# PHA recognition



## Ripcord22A (Jan 19, 2015)

I've only been a MM for a little over a year dip I'm not completely sure how it works.....here's my question....can a mainstream GL recognize a PHGL from another jurisdiction if that jurisdictions mainstream GL doesn't recognize them?


----------



## dfreybur (Jan 19, 2015)

jdmadsenCraterlake211 said:


> can a mainstream GL recognize a PHGL from another jurisdiction if that jurisdictions mainstream GL doesn't recognize them?



For the record I use the unofficial "George Washington affiliated" because both branches of our family are mainstream.  That said ...  Yes.  There is no requirement for recognition to be mutual.  Sometimes it is not and it happens in the other direction even more often.  Also there are times when recognition is offered but not responded to - Maybe call that pending?

The last time I checked the most recent Proceedings from GLofCA available on line is 2013 (members login needed to download).  On pages 416-417 is a list of PHA jurisdictions GLofCA has offered mutual recognition and that have returned with mutual recognition.  On page 417 is a list of PHA jurisdictions GLofCA has offered mutual recognition and that has not been responded to.  The two lists are roughly the same length so PHA recognition is roughly 50% of the offers.  When I initially moved to Texas I checked the list to make sure I could present myself to visit both GLofTX or MHPHGLofTX lodges (limited time until I had to chose and affiliate with one).

Maybe some of them have recognized without letting the Gr Sec of GLofCA know.  Maybe some have blanket recognition so they don't need a response.  It might be interesting to present oneself at their door, show your dues card and see what happens.  Brothers like me who are members of more than one jurisdiction need to follow the most restrictive list so I'd have to check with Texas to see about overlapping states.

MWPHGLofAR is an interesting case.  A bit over a year ago their MW GM issued an edict recognizing all states that have recognition whether they have offered recognition back or not.  If I traveled to Arkansas I could present myself at a PHA lodge and they would probably welcome me.  I'd need to check the Texas list to see if I were allowed yet, but they might not care about that.  It's up to the brother to check for recognition one direction before presenting himself.  It's up to the visited lodge to check for recognition in the other direction before admitting.


----------



## Ripcord22A (Jan 19, 2015)

Thanks Bro...very informational!


----------



## MRichard (Jan 20, 2015)

Generally, "mainstream" grand lodges only recognize the Prince Hall grand lodge of the same state. There may be some exceptions when the Prince Hall grand lodge is chartered in another state. A "mainstream" grand lodge would not recognize a Prince Hall grand lodge that was not in amity with its "mainstream" counterpart because that lodge is not recognized by the UGLE. That is to the best of my knowledge.


----------



## dfreybur (Jan 20, 2015)

MRichard said:


> Generally, "mainstream" grand lodges only recognize the Prince Hall grand lodge of the same state.



That's incorrect.  Once local recognition happens all of the rest become rubber stamp issues.  Go look it up in your own jurisdiction.

A number even have blanket policies to recognize automatically every state that has local recognition http://bessel.org/masrec/phablanket.htm

States that don't do blanket recognition tend to rubber stamp recognition as it happens.  Read the posts here for Texas - An incomplete list of states was voted in this time.  Now it's a matter of making sure the rest also get rubber stamped.


----------



## MRichard (Jan 20, 2015)

dfreybur said:


> That's incorrect.  Once local recognition happens all of the rest become rubber stamp issues.  Go look it up in your own jurisdiction.
> 
> A number even have blanket policies to recognize automatically every state that has local recognition http://bessel.org/masrec/phablanket.htm
> 
> States that don't do blanket recognition tend to rubber stamp recognition as it happens.  Read the posts here for Texas - An incomplete list of states was voted in this time.  Now it's a matter of making sure the rest also get rubber stamped.



That's what a brother told me who had been a member of "mainstream" and Prince Hall grand lodges but it is possible I didn't understand him completely. There are only 11 states (DC not included) that have blanket recognition on that Bessel's website which has not been updated in years. That is still in the minority. Not sure what you mean by rubber stamped.


----------



## dfreybur (Jan 20, 2015)

MRichard said:


> That's what a brother told me who had been a member of "mainstream" and Prince Hall grand lodges but it is possible I didn't understand him completely.



Or he was mistaken (that happens a lot - I've heard Prince Hall called clandestine by plenty of brothers).  Or he over summarized.  Or he meant the other direction as I posted above on the California situation.  Failure of recognition is now more common going in the other direction for the jurisdictions I've checked.



> There are only 11 states (DC not included) that have blanket recognition on that Bessel's website which has not been updated in years. That is still in the minority.



The site is no longer being maintained and he appears to ignore all updates.  Unfortunate.



> Not sure what you mean by rubber stamped.



Included in the committee report and voted on without comment or opposition.  The times I attended California GL the list was already complete but I did see that happen with foreign jurisdictions.  Illinois has blanket recognition so it doesn't even get voted on but the times I attended Illinois I did see that happen with foreign jurisdictions.

It does require the committee on recognition/fraternal-relations to be proactive not reactive.  That appears to be a problem with Texas GL committees being traditionally reactive.


----------



## Glen Cook (Jan 20, 2015)

MRichard said:


> Generally, "mainstream" grand lodges only recognize the Prince Hall grand lodge of the same state. There may be some exceptions when the Prince Hall grand lodge is chartered in another state. A "mainstream" grand lodge would not recognize a Prince Hall grand lodge that was not in amity with its "mainstream" counterpart because that lodge is not recognized by the UGLE. That is to the best of my knowledge.



No.  Many State GLs recognize PHA GLs without their jurisdiction. 

A State GL would not recognize a foreign PHA GL not in amity with its own State GL counterpart because of that lack of recognition. It has nothing to do with UGLE. Utah extended recognition to PHA NC before any UGLE action. It only required amity between GLNC and PHANC.


----------



## MarkR (Jan 21, 2015)

Yeah, Minnesota allows visitation to and from any PHA Grand Lodge that is in amity with its corresponding state Grand Lodge, regardless of whether there is a formal recognition between Minnesota and the PHA GL in question.  However, it would probably create serious problems in Masonry if any Grand Lodge decided to recognize a PHA GL without the agreement of the corresponding state Grand Lodge.

Many of you remember when Minnesota extended recognition to the Grand Lodge of France in addition to the French National Grand Lodge, without GLNF agreeing to it.  Several state Grand Lodges withdrew recognition of Minnesota until Minnesota withdrew recognition of GLdF.


----------



## dfreybur (Jan 21, 2015)

Glen Cook said:


> A State GL would not recognize a foreign PHA GL not in amity with its own State GL counterpart because of that lack of recognition.



I can think of a couple of jurisdictions that deserve to have their sovereignty violated in this fashion.  But that's a tough sell to be worked on in future years.



> It has nothing to do with UGLE. Utah extended recognition to PHA NC before any UGLE action. It only required amity between GLNC and PHANC.



In Texas it would appear that the MWPHGLofTX asked for local recognition in order to get recognized by UGLE.  Very surface view of getting recognition without visitation and then not bothering to correct the situation for 7 years.  MWPHGLofOK has local recognition in Oklahoma but is not listed by UGLE.  I don't know if they declined to make the request or if UGLE declined to act.  So the situation with UGLE is not the complete view.

That said, the foreign grand lodges section of the UGLE web page is the best starting point to decide about visits.  Being listed there 100% means the jurisdiction is considered regular, though there are regular jurisdictions not on the list.  Being listed there 100% means there is local recognition, though there are recognized jurisdictions not on the list.  That only leaves local agreements that don't include visitation.  To a visitor from the outside, local agreements don't apply 100% of the time.  I visited MWPHGLofTX and GLofTX lodges when I first moved to the state because my jurisdictions at the time didn't have the restriction.  So looking at the UGLE web site gives 95%+ accuracy on the first look and any brother is supposed to know their own jurisdiction's tighter restrictions.

Another topic would be a GL matter.  If a jurisdiction is on the UGLE list not not on your jurisdiction's list, why not?  Time to contact the committee and ask them, then push the issue if the excuse they give is as lame as it has to be.



MarkR said:


> Yeah, Minnesota allows visitation to and from any PHA Grand Lodge that is in amity with its corresponding state Grand Lodge, regardless of whether there is a formal recognition between Minnesota and the PHA GL in question.



If that happens automatically because it is a pre-approved policy the term for it is blanket recognition.  If that happens because the committee on recognition/relations is proactive I call it a rubber stamp process - It gets included in the committee's report and it happens when the report is approved without a separate vote per jurisdiction.

California has an informal rubber stamp policy but when I read their list and went over it in detail two states fell through the cracks.  Last year I contacted the committee.  This year I go through the legislation process - I have until May, tick tick tick.  It's not over for me until all of my jurisdictions recognize and exchange visitation privilege everywhere.  It's not over in general until that's true of all US jurisdictions.



> However, it would probably create serious problems in Masonry if any Grand Lodge decided to recognize a PHA GL without the agreement of the corresponding state Grand Lodge.
> 
> Many of you remember when Minnesota extended recognition to the Grand Lodge of France in addition to the French National Grand Lodge, without GLNF agreeing to it.  Several state Grand Lodges withdrew recognition of Minnesota until Minnesota withdrew recognition of GLdF.



I ask the brethren to ponder this at leisure.  Jurisdictions are sovereign.  They get to make their own decisions including ones that are bad for the fraternity as a whole.  In most cases the only recourse is to pull recognition.  In most cases the only real consequence is foreign visitations stop.

Perhaps with PHA we have a less extreme measure available to us.  Should we start pulling recognition of states that refuse to recognize?  Might be too extreme an act and besides at least one southern state did that in the late 1980s when PHA recognition started and they were laughed at and thanked for have an unMasonic jurisdiction exit the field of discourse.  But if some of our jurisdictions gradually start recognizing PHA in spite of lack of local recognition that's both an act of generosity and a violation of sovereignty.  If the the jurisdiction is out of control for other reasons it might be whispering good counsel in a less heavy handed way than pulling recognition.

A year ago the MWGL of the WMPHGLofAR issued a proclamation recognizing every state that has recognition, whether that recognition is returned or not.  It takes the moral high ground.  Given the chronic problems with GLofAR on other fronts they'd be a jurisdiction I don't value their sovereignty as much as they think I should.  Just saying ...


----------



## MRichard (Jan 21, 2015)

dfreybur said:


> In Texas it would appear that the MWPHGLofTX asked for local recognition in order to get recognized by UGLE.  Very surface view of getting recognition without visitation and then not bothering to correct the situation for 7 years.  MWPHGLofOK has local recognition in Oklahoma but is not listed by UGLE.  I don't know if they declined to make the request or if UGLE declined to act.  So the situation with UGLE is not the complete view.



I don't believe Oklahoma asked the UGLE for recognition even though they are in amity with their "mainstream" counterpart. It does seem unusual to say the least cause you would think it would be a mere formality at this point.


----------



## Morris (Jan 21, 2015)

MRichard said:


> I don't believe Oklahoma asked the UGLE for recognition even though they are in amity with their "mainstream" counterpart. It does seem unusual to say the least cause you would think it would be a mere formality at this point.



I've met more oklahoma PHA masons  overseas (Afghanistan and Japan) than any other PHA Mason. I've even worked with a few, but no one could tell me where they are with getting recognized or if they are even trying.


----------



## Glen Cook (Jan 21, 2015)

OK took the "recognition without visitation" step first as well. 

I understand emotionally the desire to bring to heel the recalcitrant jurisdictions. However, having seen the the fallout over the NY-DC 2008 suspension of recognition iover Lebanon, there are  innocent brethren effected and it could cause great difficulty with that many GLs involved. 

The rule: check to see who your GL recognizes.


----------



## dfreybur (Jan 22, 2015)

Glen Cook said:


> OK took the "recognition without visitation" step first as well



Why any jurisdiction would add that extra step is beyond my ken.  Either the vote attempts to take the moral high road or it does not.  Either the vote passes or it fails.  I suppose I am less worried about a failed vote than some - When California went through the process I looked back and it had been proposed every other year many times with the vote count gradually changing.  Whoever drove the process cared more about taking the moral high road than winning the vote.  And he used time patience and persistence to accomplish his end.



> I understand emotionally the desire to bring to heel the recalcitrant jurisdictions. However, having seen the the fallout over the NY-DC 2008 suspension of recognition iover Lebanon, there are  innocent brethren effected and it could cause great difficulty with that many GLs involved.



Part of the deal with my being willing to put forward a proposal that gets voted down.  I see enough of that happening that I don't worry about it.  That is the reason I mention a jurisdiction whose members are already leaving in droves, though.

[/QUOTE]The rule: check to see who your GL recognizes.[/QUOTE]

And ask your jurisdiction's web master to publish the list online.  For California I had to login to the members only area and download the Proceedings book for search for it.  Very far from an obvious location.


----------



## Glen Cook (Jan 22, 2015)

dfreybur said:


> Why any jurisdiction would add that extra step is beyond my ken.  Either the vote attempts to take the moral high road or it does not.  Either the vote passes or it fails.  I suppose I am less worried about a failed vote than some - When California went through the process I looked back and it had been proposed every other year many times with the vote count gradually changing.  Whoever drove the process cared more about taking the moral high road than winning the vote.  And he used time patience and persistence to accomplish his end.
> 
> 
> 
> Part of the deal with my being willing to put forward a proposal that gets voted down.  I see enough of that happening that I don't worry about it.  That is the reason I mention a jurisdiction whose members are already leaving in droves, though.


The rule: check to see who your GL recognizes.[/QUOTE]

And ask your jurisdiction's web master to publish the list online.  For California I had to login to the members only area and download the Proceedings book for search for it.  Very far from an obvious loc.[/QUOTE]

I was unclear. I was speaking to the issue of other GLs acting, not individual Masons, thus the NY-DC example. 

I like the idea of putting the recognized GLs on the web.  Now, to beg the beleaguered web master to do so.


----------

