# Grand Lodge of Ky and Most Worshipful Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Ky now have visitation



## RedTemplar (Oct 18, 2016)

Today, The Grand Lodge of Kentucky, upon request of The Most Worshipful Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Kentucky, voted to allow visitation between the subordinate bodies of each organization.  A grand day, indeed!


----------



## Brother JC (Oct 18, 2016)

Too long in coming, but good news indeed!


----------



## Ripcord22A (Oct 19, 2016)

Awesome News!!


----------



## alterian (Oct 19, 2016)

Great news


----------



## cemab4y (Oct 19, 2016)

As a Kentucky mason, I applaud this !  APPLAUSE!!


----------



## Warrior1256 (Oct 19, 2016)

GREAT NEWS!!!!! Look forward to visiting!


----------



## Warrior1256 (Oct 19, 2016)

RedTemplar said:


> Today, The Grand Lodge of Kentucky, upon request of The Most Worshipful Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Kentucky, voted to allow visitation between the subordinate bodies of each organization.  A grand day, indeed!


Just occured to me....has the Kentucky PH Grand Lodge voted to allow this also?


----------



## Warrior1256 (Oct 19, 2016)

Brother JC said:


> Too long in coming, but good news indeed!





Ripcord22A said:


> Awesome News!!





alterian said:


> Great news





cemab4y said:


> As a Kentucky mason, I applaud this !  APPLAUSE!!


Totally agree!


----------



## Brother JC (Oct 19, 2016)

Warrior1256 said:


> Just occured to me....has the Kentucky PH Grand Lodge voted to allow this also?



"upon request of The Most Worshipful Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Kentucky"
Seems unlikely to me that they would request it without knowing the will of the Brethren...


----------



## MRichard (Oct 19, 2016)

You couldn't have visitation unless both grand lodges agree to it. So they likely had already approved it. Not to mention that there was already recognition without visitation.


----------



## Dontrell Stroman (Oct 19, 2016)

I hope both GL of TN follow suit.

Sent from my 831C using My Freemasonry mobile app


----------



## SimonM (Oct 19, 2016)

Travelling Man91 said:


> I hope both GL of TN follow suit.
> 
> Sent from my 831C using My Freemasonry mobile app



How many states are there left that dont have visitation?


Sent from my iPhone using My Freemasonry


----------



## MRichard (Oct 19, 2016)

SimonM said:


> How many states are there left that dont have visitation?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using My Freemasonry



9


----------



## dfreybur (Oct 20, 2016)

SimonM said:


> How many states are there left that dont have visitation?



I think that cleans the slate of states that have recognition but not visitation.  Recognition is still an issue in both directions.


----------



## Ripcord22A (Oct 20, 2016)

MRichard said:


> 9


Isnt it 8 now?

Sent from my LG-H811 using My Freemasonry mobile app


----------



## Warrior1256 (Oct 20, 2016)

Brother JC said:


> "upon request of The Most Worshipful Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Kentucky"
> Seems unlikely to me that they would request it without knowing the will of the Brethren...





MRichard said:


> You couldn't have visitation unless both grand lodges agree to it. So they likely had already approved it. Not to mention that there was already recognition without visitation.


Did some checking with a brother last night. The Kentucky PH Grand Lodge had previously approved this measure. Therefore, visitation and Masonic communication between us is now in effect. A great day for Masonry in Kentucky!!!!


----------



## MRichard (Oct 20, 2016)

Ripcord22A said:


> Isnt it 8 now?
> 
> Sent from my LG-H811 using My Freemasonry mobile app



No. Because they already had recognition without visitation. Let's see if I can remember: FL, GA, MS, LA, TN, WV, AR, AL & SC.


----------



## Dontrell Stroman (Oct 20, 2016)

An older gentleman told me in order for the last few GLS to get on board, it's going to take some Masonic Funerals. I don't believe PHGL of TN or GL of TN has every tried to gain recognition with each other let alone discuss visitation. The quote on both sides has always been "Their clandestine" 

Sent from my 831C using My Freemasonry mobile app


----------



## Warrior1256 (Oct 20, 2016)

Travelling Man91 said:


> An older gentleman told me in order for the last few GLS to get on board, it's going to take some Masonic Funerals.


Sadly, this is not only true for GLs and PH GLs but individual lodges as well. I'm sure that some lodges on both side of the spectrum will not like these new developments. However, I'm sure that these will be in the minority and they will just have to get used to it.


----------



## Brother JC (Oct 20, 2016)

Last time I checked GLSC was still spouting the "sovereign jurisdiction" line. As long as that barrier stands there will be no recognition.


----------



## Dontrell Stroman (Oct 20, 2016)

Brother JC said:


> Last time I checked GLSC was still spouting the "sovereign jurisdiction" line. As long as that barrier stands there will be no recognition.


I've heard that too. As if the  PH GL had other choices but to form their own GL.


----------



## MRichard (Oct 20, 2016)

Brother JC said:


> Last time I checked GLSC was still spouting the "sovereign jurisdiction" line. As long as that barrier stands there will be no recognition.



Most if not all of them are using that. Some of them even consider PHA as clandestine and not regular but unrecognized. Louisiana does for sure.


----------



## Warrior1256 (Oct 20, 2016)

Brother JC said:


> Last time I checked GLSC was still spouting the "sovereign jurisdiction" line. As long as that barrier stands there will be no recognition.


As an MM of only 26 months I still am not aware of all terms. What exactly is "sovereign jurisdiction"?


----------



## MRichard (Oct 20, 2016)

Warrior1256 said:


> As an MM of only 26 months I still am not aware of all terms. What exactly is "sovereign jurisdiction"?



It's an American doctrine. Basically, there should only be one grand lodge per jurisdiction.


----------



## Dontrell Stroman (Oct 20, 2016)

MRichard said:


> It's an American doctrine. Basically, there should only be one grand lodge per jurisdiction.


And that's the catch, I agree there should only be one, but if a GL excludes black men from joining what else are they suppose to do ? That question is not directed towards you bro. Richard. As me and you have had this discussion multiple times.


----------



## MRichard (Oct 20, 2016)

Travelling Man91 said:


> And that's the catch, I agree there should only be one, but if a GL excludes black men from joining what else are they suppose to do ? That question is not directed towards you bro. Richard. As me and you have had this discussion multiple times.



It's mainly an American doctrine. Each grand lodge is sovereign and as such doesn't have to follow the rules and regulations of another grand lodge. http://bessel.org/exclartl.htm


----------



## Brother JC (Oct 21, 2016)

I find it a ridiculous concept. Imagine the diversity of living somewhere where five Grand Lodges exist amicably!


----------



## MRichard (Oct 21, 2016)

Brother JC said:


> I find it a ridiculous concept. Imagine the diversity of living somewhere where five Grand Lodges exist amicably!



You will probably never see that many regular and or recognized  grand lodges in a jurisdiction in the US. But they are 3 grand lodges in CA but one is in exile so that is a special circumstance.


----------



## Brother JC (Oct 21, 2016)

Japan is home to five, only place I know of. But even having two would be a wonderful learning experience.


----------



## MRichard (Oct 21, 2016)

Brother JC said:


> Japan is home to five, only place I know of. But even having two would be a wonderful learning experience.



I agree with you but getting these US grand lodges to agree to new grand lodges or chartered lodges within their own jurisdiction; it is just not likely to happen anytime soon if ever. Some still don't recognize their PHA counterpart.


----------



## MarkR (Oct 21, 2016)

People say it's mainly an American concept, but I challenge you to go start a new Grand Lodge in any of the Mother jurisdictions of England, Ireland, or Scotland and see if they welcome you.


----------



## Scoops (Oct 21, 2016)

MarkR said:


> People say it's mainly an American concept, but I challenge you to go start a new Grand Lodge in any of the Mother jurisdictions of England, Ireland, or Scotland and see if they welcome you.



Indeed, in UGLE's Book of Constitution (http://www.ugle.org.uk/images/files/Book_of_Constitutions_-_Craft_Rules_Sept_2016.pdf) page xiv (BASIC PRINCIPLES FOR GRAND LODGE RECOGNITION) Principle 5 specifically mentions that Sovereign Jurisdiction is required for recognition by UGLE.

However, you will note that it's very cleverly worded such that Sovereign Jurisdiction is over Lodges under the Grand Lodge's control rather than purely Geographic regions - hence how they are able to recognise two separate Grand Lodges in one US state.


----------



## Brother JC (Oct 21, 2016)

And how they can have District Grand Lodges in other countries where a recognized GL exists.


----------



## dfreybur (Oct 21, 2016)

MRichard said:


> But they are 3 grand lodges in CA but one is in exile so that is a special circumstance.



At least California and New York states host jurisdictions in exile.  Their goal is to host lodges in their home country not in their host state so the overlap is not lodge to lodge only any office space used by the host and guest jurisdictions.

Before the fall of the Berlin Wall there were GLs in exile for several Eastern Bloc countries.  The idea worked very well for that part of the world.

A variation on the theme is PHA Oklahoma.  They sponsor lodges in remote countries then eventually encourage them to go independent. It can happen that they aren't the only sponsoring jurisdiction, so when the locals go independent they merge from various sources.


----------



## Warrior1256 (Oct 22, 2016)

MRichard said:


> It's an American doctrine. Basically, there should only be one grand lodge per jurisdiction.


Thank you Brother.


----------



## MRichard (Oct 22, 2016)

MarkR said:


> People say it's mainly an American concept, but I challenge you to go start a new Grand Lodge in any of the Mother jurisdictions of England, Ireland, or Scotland and see if they welcome you.



That's an apples and oranges comparison. PHA was created because some men couldn't join the state grand lodges for whatever reason (racism). If they could have joined the state grand lodges, who knows what would have happened.


----------



## Glen Cook (Oct 22, 2016)

Scoops said:


> Indeed, in UGLE's Book of Constitution (http://www.ugle.org.uk/images/files/Book_of_Constitutions_-_Craft_Rules_Sept_2016.pdf) page xiv (BASIC PRINCIPLES FOR GRAND LODGE RECOGNITION) Principle 5 specifically mentions that Sovereign Jurisdiction is required for recognition by UGLE.
> 
> However, you will note that it's very cleverly worded such that Sovereign Jurisdiction is over Lodges under the Grand Lodge's control rather than purely Geographic regions - hence how they are able to recognise two separate Grand Lodges in one US state.


More precisely, they can recognize more than one GL in a jurisdiction if shared by mutual agreement.  See para 6 under Regularity. http://bessel.org/masrec/phaugle.htm


----------



## Ripcord22A (Oct 23, 2016)

Glen Cook said:


> More precisely, they can recognize more than one GL in a jurisdiction if shared by mutual agreement.  See para 6 under Regularity. http://bessel.org/masrec/phaugle.htm


Does Bessel still update his site?

Sent from my LG-H811 using My Freemasonry mobile app


----------



## MarkR (Oct 23, 2016)

MRichard said:


> That's an apples and oranges comparison. PHA was created because some men couldn't join the state grand lodges for whatever reason (racism). If they could have joined the state grand lodges, who knows what would have happened.


That wasn't the point of my post.  I was addressing the contention that the idea of jurisdictional sovereignty is somehow primarily an American idea.  It most certainly isn't.  And of course, Grand Lodges can agree to share a jurisdiction, it happens all over the world.


----------



## Glen Cook (Oct 23, 2016)

Ripcord22A said:


> Does Bessel still update his site?
> 
> Sent from my LG-H811 using My Freemasonry mobile app


No, RWB Bessel no longer updates the site.  I think there is a note somewhere on it reflecting this.


----------



## MRichard (Oct 24, 2016)

MarkR said:


> That wasn't the point of my post.  I was addressing the contention that the idea of jurisdictional sovereignty is somehow primarily an American idea.  It most certainly isn't.  And of course, Grand Lodges can agree to share a jurisdiction, it happens all over the world.



Well the point of my post is that it is primarily an American doctrine (exclusive jurisdiction) when used to deny another grand lodge recognition when the primary reason they exist is due to the past actions of said grand lodge.


----------



## Glen Cook (Oct 24, 2016)

MRichard said:


> Well the point of my post is that it is primarily an American doctrine (exclusive jurisdiction) when used to deny another grand lodge recognition when the primary reason they exist is due to the past actions of said grand lodge.


But it is not primarily an American doctrine. Yes, it is used as an ostensible reason to deny recognition.


----------



## MRichard (Oct 24, 2016)

Glen Cook said:


> But it is not primarily an American doctrine. Yes, it is used as an ostensible reason to deny recognition.



I did mention when used. I haven't heard of grand lodges denying entry to certain races to the point where the men are forced to form a grand lodge and then the grand lodges in question use exclusive jurisdiction. Where else has that happened?


----------



## Dontrell Stroman (Oct 24, 2016)

I don't understand why brothers can't face the fact and admit it boils down to racism plain and simple. 

Sent from my 831C using My Freemasonry mobile app


----------



## Glen Cook (Oct 24, 2016)

MRichard said:


> I did mention when used. I haven't heard of grand lodges denying entry to certain races to the point where the men are forced to form a grand lodge and then the grand lodges in question use exclusive jurisdiction. Where else has that happened?


I think your question may be, Have GLs outside the US used  ETJ to deny recognition based on race?

Not to my recollection.


----------



## MRichard (Oct 24, 2016)

Glen Cook said:


> I think your question may be, Have GLs outside the US used  ETJ to deny recognition based on race?
> 
> Not to my recollection.



Not exactly my question. I will not claim that the use of exclusive jurisdiction is solely based on race because you can't really prove it. But it is clear why there was a need for the PHA grand lodges? My point was that the PHA grand lodges were created because of race. It seems somewhat disingenuous to use exclusive jurisdiction when you or your predecessors created the problem in the first place. 

If PHA was created for other reasons, I wouldn't really have a problem with the exclusive jurisdiction doctrine.


----------



## Glen Cook (Oct 24, 2016)

MRichard said:


> Not exactly my question. I will not claim that the use of exclusive jurisdiction is solely based on race because you can't really prove it. But it is clear why there was a need for the PHA grand lodges? My point was that the PHA grand lodges were created because of race. It seems somewhat disingenuous to use exclusive jurisdiction when you or your predecessors created the problem in the first place.
> 
> If PHA was created for other reasons, I wouldn't really have a problem with the exclusive jurisdiction doctrine.


I have seen ETJ used in cases other than race. The NY DC issue over Lebanon comes to mind. 

For the GLs who are withholding  recognition of PHA  GLs who are not in Amity with their state grand Lodge counterpart, ETJ  is in operation, but is not racially motivated for those grand lodges, as seen by their recognition of other PHA GLs.


----------



## MRichard (Oct 24, 2016)

Glen Cook said:


> For the GLs who are withholding  recognition of PHA  GLs who are not in Amity with their state grand Lodge counterpart, ETJ  is in operation, but is not racially motivated for those grand lodges, as seen by their recognition of other PHA GLs.



I wasn't even referring to those grand lodges. My point of reference is the 9 grand lodges that won't recognize the PHA grand lodge in their state.


----------



## Glen Cook (Oct 24, 2016)

MRichard said:


> I wasn't even referring to those grand lodges. My point of reference is the 9 grand lodges that won't recognize the PHA grand lodge in their state.


That has nothing to do with ETJ. They can recognise 18 other GLs in their state.


----------



## MRichard (Oct 24, 2016)

Glen Cook said:


> That has nothing to do with ETJ. They can recognise 18 other GLs in their state.



Not understanding your logic when most of those grand lodges are using exclusive jurisdiction as the reason they won't recognize the PHA grand lodge in their state.


----------



## Glen Cook (Oct 24, 2016)

MRichard said:


> Not understanding your logic when most of those grand lodges are using exclusive jurisdiction as the reason they won't recognize the PHA grand lodge in their state.


I do not understand  that to be the ostensible reason they use. ETJ does not prevent recognition within a jurisdiction. If it did, other SGLs could  not recognise their PHA counterparts. UGLE could not share South Africa and Argentina.


----------



## MRichard (Oct 24, 2016)

Glen Cook said:


> I do not understand  that to be the ostensible reason they use. ETJ does not prevent recognition within a jurisdiction. If it did, other SGLs could  not recognise their PHA counterparts. UGLE could not share South Africa and Argentina.



Then why won't the 9 grand lodges recognize the PHA grand lodge in their state? What is their justification?


----------



## Glen Cook (Oct 24, 2016)

MRichard said:


> Then why won't the 9 grand lodges recognize the PHA grand lodge in their state? What is their justification?


 In the main, it is because of bigotry   

 There are three PHA GLs  apparently in Amity with GLdF. That is problematic.


----------



## MRichard (Oct 24, 2016)

Glen Cook said:


> In the main, it is because of bigotry
> 
> There are three PHA GLs  apparently in Amity with GLdF. That is problematic.



I knew that was the reason. I have seen a lot of members from those grand lodges cite exclusive jurisdiction as the reason. 

So there are 3 in amity with GLdF, what about the other 6? Those 3 should just withdraw recognition. Problem solved.


----------



## Glen Cook (Oct 24, 2016)

MRichard said:


> I knew that was the reason. I have seen a lot of members from those grand lodges cite exclusive jurisdiction as the reason.
> 
> So there are 3 in amity with GLdF, what about the other 6? Those 3 should just withdraw recognition. Problem solved.


Can't disagree. 

When they try the ETJ, ask why they haven't withdrawn recognition of UGLE which shares jurisdictions, California, Utah..  If you want, bring me in on the conversation.


----------



## MRichard (Oct 24, 2016)

Glen Cook said:


> Can't disagree.
> 
> When they try the ETJ, ask why they haven't withdrawn recognition of UGLE which shares jurisdictions, California, Utah..  If you want, bring me in on the conversation.



Thanks Brother Cooks. Will do.


----------



## Dontrell Stroman (Oct 24, 2016)

I believe PHA was created due to segregation and racial inequality. I recently heard a gentleman state there was no longer a need for PHA. I beg to differ. As long as there are GLS and subordinate lodges that refuse to admit a man based on the color of his skin there will be a need for PHA masons.

Sent from my 831C using My Freemasonry mobile app


----------



## Dontrell Stroman (Oct 24, 2016)

Do any of you brothers every try to reach out to these GLS that refuse to recognize PHA and see what their reasoning is ?

Sent from my 831C using My Freemasonry mobile app


----------



## Dontrell Stroman (Oct 24, 2016)

Why can't other GLS that recognize PHA say to heck with these GLS that refuse to recognize and recognize them anyways ?

Sent from my 831C using My Freemasonry mobile app


----------



## MRichard (Oct 24, 2016)

Travelling Man91 said:


> Do any of you brothers every try to reach out to these GLS that refuse to recognize PHA and see what their reasoning is ?
> 
> Sent from my 831C using My Freemasonry mobile app



Each grand lodge is sovereign. It would be inappropriate for me to contact another grand lodge about their rules and regulations.


----------



## Dontrell Stroman (Oct 24, 2016)

MRichard said:


> Each grand lodge is sovereign. It would be inappropriate for me to contact another grand lodge about their rules and regulations.


Understandable. What could you do to help ?

Sent from my 831C using My Freemasonry mobile app


----------



## MRichard (Oct 24, 2016)

Travelling Man91 said:


> Understandable. What could you do to help ?
> 
> Sent from my 831C using My Freemasonry mobile app



Good question. I speak out on it whenever I can on any online forum. I think the grand lodges in question should seek recognition without visitation and we also have to realize that there are problems on both sides. Some of these grand lodges may not want recognition.

Look at the PHA grand lodge in Oklahoma. They are in full amity with their state counterpart for years and it would be a simple step  to get recognition from the UGLE. But they haven't. Why?


----------



## Glen Cook (Oct 24, 2016)

Travelling Man91 said:


> Why can't other GLS that recognize PHA say to heck with these GLS that refuse to recognize and recognize them anyways ?
> 
> Sent from my 831C using My Freemasonry mobile app


Because we only recognize one GL in a jurisdiction,  absent consent to share the jurisdiction.


----------



## Brother JC (Oct 24, 2016)

MRichard said:


> Look at the PHA grand lodge in Oklahoma. They are in full amity with their state counterpart for years and it would be a simple step  to get recognition from the UGLE. But they haven't. Why?



That's a really good question... they are unique in that regard.


----------



## dfreybur (Oct 25, 2016)

MRichard said:


> Each grand lodge is sovereign. It would be inappropriate for me to contact another grand lodge about their rules and regulations.



There are ways.  The annual GL proceedings are generally available to the public.  Sometimes on the web.  Sometimes by a book purchase.  Sometimes through the jurisdiction's Lodge or Research.  Not all of those methods are restricted to members of recognized jurisdictions.  It would be a LOT of work but if they report the discussion that comes before the votes you should be able to find out the years of votes, the discussion and the vote tallies.


----------



## dfreybur (Oct 25, 2016)

MRichard said:


> Look at the PHA grand lodge in Oklahoma. They are in full amity with their state counterpart for years and it would be a simple step  to get recognition from the UGLE. But they haven't. Why?



Asked a number of times here with no answer so far.

My speculation - MWPHGLofOK is the most active sponsor of military lodges overseas.  I suspect that sponsoring these lodges, which might end up in territorial violation, is more valuable to them then UGLE recognition.  If that is in fact that reason, started or unstated, I am happy they are out there sponsoring military lodges.


----------



## Warrior1256 (Oct 25, 2016)

MRichard said:


> Each grand lodge is sovereign. It would be inappropriate for me to contact another grand lodge about their rules and regulations.


Very well said Brother. As I said before I'm a relative new MM and had not looked at the situation like this. This considered it would be inappropriate to contact another GL in this way.


----------



## alterian (Oct 29, 2016)

Glen Cook said:


> In the main, it is because of bigotry
> 
> There are three PHA GLs  apparently in Amity with GLdF. That is problematic.



Can someone educate me on GLdF? Are they irregular, clandestine or something?


----------



## Ripcord22A (Oct 29, 2016)

They are atheistic. As well as other things.  They started out regular but have gone back amd forth a few times

Sent from my LG-H811 using My Freemasonry mobile app


----------



## Glen Cook (Oct 29, 2016)

alterian said:


> Can someone educate me on GLdF? Are they irregular, clandestine or something?


They are not recognized by CGMNA GLs and UGLE


----------



## MarkR (Oct 30, 2016)

It's the Grand Orient of France that dropped the requirement of a belief in a Supreme Being, not GLdF.  The principle reason that GLdF is not recognized is because GLNF objects.  Minnesota learned that lesson the hard way, when they tried to recognize both.


----------



## Brother JC (Oct 30, 2016)

GLdF requires a belief in a supreme being and requires the VSL to be upon the altar.


----------



## Ripcord22A (Oct 30, 2016)

Got those two 
confused

Sent from my LG-H811 using My Freemasonry mobile app


----------



## Bloke (Oct 30, 2016)

Travelling Man91 said:


> .....As long as there are GLS and subordinate lodges that refuse to admit a man based on the color of his skin there will be a need for PHA masons.
> 
> Sent from my 831C using My Freemasonry mobile app



And if those problems are solved PHA becomes unnecessary? I think, regardless of those problems PHA GLS are important as organizing bodies who foster lodges as the custodians and perpetuators of important masonic and community history and tradition. In that, they're like all GL's. No more, no less, but perhaps can lay claim to a fortitude above other GLS in the circumstances they were founded and operated in during their first century  of existance.


----------



## Warrior1256 (Oct 30, 2016)

Bloke said:


> I think, regardless of those problems PHA GLS are important as organizing bodies who foster lodges as the custodians and perpetuators of important masonic and community history and tradition.


Agreed.


----------



## dfreybur (Oct 30, 2016)

Bloke said:


> And if those problems are solved PHA becomes unnecessary?



There's more to life than necessity.  The PHA branch of our family is as old as my country.  Heritage.


----------



## Warrior1256 (Oct 30, 2016)

dfreybur said:


> There's more to life than necessity.  The PHA branch of our family is as old as my country.  Heritage.


Exactly! Couldn't agree more.


----------



## Bloke (Oct 31, 2016)

dfreybur said:


> There's more to life than necessity.  The PHA branch of our family is as old as my country.  Heritage.


100% agree !


----------



## Vagabond357 (Nov 4, 2016)

Greetings Brother I was raised in a KY PHA lodge in 92-93 I found out about this news a few days ago was very pleased about it now only 9 states left


----------



## Warrior1256 (Nov 4, 2016)

Vagabond357 said:


> Greetings Brother I was raised in a KY PHA lodge in 92-93 I found out about this news a few days ago was very pleased about it now only 9 states left


Yes, proud day for Kentucky Masonry!


----------



## MRichard (Nov 4, 2016)

Vagabond357 said:


> Greetings Brother I was raised in a KY PHA lodge in 92-93 I found out about this news a few days ago was very pleased about it now only 9 states left



They already had recognition without visitation. Most people include recognition when discussing how many states left so it depends. Recognition wise, there are still 9 states left as this didn't change anything. Visitation wise, it did.


----------



## acjohnson53 (Aug 15, 2017)

Dwell together in unity Brothers....


----------

