhat different. It states that an *unaffiliated* Mason (one who does not belong to *any* Lodge) may only visit a particular Lodge 3 times without submitting a petition for affiliation. It is to prevent a "Brother" from enjoying the hospitality of a Lodge without contributing toward its upkeep. There are other restrictions on unaffiliated Masons, as shown below:
> 
> *Art. 373. (410). Non-Affiliates: Privileges Allowed and Denied.*
> An unaffiliated Mason, holding a dimit or its equivalent granted by a regular Lodge or the authorized Grand Secretary of this or any other Grand Jurisdiction with which we are in fraternal relations, may:
> ...



I was an unaffiliated Mason for 9 years and when I decided to return to the Craft, my Lodge told me that meant I could only sit in a tiled meeting, but that I was free to visit the lodge, have dinner, etc., and get to know the brothers before I petitioned. As a matter of fact, my Lodge does this with all prospective members, and encourages all EAs and FCs to come to the Lodge whenever there is a degree or a stated meeting (even if they are ineligible to attend the tiled portion of the meeting because they are of the wrong degree).


----------



## dfreybur (Oct 3, 2013)

Bill_Lins77488 said:


> The GLoTX rule is somewhat different. It states that an *unaffiliated* Mason (one who does not belong to *any* Lodge) may only visit a particular Lodge 3 times without submitting a petition for affiliation. It is to prevent a "Brother" from enjoying the hospitality of a Lodge without contributing toward its upkeep. There are other restrictions on unaffiliated Masons, as shown below:



I suspect this is because GLofTX and most other what I'll call "George Washington" GLs have traditions to allow multiple affiliation.  Some are single affiliation jurisdictions but it appears to me most aren't.  I hold California and Illinois affiliation and am due for vote in Texas this month so clearly all three of those states allow it.  I've met plenty of brothers holding dues cards from many other states as well.

In comparison it appears to me that many (most?) PHA GLs have single affiliation traditions to some degree.  MWPHAGLofTX allows "associate membership" to get around such a tradition.  They allow multiple affiliation but impose some detailed restrictions on a brother who is a member of more than one lodge.


----------



## Bill Lins (Oct 3, 2013)

dfreybur said:


> I suspect this is because GLofTX and most other what I'll call "George Washington" GLs have traditions to allow multiple affiliation.


I don't believe that has anything to do with it. If a Brother has multiple affiliations, the law above does not apply. If a Brother had membership in one Lodge only, and demitted from that Lodge (or that Lodge demised), then he would be an unaffiliated Mason & the law would apply.


----------



## dfreybur (Oct 4, 2013)

Bill_Lins77488 said:


> I don't believe that has anything to do with it. If a Brother has multiple affiliations, the law above does not apply. If a Brother had membership in one Lodge only, and demitted from that Lodge (or that Lodge demised), then he would be an unaffiliated Mason & the law would apply.



I'll try to reorganize my thinking on this to explain myself -

If your jurisdiction comes out of a heritage that does multiple affiliation then your rules need to handle the case where a brother is a member of zero lodges.  As long as he's a member of one or more lodges his dues are contributing and traveling is a landmark.  This reasoning applies even if your jurisdiction has evolved towards single affiliation over the decades.  This reasoning tends to not pay attention to what jurisdiction(s) he's a member of.  GLofTX comes out of a multiple affiliation tradition so our rules are to handle the zero memberships case.

If your jurisdiction comes out of a heritage that does not allow multiple affiliation then your rules are going to be about handling transfers.  They will end up handling short term travel by allowing visits and they will also handle long term travel by transfers.  If he's going to be local for a while then his dues should contribute to where he is not where he was.  This reasoning applies even if your jurisdiction has evolved towards multiple affiliation over the decades.  MWPHAGLofTX comes out of a single affiliation tradition so their rules address locality not at-large membership.  They also support associate membership showing they have indeed evolved towards the multiple affiliation model.

To me the rules become a question of "Can you afford to affiliate with our lodge also?" versus "Have you been here long enough to count as a local yet?" while both protecting the local funding.


----------



## BroBook (Oct 28, 2013)

Bro. Stewart said:


> And here is where I have to disagree with your opinon. Racism has no part in Freemasonry, period. This underlying racism on both sides of the fence is exactly what is keeping this joint recognition from happening. To assume that everyone "waits until the elders die off" will not fix the issue. Remember, racism is taught not hereditary. As long as "the rest of us" allow this crap to go on, the longer it will continue to happen... old or young.



Excuse my feet my brother I was just saying that they will die not that we had to wait to move forward !!! I am ready to help heal myself and masonry!!!


My Freemasonry HD


----------



## Aeelorty (Oct 28, 2013)

> _And here is where I have to disagree with your opinon. Racism has no part in Freemasonry, period. This underlying racism on both sides of the fence is exactly what is keeping this joint recognition from happening. To assume that everyone "waits until the elders die off" will not fix the issue. Remember, racism is taught not hereditary. As long as "the rest of us" allow this crap to go on, the longer it will continue to happen... old or young._



I argue that racism would exist without being taught. The reason being that it is an outgrowth from the innate heuristics that our minds run on. We naturally form certain negative beliefs about things that are foreign to avoid danger, this leads to in group bias and out group prejudices. prejudices become discrimination and racism. 

The way to combat these tendencies is build connections to people and groups that are different than oneself. Applying this to the issue of visitation/ recognition, the GLs should meet regularly over a cup of coffee = ) 

This post maybe out of place on this thread, I didnt read it before responding to the quoted post. Sorry to derail.


----------



## dfreybur (Oct 29, 2013)

Cblack said:


> We have resolution that have been submitted and will be heard in November at Mid Winter..one specifically for an immediate request to amend the current compact with the GLoTX...I will be at Mid Winter Session this year so I can assure you that it will not get passed over...there are a lot of us that want this to take place but I don't mind being the speaker...I'll make sure I keep you all posted on the outcome concerning this



I just looked at my wrist watch to see what time it is.  The time right now is still October.  So the vote on the floor at MWPHAGLofTX is still a few weeks out.  Patience may be one of the first lessons we are taught at the door of lodge but yikes it's a lesson that sinks into my thick skull very slowly.  I'm good at serenity but I gradually learn it's not quite the same thing as patience.

Ping to keep the topic fresh.  Thanks for informing us!  Our prays go with you


----------



## MoonlightMadness357 (Dec 1, 2013)

:SNC: Greetings Brothers though recongnition is not an issue here in Maryland, this is a issue that overall troubles me. I am A newly raised Master Mason and I'm active duty Navy so at some point I will Travel, I just wish I could travel freely in masonry without discrimination. I am dedicated to the craft and i want to be actively involved no matter whereI get stationed


----------



## JayJay (Dec 8, 2013)

On Saturday morning, I was hoping that the Fraternal Relations Committee  would report on the Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Texas and on the Grand  Lodge in France, but apparently the Grand Master did not permit the  Committee to make its Report, other than to vote on recognition for the  Grand Lodge of Tahiti. The Committee Chairman said that their report included information on the Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Texas and on the Grand Lodge in France, but he was not allowed to report on those items. 

The Grand Master then congratulated himself for  finishing all the Resolutions and Committee Reports by 9:30 AM Saturday,  and then turned our Grand Lodge session into a joke-telling marathon  for the next 2 1/2 hours, with only the necessary breaks to ballot on Grand Junior Warden, Grand Treasurer, a Home & School Director and a Committee  on Work position.

Why wasn't the Fraternal Relations Committee allowed to give its report?  What was in the Report that the Grand Jokester didn't want the members  to hear?


----------



## Cblack (Dec 8, 2013)

Wow...not cool at all

Sent from my SPH-L710 using My Freemasonry HD mobile app


----------



## Bro Darren (Dec 8, 2013)

JayJay said:


> On Saturday morning, I was hoping that the Fraternal Relations Committee  would report on the Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Texas and on the Grand  Lodge in France, but apparently the Grand Master did not permit the  Committee to make its Report, other than to vote on recognition for the  Grand Lodge of Tahiti. The Committee Chairman said that their report included information on the Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Texas and on the Grand Lodge in France, but he was not allowed to report on those items.
> 
> The Grand Master then congratulated himself for  finishing all the Resolutions and Committee Reports by 9:30 AM Saturday,  and then turned our Grand Lodge session into a joke-telling marathon  for the next 2 1/2 hours, with only the necessary breaks to ballot on Grand Junior Warden, Grand Treasurer, a Home & School Director and a Committee  on Work position.
> 
> Why wasn't the Fraternal Relations Committee allowed to give its report?  What was in the Report that the Grand Jokester didn't want the members  to hear?



This just adds fuel to the conspiracy flame - You know, that the Masons are mere foot soldiers kept out of the loop and that we have no idea what goes on above our own "rank"


----------



## ess1113 (Dec 8, 2013)

Sir, 
You may have valid points on all your issues but you lose legitimacy when you call the Grand Master the "Grand Jokester".
You should contact the committee chairman and ask for a copy of the report, then feel free to use as you may see fit.  The report is free and available from the committee.  

Fraternally
Eric


----------



## tomasball (Dec 8, 2013)

Yes, it was very peculiar that the GM decided to abbreviate the Fraternal Relations Committee report.  Bear in mind that the written report already is with the Grand Secretary, and we will be able to read it eventually.  I privately inquired of a friend who is a member of that committee, and he told me they haven't heard anything from the MWPHGLoT since they cancelled the meeting over a year ago.


----------



## dfreybur (Dec 9, 2013)

JayJay said:


> On Saturday morning, I was hoping that the Fraternal Relations Committee  would report on the Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Texas and on the Grand  Lodge in France, but apparently the Grand Master did not permit the  Committee to make its Report, other than to vote on recognition for the  Grand Lodge of Tahiti. The Committee Chairman said that their report included information on the Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Texas and on the Grand Lodge in France, but he was not allowed to report on those items.



Members of both of our Texas jurisdictions have tried waiting for our grand lines to change the agreement to include visitation.  It did not work.  Sure enough this report says that it has continued to not work.

Members of MWPHGLofTX went through the legislation process to force a trigger on the floor.  They did an end run around their own leadership.  They forced the issue.  They voted favorably.

Now is the time we return the favor.  Shall we discuss verbiage and set a deadline to start gathering signatures in March?


----------



## Bro. Michael (Dec 9, 2013)

On this subject, does anyone know if anything significant has occurred relating to this in Arkansas? I know the two do not allow visitation (in fact I don't think they even pretend to recognize each other) in Arkansas, but I am not aware of any action being taken to change this despite the fact that the reasons for not recognizing PHA Masons died out long ago. Racism may still exist, and unfortunately does, but the valid reasons for it (the ones which were related to freedom rather than skin color) died out when black men in America were no longer bound as slaves. At the point when they became able to take obligations for themselves and to keep those obligations, they should immediately have been recognized. On that note, I am not sure I support distinguishing PH from mainstream in any way. When I meet a brother (black, white, asian, hispanic, what have you), I do not identify him as "that black brother", "that white brother", etc. He is my brother, and to treat him worse or even to treat him better based strictly on color is truly unmasonic.

Perhaps I am ignorant in some way about this, but I would appreciate any clarity my brothers can offer.


----------



## Blake Bowden (Dec 10, 2013)

JayJay said:


> On Saturday morning, I was hoping that the Fraternal Relations Committee  would report on the Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Texas and on the Grand  Lodge in France, but apparently the Grand Master did not permit the  Committee to make its Report, other than to vote on recognition for the  Grand Lodge of Tahiti. The Committee Chairman said that their report included information on the Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Texas and on the Grand Lodge in France, but he was not allowed to report on those items.
> 
> The Grand Master then congratulated himself for  finishing all the Resolutions and Committee Reports by 9:30 AM Saturday,  and then turned our Grand Lodge session into a joke-telling marathon  for the next 2 1/2 hours, with only the necessary breaks to ballot on Grand Junior Warden, Grand Treasurer, a Home & School Director and a Committee  on Work position.
> 
> Why wasn't the Fraternal Relations Committee allowed to give its report?  What was in the Report that the Grand Jokester didn't want the members  to hear?



Excellent question.


----------



## ess1113 (Dec 10, 2013)

I have read the 2013 Fraternal Relations Committee report and I would emphasize that everyone that is interested please request a copy and read it.  It is well formatted and well thought out and concise.


----------



## crono782 (Dec 10, 2013)

How would one go about that?


----------



## dfreybur (Dec 10, 2013)

ess1113 said:


> I have read the 2013 Fraternal Relations Committee report and I would emphasize that everyone that is interested please request a copy and read it.  It is well formatted and well thought out and concise.



I take it there is an annual book of Proceedings sent to every lodge and available for purchase by any member that has the complete text of everything covered at the annual communication including the full text of every committee report?  I'll order one of those through my lodge secretary tonight.  I have a shopping list of items to order.

Is there a similar Proceedings book from the MWPHGLofTX that can be purchased by non-members?  I would like one to have the exact wording of what passed the vote at their recent quarterly meeting.


----------



## tomasball (Dec 10, 2013)

Yes, it has the complete reports of all committees.  It does not transcribe everything from debates.


----------



## bupton52 (Dec 10, 2013)

dfreybur said:


> Is there a similar Proceedings book from the MWPHGLofTX that can be purchased by non-members?  I would like one to have the exact wording of what passed the vote at their recent quarterly meeting.



I don't know if they are available for purchase, but the Wilbert M. Curtis Prince Hall Library Museum is opened to non-members for research. All proceedings are filed there.


----------



## crono782 (Dec 10, 2013)

bupton52 said:


> I don't know if they are available for purchase, but the Wilbert M. Curtis Prince Hall Library Museum is opened to non-members for research. All proceedings are filed there.



Interesting. I'm about 10 min or so down the road from there. I've been meaning to swing by and see the museum anyway.

EDIT: I wonder if it's still by appointment only. They don't even post a phone # on the museum website (or the MWPHGLoTX site either,  ).


----------



## ess1113 (Dec 10, 2013)

One would email the GLoTx and request a copy of the 2013 Fraternal Relations report.



crono782 said:


> How would one go about that?


----------



## Proudvet09 (Sep 23, 2014)

How can masonry make good men better if we as masons regardless of affiliation do not allow all men ?


----------



## jjjjjggggg (Sep 23, 2014)

Proudvet09 said:


> How can masonry make good men better if we as masons regardless of affiliation do not allow all men ?



Not all men are good men, not all men should be masons.

The phrase is more of a catchy short-hand way of explaining masonry, but isn't the main guiding principle for admission into the fraternity.

As to basing admission into the fraternity on color of skin, this is unmasonic and against the landmarks.


----------



## Glen Cook (Sep 23, 2014)

jamie.guinn said:


> ?..
> ...
> As to basing admission into the fraternity on color of skin, this is unmasonic and against the landmarks.



Which landmarks?


----------



## jjjjjggggg (Sep 24, 2014)

Glen Cook said:


> Which landmarks?



Landmark Eighteenth


----------



## Glen Cook (Sep 24, 2014)

jamie.guinn said:


> Landmark Eighteenth


I don't have 18 on my list.  To which list are your referring?  Mackey (25), George Oliver (40), WV, NJ, NV, KY, Joseph Fort Newton, Roscoe Pound (6)?  As you see, there is no consistency in the landmarks.  Consequently, to boldly declare something is contrary to the landmarks is usually of little use, as they are not a shared construct.  

I assume you mean Mackey, as the GL of the State of OK adopted those.  #18 refers to Qualifications of a candidate: that he shall be a man, unmultilated, free born, and of mature age.  And yet, within my memory, our GL of the State of OK (and many others) was perfectly happy to interpret that as prohibiting African Americans, even to the point of in the 70's voicing complaint about a black man living on the grounds at the Masonic Home for the Aged.  I was present at the GL Communication when we finally approved a limited recognition of our PHA brethren.

The history of the United States and of our US Masonic fraternity is one of discrimination (see the constitutional 3/5 rule).  Regrettably, we have not been a fraternity of racial inclusion.  While we may wish it was otherwise, it simply isn't and, I note, one Mason usually does not have the power to declare otherwise.


----------



## dfreybur (Sep 24, 2014)

Proudvet09 said:


> How can masonry make good men better if we as masons regardless of affiliation do not allow all men ?



As this thread started with a discussion of recognition in Texas lacking visitation I'll take this as "do not allow all brothers to visit".

On the one hand there's the issue of letter of the law.  To what extent should we follow the spirit of the law not the letter of the law?  In various countries Masons have been involved in revolutions so we know it's a part of our heritage.  I ask the question rhetorically without offering an answer.  Most normally prefer to work within the system to correct problems and it is very much a judgment call when to consider the system so broken that following the spirit by breaking the letter makes sense.  Have you presented at your lodge a request for legislation to change the GL rules?

On the other hand we do have principles and we need to live up to them.  At times this means we need to stretch ourselves out of our comfort zones and press others to do so as well.


----------



## jjjjjggggg (Sep 24, 2014)

Great response! Checkmate.

It is my own ideal to believe all worthy men, regardless of color, be given the opportunity to join our fraternity. And I hope that we are brave enough to correct the injustices of those masons in our history who thought contrary.


----------



## Proudvet09 (Sep 24, 2014)

Not all men are good hence the investigating committee, but color based on masonic principles should not matter. We are too afraid of change but not all change is bad. When are we going to stop chatting on here and taking action we should be men of action not words. When I was in Iraq I didn't ask if it was OK if I defended a man because he was not the same color as me or did not have the same beliefs. It's sounds like everyone is trying to find a way to justify it instead of taking action and making a difference based off of rules and regulations that will always grow and change with time as they have for hundreds of years


----------



## Morris (Sep 24, 2014)

Glen Cook said:


> Which landmarks?




I have never seen or heard of a landmark that prohibits men of any race from our fraternity, have you?  I would be interested in reading the verbiage of one that prohibits if you know of one. 

Of course that doesn't mean some lodges have "unwritten" rules but that's a little different.


----------



## Proudvet09 (Sep 24, 2014)

I have never seen or heard, and if it's a landmark, landmarks are a place for public eye, which means that which should be kept amongst brothers is open to even the not so good man that was spoken about before which is where you get cowans and eavesdroppers


----------



## jjjjjggggg (Sep 24, 2014)

Within my jurisdiction it is within the constitution and code that it be available for viewing by any brother, and is usually kept in the secretary's office... as well as each individual lodge's bylaws. We even have a correspondence course through the GL over the C&C. Both wardens and the WM are given an individual copy of the current C&C at the warden's training session. 

And there are many brothers who have challenged, and continue to do so, any latent racism within the fraternity. Check out brother Charles Harper Sr. and his book "freemasonry in black and white". He stays pretty current on Facebook and does a lot of presentations, especially in his home state of Illinois.


----------



## Glen Cook (Sep 24, 2014)

jamie.guinn said:


> Great response! Checkmate.
> 
> It is my own ideal to believe all worthy men, regardless of color, be given the opportunity to join our fraternity. And I hope that we are brave enough to correct the injustices of those masons in our history who thought contrary.


Well put.


----------



## MaineMason (Sep 24, 2014)

Having lived in Texas for many years but as a native Yankee, and active in a Grand Lodge (Maine) who's constitution said as early as the 1870's that no free man should be discriminated against on the basis of race, I find the entire discussion rather strange. Then again, at once, I totally get it. 

I have been a member of a committee of inquiry for an African American man (actually, an African one, he's a legal resident and a businessman) and the very last thing that occurred to me was the color of his skin. I helped raise him. Texas needs to get into the 21st Century. Just sayin.


----------



## dfreybur (Sep 25, 2014)

jamie.guinn said:


> It is my own ideal to believe all worthy men, regardless of color, be given the opportunity to join our fraternity.



Color means uniform, right?  The Legion takes us blue uniform folks AND those green uniform folks.  In Masonry we have to be a bit broader than that.  We adopt the rainbow non-uniform folks as well.  We all work to be of service to society in many ways, often not including a uniform.


----------



## ess1113 (Oct 6, 2014)

Proudvet09 said:


> How can masonry make good men better if we as masons regardless of affiliation do not allow all men ?



Freemasonry does indeed make good men better. 
If you are asking why it doesn't take bad men and make them better, well that's the role of organized religion not Freemasonry.


----------



## Bill Lins (Oct 6, 2014)

MaineMason said:


> Texas needs to get into the 21st Century. Just sayin.


We're working on it.


----------



## Proudvet09 (Oct 7, 2014)

Freemasonry is not a religion but a fraternity that declares in a Diety of A Supreme being of non- atheist views. I'm not the greatest with words but forgive me but I hope you know what I mean.


----------



## dfreybur (Oct 7, 2014)

Bill_Lins77488 said:


> We're working on it.



Does this mean there will be a vote in December?  I scanned the write up and did not see mention so it's clearly not among the GM's recommendations.  I visit a lodge tonight so I'll see if they have a write-up that includes other legislation that has been submitted.


----------



## chrmc (Oct 8, 2014)

dfreybur said:


> Does this mean there will be a vote in December?  I scanned the write up and did not see mention so it's clearly not among the GM's recommendations.  I visit a lodge tonight so I'll see if they have a write-up that includes other legislation that has been submitted.



I doubt it. But if memory serves me right (and it may very well not) believe the ball is in PHA's corner and the need to respond to the latest invite / letter or something. 
But guess that could also just be a good excuse to delay an already overdue topic even further.


----------



## dfreybur (Oct 8, 2014)

In the GLofTX the ball has been in our court since the Autumn 2013 quarterly communication of the MWPHGLofTX when they approved an invitation to change the recognition compact. It was too late to appear on the docket in December 2013.  As such the report of the committee on fraternal relations "should" include a reactive vote on the topic in December 2014.  Ah, that word "should".  But at this point the committee has something to react to.  Both hope and "past performance is the best predictor of future performance" spring eternal.  Or someone may have decided to force the issue by submitting legislation through the process.  That's why I'm interested in the agenda.

Of my 3 jurisdictions 2 have pending actions to move recognition forward.

Illinois has full blanket recognition and has had for many years.  So I don't have any action item there * .

In Texas I pitched a submission but I'm not a PM in Texas so I have to depend on convincing a PM.  My lesson is this year I start pitching in January to have more time working the topic.  If corrected recognition is not on this year's agenda that's my topic this year starting in January.  If it's there I start pitching in January legislation for blanket recognition emulating Illinois and several other states.

In California this year I explained to the Gr Sec's office where the committee on recognition meets that 2 states are missing from their list.  If they don't appear in the 2014 proceedings work the paperwork remotely to put those 2 states to a vote in 2015.  It's a slam dunk as I have several resident PMs willing to sign and there's no opposition in California to any PHA recognition issue so a housekeeping proposal would pass easily.  If they do appear California has its own compact correction to work on, in this case allowing cross affiliation with jurisdictions that support multiple membership.

* There are further steps I want accomplished.  It's not over if all of my jurisdictions have full recognition of all states that have local recognition.  Once that's in place it will be time to go for the harder sell of recognizing states that don't have internal recognition.  Last year MWPHGLorAR offered blanket recognition for any state that recognizes internally and that means they now recognize a lot of states that don't yet recognize them.  Let's accept that challenge and exchange mutual recognition in Arkansas and then march on to the rest of states that have missing recognition.  Taking the moral high ground on a proactive not reactive basis.


----------



## chrmc (Oct 8, 2014)

dfreybur said:


> In the GLofTX the ball has been in our court since the Autumn 2013 quarterly communication of the MWPHGLofTX when they approved an invitation to change the recognition compact. It was too late to appear on the docket in December 2013.  As such the report of the committee on fraternal relations "should" include a reactive vote on the topic in December 2014.  Ah, that word "should".  But at this point the committee has something to react to.  Both hope and "past performance is the best predictor of future performance" spring eternal.  Or someone may have decided to force the issue by submitting legislation through the process.  That's why I'm interested in the agenda.



Thanks for the update. I wasn't aware of this latest move. And I do share your sentiment about hope and past performance spring eternal. Though if the head of the fraternal relations committee is still Pierre Normand you'd think he'd be pushing for it.


----------



## Warrior1256 (Oct 2, 2016)

brother josh said:


> I hope one day my state will realize how none masonic it is for not allowing the visitation
> 
> 
> My Freemasonry HD


Same here.


----------

