# Will SJR Scottish Rite members be Clandestine now?



## FlBrother324 (Nov 2, 2013)

Since the SJR Scottish Rite voted to recognize its' PHA counterparts as equals, what will happen to those Blue Lodge Brothers that are also Scottish Rite in Jurisdictions that don't presently recognize PHA lodges? Will we be forced to demit from Scottish Rite if our Grand Jurisdiction doesn't recognize PHA lodges? Will we be put in the same situation as the Brothers in Arkansas? 

This will put Tens of Thousands of our Brethren in jeopardy of becoming labeled as Clandestine Masons or being forced to quit Scottish Rite! 

Though I can understand their intent, it places Brothers at risk with little or no options for a reasonable solution personally. I believe it is going to create a major riff in our already struggling Fraternity membership, just look at what it has done with the Shrine in Arkansas, and Michigan before that. Was this a wise thing for them to do, considering the possible consequences? 


I am obligated as a MM first, my appended body membership would need to be reluctantly left behind until such time as they could resolve the issues at hand.



Yours, in His service. 


My Freemasonry


----------



## Mason653 (Nov 2, 2013)

*Re: Will SJR Scottish Rite members be Clandestine *

No issue. Also PHA is NOT clandestine. If YOU take offense to the ruling, you can as stated kindly demit. I do believe the supreme council knows more about masonry in general than you and who's real or clandestine. They have sat in degrees/ritual of PHA and apparently find no issues, not only that but may I kindly remind you prince hall was made a mason by a regular lodge and being a member of such, got a charter and stated his own all African lodge. 

Further more the guys at the UGLE know way more about the history of our organization and does recognize prince hall as official and regular. 

You can do like the GL of AK and remove recognition but I doubt you have the power to. I would advise all brother who don't agree with it to adapt to change or leave. Simple and plain. There is no need for any rift in masonry. Sorry if I fail to see the issue. 

This is not to make you out a racist.

This is just to remind you that UGLE, and the SC of the 33* has the say, power and knowledge of who's clandy or not. People who don't have such can either...like stated leave or stay. Sand with jurisdictions...leave or stay. 

Masonry is a united brotherhood. If your Jurisdiction has a problem it's your jurisdiction with the problem. Because the Mother Grand Lodge of the World has spoken. The Supreme Councils have spoken. 

You're jurisdiction has to say what? 

You should inform your fellow brethren to get with the program or you and the lodges who don't like these new advances in masonry can kindly demit and be clandy. 

My humble opinion.  


357


Freemason Connect Mobile


----------



## crono782 (Nov 2, 2013)

*Re: Will SJR Scottish Rite members be Clandestine*

It is a legit question. I've asked the same. In tx there is not blue lodge visitation. If SR allows it and I visit, will I get in trouble w/ my GL?That is a real question. 


My Freemasonry


----------



## BroBook (Nov 2, 2013)

*Re: Will SJR Scottish Rite members be Clandestine*



crono782 said:


> It is a legit question. I've asked the same. In tx there is not blue lodge visitation. If SR allows it and I visit, will I get in trouble w/ my GL?That is a real question.
> 
> 
> My Freemasonry



I may be wrong and I reserve that right as a man 
But if I understand correctly even though you have to be "A" blue lodge member the Bodies
In question are not masonic per se???


My Freemasonry


----------



## crono782 (Nov 2, 2013)

*Re: Will SJR Scottish Rite members be Clandestine*



BroBook said:


> I may be wrong and I reserve that right as a man
> But if I understand correctly even though you have to be "A" blue lodge member the Bodies
> In question are not masonic per se???
> 
> ...



I believe that's the question at the center of the Arkansas Shrine in trouble. 


My Freemasonry


----------



## FlBrother324 (Nov 2, 2013)

Mason653 said:


> No issue. Also PHA is NOT clandestine. If YOU take offense to the ruling, you can as stated kindly demit. I do believe the supreme council knows more about masonry in general than you and who's real or clandestine. They have sat in degrees/ritual of PHA and apparently find no issues, not only that but may I kindly remind you prince hall was made a mason by a regular lodge and being a member of such, got a charter and stated his own all African lodge.
> 
> Further more the guys at the UGLE know way more about the history of our organization and does recognize prince hall as official and regular.
> 
> ...



My  Brother, 
By your responses it appears you think I hold an objection to the ruling of the SJR?
To answer some of your assumptions:
I was simply looking to seek some input regarding the matter from my  fellow Brethren. I utilized the 2 separate examples relating to this issue do to the consequences to Masonry as a whole. 
Regarding whether PHA  is considered "Clandestine"  or not, Is governed under the Jurisdiction to which a Brother belongs, and the issue of recognition isn't always cut and dry as some would like it to be. 
For your information the issue was raised and accepted in principle a couple of years ago by our Grand Jurisdiction, and we were advised the PHA was the side that passed on the invitation. 
As in Texas,  it takes both sides to come to an agreement and as you stated they would know more about it than I.

Never did I make the statement that I was going to try and remove their recognition or status of being Clandestine, not sure who's thread you were looking at, because I never eluded to any such thing. 
Regarding me recognizing a PHA Brother is dictated by my obligation to which I am required to follow while I remain under my states Grand Jurisdiction. 

Regarding the rift: The issue is many jurisdictions don't have a recognition in place, and under those Jurisdictions it will be placing Brothers that are Scottish Rite in a position of Violating their Obligation as a Master Mason within those Jurisdictions. It is not open to conjecture or interpretation from the Brother, his Grand Jurisdiction regulates that.

Regarding the demiting from SR I would do so as stated in my original thread, Reluctantly.  Because I live as a Mason, it's not something I do a few tines a month. Regarding it being a Racist thing, you're the one who brought that up as an issue, not me. Race, creed, or other personal preferences have no place in a Masonic lifestyle, nor should they. I have been in a inter-racial relationship for 28 years, and happily married for 27 of them! So it's not about Race my Brother.

As always,

Yours, in His service.


My Freemasonry


----------



## FlBrother324 (Nov 2, 2013)

*Re: Will SJR Scottish Rite members be Clandestine*



BroBook said:


> I may be wrong and I reserve that right as a man
> But if I understand correctly even though you have to be "A" blue lodge member the Bodies
> In question are not masonic per se???
> 
> ...



Brother Brook,

Regarding whether you need to be in a Blue Lodge to be affiliate to appended  bodies., the answer is yes you do. With the exception to Arkansas Shrine which dropped all Masonic requirements for membership.  All our appended bodies are affiliated " Masonic" entities. To my knowledge you are required to be a MM prior to being allowed to affiliate to any Masonic appended body, at least where our Grand Jurisdiction is concerned. I believe some have time requirements as well, that vary from 6 months to several years depending on the  appended Body and Jurisdictions involved.

Like you my Brother, I could be wrong as well:
The only way I can walk on water, is if I know where the ROCKS are below the surface! Otherwise, I'm on an express to the bottom. 
LOL
God Bless Brother.

Yours, in His service.


My Freemasonry


----------



## JFS61 (Nov 2, 2013)

*Re: Will SJR Scottish Rite members be Clandestine*

I think people are putting more into this than there is - My understanding is that The SJ of the Scottish Rite has voted to recognize its PHA counterparts, but it appears that is as far as it goes. This should be no problem for Texas Scottish Rite Masons, as GLOTX already recognizes the MWPHGLOTX. Now, if intervisitation is involved (and from what I've seen this isn't clear), then there would be a problem (however, once again, that doesn't seem to be the case here).

Still a very welcome and important step, but not quite the watershed moment that some here seem to be making it out to be (at least here in Texas).


----------



## Brother_Steve (Nov 2, 2013)

*Re: Will SJR Scottish Rite members be Clandestine*



JFS61 said:


> I think people are putting more into this than there is - My understanding is that The SJ of the Scottish Rite has voted to recognize its PHA counterparts, but it appears that is as far as it goes. This should be no problem for Texas Scottish Rite Masons, as GLOTX already recognizes the MWPHGLOTX. Now, if intervisitation is involved (and from what I've seen this isn't clear), then there would be a problem (however, once again, that doesn't seem to be the case here).
> 
> Still a very welcome and important step, but not quite the watershed moment that some here seem to be making it out to be (at least here in Texas).


I think FIBrother's main concern is for states like Georgia that do not allow masonic communication to happen between PHA and Washington Masonry. According to the new ruling of the Scottish Rite, a Georgian SR mason is in full recognition with a SR PHA Mason when in a lodge of SR masons.

Whereas blue lodge in said state is entirely off limits for both brothers to sit in lodge together. What takes precedence here?


----------



## Brother JC (Nov 3, 2013)

*Re: Will SJR Scottish Rite members be Clandestine*



Mason653 said:


> You can do like the GL of AK and remove recognition but I doubt you have the power to.


I wasn't aware of the Grand Lodge of Alaska pulling recognition of anyone...


----------



## Brennan (Nov 3, 2013)

*Re: Will SJR Scottish Rite members be Clandestine *

He meant Arkansas not Alaska brother.


My Freemasonry


----------



## Brother JC (Nov 3, 2013)

*Re: Will SJR Scottish Rite members be Clandestine *

That would be GL of AR, then. Details matter...


----------



## rnelson357 (Nov 4, 2013)

*Re: Will SJR Scottish Rite members be Clandestine*



Brother_Steve said:


> I think FIBrother's main concern is for states like Georgia that do not allow masonic communication to happen between PHA and Washington Masonry. According to the new ruling of the Scottish Rite, a Georgian SR mason is in full recognition with a SR PHA Mason when in a lodge of SR masons.
> 
> Whereas blue lodge in said state is entirely off limits for both brothers to sit in lodge together. What takes precedence here?



My understanding of the agreement is that the law of the gl takes precedence. Meaning the mutual amity agreement of the GL reflects in the Orients. For places such as Ga where we do not currently have full mutual amity, we will not be able to visit in the Scottish rite. This may or may not push the 9 remaining states to move forward with mutual amity. That is up to the voting members of the GM


My Freemasonry


----------



## FlBrother324 (Nov 5, 2013)

Mason653 said:


> No issue. Also PHA is NOT clandestine. If YOU take offense to the ruling, you can as stated kindly demit. I do believe the supreme council knows more about masonry in general than you and who's real or clandestine. They have sat in degrees/ritual of PHA and apparently find no issues, not only that but may I kindly remind you prince hall was made a mason by a regular lodge and being a member of such, got a charter and stated his own all African lodge.
> 
> Further more the guys at the UGLE know way more about the history of our organization and does recognize prince hall as official and regular.
> 
> ...



My Brother,
You  may find this informative regarding my previously stated valid concerns.

I also found this posted by Br. Blake Bowden on another thread. I found it quite informative and educational.

http://www.myfreemasonry.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=3654&d=1382331728

God Bless


My Freemasonry


----------



## dfreybur (Nov 5, 2013)

*Re: Will SJR Scottish Rite members be Clandestine*



crono782 said:


> I believe that's the question at the center of the Arkansas Shrine in trouble.



In most states with real recognition including visitation the statement of recognition between AASR jurisdictions was a matter of formal completeness.  No effect of any sort is to be expected.  I have seen a reunion where all 3 AASR jurisdictions attended and presented degrees and recognition issues didn't come up as recognition at the GL level had been in place for years.

In the states where recognition is not yet in place or is partial, we await rulings by our GLs.  It does appear to be an bit of activism on the part of AASR - The tail asking to wag the dog.  I think it's a fairly clever move.  Saying their members can't visit puts a GL on the moral low ground.  Saying their members can visit puts pressure on the recognition process.

Historically the Shrine and GLs have been at odds.  In Arkansas both jumped the shark but there was a long history leading up to it.  Many were disappointed when it happened but anyone who was surprised had missed a lot of news for a lot of years.

Historically the Scottish Rite and the GLs have worked together closely.  If any state declares the AASR clandestine, to me it will be clear it was the GL who jumped the shark.

Recognition issues have been stalled for several years.  It makes sense to start building up the pressure on states that lack recognition or some part of it.  I like the indirect way the AASR has taken the lead.


----------



## tomasball (Nov 5, 2013)

*Re: Will SJR Scottish Rite members be Clandestine *

As I understand it, previously when a GL extended recognition to its PH counterpart, the SGIG in that state did similarly, but had to be approved by the Supreme Council.  This action just approves in advance the actions of SGIGs in their respective states to follow up on GL recognition.


----------



## FlBrother324 (Nov 7, 2013)

*Re: Will SJR Scottish Rite members be Clandestine*

Can anyone tell me what State's Grand Jurisdiction allows visitation along with recognition? I know mine has neither at this time from either "side of the coin", PHA or otherwise.


----------



## Brother JC (Nov 7, 2013)

*Re: Will SJR Scottish Rite members be Clandestine *

NM has had both for a number of years. To my knowledge, most Jurisdictions that have recognition have visitation.


----------



## MarkR (Nov 8, 2013)

*Re: Will SJR Scottish Rite members be Clandestine*

Minnesota since 1995.


----------



## dfreybur (Nov 8, 2013)

*Re: Will SJR Scottish Rite members be Clandestine*



FlBrother324 said:


> Can anyone tell me what State's Grand Jurisdiction allows visitation along with recognition? I know mine has neither at this time from either "side of the coin", PHA or otherwise.



Here's a map showing the remaining problem states.  It's not that simple as not all of the recognizing states recognize all and the recognized PHA jurisdictions have been slow to reciprocate.  This is only the skin of the onion.

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

Here's a chart showing details of recognition.  Most have full recognition.  Some visitation only, some recognition without visitation.  The list is not up to date - California actually has visitation only as they don't allow dual affiliation but they are listed as having full recognition; there are bound to be other entries with incomplete details.

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

The table lists Oklahoma and Kentucky as not having visitation.  The write up Texas gives a link for details but the link is broken.  As such it fails to mention that we also don't have visitation.

So the count now is 9 without recognition, 3 without visitation, everyone else with visitation some missing other details.

The last time I checked Oklahoma does not yet have recognition from UGLE.  I have no idea if this correlates with the lack of visitation in their agreement or if UGLE just hasn't gotten around to it yet.


----------



## FlBrother324 (Nov 8, 2013)

*Re: Will SJR Scottish Rite members be Clandestine*

Thank you Br. Freyburger for the information. So presently there's a little over 20% that still don't have visitation? Sadly ours is one of those without. But when we tried offering recognition the PHA in our state passed for unknown reasons? Though it was presented the Craft at Grand Lodge a couple of years ago with favorable results. Not a lot can be done without both sides agreeing. In the meantime we wait.

Yours, in His service.


----------



## Rick Clifton (Nov 10, 2013)

*Re: Will SJR Scottish Rite members be Clandestine*



dfreybur said:


> the remaining problem states.



Poor choice of words. JMHO


----------



## Mac (Nov 10, 2013)

*Re: Will SJR Scottish Rite members be Clandestine*



Rick Clifton said:


> Poor choice of words. JMHO



I disagree. These jurisdictions have been dragging their feet (one or both sides). It's time this divide be a thing of history. 


Sent via mobile app (Freemason Connect HD)


----------



## dfreybur (Nov 11, 2013)

*Re: Will SJR Scottish Rite members be Clandestine*



FlBrother324 said:


> Sadly ours is one of those without. But when we tried offering recognition the PHA in our state passed for unknown reasons? Though it was presented the Craft at Grand Lodge a couple of years ago with favorable results. Not a lot can be done without both sides agreeing. In the meantime we wait.



So far I had only heard of Arkansas offering and being turned down.  Is there a write up on the GLofFL web site?  In both cases Arkansas and Florida I wonder what happened?  Was either offer itself were unacceptable or were our PHA brothers there are not yet ready for other reasons?



Rick Clifton said:


> Poor choice of words. JMHO



Note that I don't specify which side the problem is on.  The map I cited only shows the problem in one direction.  That's something I've learned since joining this forum, and it's something discussed in this thread.

What's up in Arkansas and Florida?  Is it correlated with other topics that have had these jurisdictions (as well as WV) in the news in recent years?

Were I a member in PHA AR, FL or WV I might want the dust to settle a bit over their other issues before being ready to exchange mutual recognition, but I read the list of jurisdictions that have not responded to the California offer and I can't think of a good reason they have not yet responded.  Plus knowing that California has a list of pending offers I wonder how much other clean up remains.


----------



## dfreybur (Nov 11, 2013)

*Re: Will SJR Scottish Rite members be Clandestine*

We're waiting on rulings by the various GLs that don't have mutual recognition in place, right?

I have come to the point where I do not expect clarifying rules to be issued by any GL until some of their members start forcing the issue by attending across boundaries.  Why should a sovereign jurisdiction react to outside pressure just because I want them to?  Were I in a jurisdiction without mutual recognition would I present myself for a visit to force the issue?  Risking expulsion I would not.  So I don't expect any jurisdiction to issue a clarifying ruling on their own and I will not be surprised if no brother in any jurisdiction forces the issue.

Taking the moral high ground only works if others respond.  I expect stonewalling.  It's what we've seen so far.  Sigh.


----------

