# Traveling



## Dontrell Stroman (Aug 5, 2015)

When approaching a guy in public that you believe may be a mason, do you think "street masonry" or book catch e kisms are more appropriate to find out ?


----------



## dfreybur (Aug 5, 2015)

I do not think obscure methods are appropriate on the street. Just ask if the man is a brother Mason.

Leave the dues card and knowledge demonstration to the investigating committee in the tiler's room.


----------



## Dontrell Stroman (Aug 5, 2015)

So you just take a guys word without seeing his dues card ?


----------



## Glen Cook (Aug 5, 2015)

Travelling Man91 said:


> So you just take a guys word without seeing his dues card ?


Why do you need to see his dues card?  Are you conversing on the secrets of Freemasonry?  What if it is a GL which doesn't use dues cards?


----------



## Dontrell Stroman (Aug 5, 2015)

I'm just getting other brother opinions. I've never heard of a GL not using dues cards


----------



## Dontrell Stroman (Aug 5, 2015)

Well seeing his dues card would verify that he is a brother in good standing, verses just taking his word.


----------



## Glen Cook (Aug 5, 2015)

A


Travelling Man91 said:


> Well seeing his dues card would verify that he is a brother in good standing, verses just taking his word.


UGLE doesn't use dues cards. How do you know what his jurisdiction's cards look like?Why do you feel you need to confirm he is a Mason?  I fail to see a reason for doing so outside of lodge. These questions come across as curt.  They aren't meant that way, but an attempt to figure out why this is thought to be an issue.  

I will tell you, that if someone tells me they need to see my dues card outside of lodge, I don't know that I would be cooperative.


----------



## Dontrell Stroman (Aug 5, 2015)

Never thought of it in that context. I see what you are saying. Say you met a guy on the street that was trying to hold a Masonic conversation, how do you verify his membership ? Because he could be in an clandestine lodge.


----------



## Glen Cook (Aug 6, 2015)

What is a Masonic conversation? Do you mean to converse on the secrets of Freemasonry?  Why would you be doing this outside of lodge?


----------



## Dontrell Stroman (Aug 6, 2015)

Not so much on secrets, as it would be just throwing out a little catch e kisms


----------



## Glen Cook (Aug 6, 2015)

How would it be different than what is being done on this forum?


----------



## Dontrell Stroman (Aug 6, 2015)

Because there are questions you can ask and if a mason is who he say he is, then he should know what you talking about


----------



## Glen Cook (Aug 6, 2015)

For my purposes, I have no need to determine if he is a Mason outside the Lodge, and I suspect you don't really need to do so.


----------



## Dontrell Stroman (Aug 6, 2015)

So do you not ever grip a brothers hand outside the lodge ?


----------



## Glen Cook (Aug 6, 2015)

i don't see a need to do so. I suspect your response is that you want to be able to ask him questions that prove he's a Mason for no particular reason other than to ask him questions to prove he's a Mason for no reason other than to ask him questions to prove he's a Mason.


----------



## Dontrell Stroman (Aug 6, 2015)

I don't question a guy just to question him, but you have to be careful who you talk to in regards to masonry because here in the states there are a lot of imposters


----------



## LAMason (Aug 6, 2015)

Travelling Man91 said:


> I don't question a guy just to question him, but you have to be careful who you talk to in regards to masonry because here in the states there are a lot of imposters



If I see someone with a Masonic ring or emblem, I may ask what Lodge they belong to and invite them to Lodge, but beyond that I do not consider it necessary to pursue it.   If they do take me up on visiting they will be properly tried prior to admission.

How I conduct myself and treat a stranger is not dependent on whether or not he is a Freemason.


----------



## Dontrell Stroman (Aug 6, 2015)

I agree. That's not what I was asking. The question was if you meet a guy on the street and he claims to be a mason, how do you verify his membership ?


----------



## Glen Cook (Aug 6, 2015)

Travelling Man91 said:


> I don't question a guy just to question him, but you have to be careful who you talk to in regards to masonry because here in the states there are a lot of imposters


How many people here on this board have you proved? (None).  Yet, you continue to talk to them about Masonic matters. Indeed, you don't know if I'm a Mason.


----------



## Dontrell Stroman (Aug 6, 2015)

Yes, but I'm not asking about this forum. I'm asking in regards to meeting a guy on the street. Face to face


----------



## BroBook (Aug 6, 2015)

You can tell whether a man is mason or not by the perfect points....


----------



## Dontrell Stroman (Aug 6, 2015)

Yes bro. Book, but some believe not discussing Masonic business without being in a lodge


----------



## dfreybur (Aug 6, 2015)

Travelling Man91 said:


> So you just take a guys word without seeing his dues card ?



I have found that with a few minutes of seemingly idle chat, I can figure out if a man is a Mason very easily without a single buzzword or gesture.  We can crack jokes about excellent or lame meals, meetings that somehow managed to combine boring and fascinating at the same time.  We can tell stories about the PMs on the sidelines.  All without anything in any way secret.

Far better to know without any sort of secret than to use a secret to try to figure it out and maybe be wrong.

Consider that if we show each other our dues card I could easily see a jurisdiction name that does not fit the pattern I know to be necessary so I would know his lodge to be clandestine.  On the street I have no reason to care about that.  Why would I want to rebuff a good man who probably is not even aware that his lodge is clandestine?  Especially knowing old timers who use the word for reasons that should by now be historical footnotes.

The more I visit other jurisdictions the less I think it's a good idea to use phrases from ritual out in public.  I can do it and I can often recognize when a brother says something that's clearly from another version of the ritual.  But what if a brother actually thinks that the version of the ritual he learned is the only one and other versions are wrong?  I'd rather teach and learn in friendly seemingly idle chat than confuse a brother by slight variations.

The topic of this thread is traveling and that technically means attending other lodges not meeting on the street- Going to visit lodges in my own jurisdiction I will be examined and I will know the exact responses to give.  Going to visit lodges outside of my own jurisdiction I know for a fact that specific details are different so I can find myself trading syllables when I expected letters.  Going to visit lodges outside of my own jurisdiction I will have already looked up their recognition standing so I don't have to depend on their opinion if they are regular or clandestine.


----------



## Glen Cook (Aug 6, 2015)

Travelling Man91 said:


> Yes, but I'm not asking about this forum. I'm asking in regards to meeting a guy on the street. Face to face


And how is that different?


----------



## hanzosbm (Aug 10, 2015)

When I was newly raised I had a lot of concerns about knowing whether or not a man I met on the street was a Mason or not.  Over time I learned that it didn't really matter.  You won't be discussing the secrets outside of Lodge anyway, so whether or not he's a brother doesn't make much difference.  If he identifies himself as a Mason and we start chit chatting about fun little stories like brother dfreybur mentioned, that's all well and good, but just like on this site, I know what to say and what not to say. 
Regarding how to tell if he's lying, well, over the course of conversation you'll probably be able to tell.  A non Mason would probably be nervous or saying things to try to PROVE he's a Mason.  A real Mason is just going to complain about the crappy green beans with dinner when all the water/juice got all over everything and made your bologna sandwich soggy.  In general, I'll just ask if he's a Mason and which lodge he belongs to.  95% of the time, that's plenty.  I've had quite a few experiences where he wasn't a Mason but is wearing a ring or a watch he inherited.  Those people have been through it before and will come right out and tell you they're not a Mason.  The ones that are Masons will say so and tell you what lodge they belong to and maybe swap some stories.  The few who I've encountered who are either imposters or clandestine to the point of being dramatically different will just feel...wrong.  And to those I usually just give a knowing look and a "yeah, well, nice to meet you, have a great day" and go on about my business.


----------



## Brother JC (Aug 10, 2015)

I don't need to verify anything with a man on the street, any more than I do here. I can discuss Freemasonry for days with anyone, regardless of membership. If they show up at lodge, then we get down to the verification process.


----------



## Dontrell Stroman (Aug 10, 2015)

Good stuff guys. I'm just fascinated with our catch e kisms. I like the ole time q&a masons use to ask each other. I remember being young and seeing old guys ask each other if they were traveling ?


----------



## Glen Cook (Aug 10, 2015)

Travelling Man91 said:


> Good stuff guys. I'm just fascinated with our catch e kisms. I like the ole time q&a masons use to ask each other. I remember being young and seeing old guys ask each other if they were traveling ?


Where are you a member?


----------



## Dontrell Stroman (Aug 10, 2015)

MWPHGL of TN


----------



## Dontrell Stroman (Aug 10, 2015)

Why do you ask bro. Glen Cook ?


----------



## Glen Cook (Aug 10, 2015)

I was once stationed in TN


----------



## Dontrell Stroman (Aug 11, 2015)

Okay. That's why I asking you do you ever see both grand lodges come together with mutual recognition. Of course the South is always the last to change, which could explain why.


----------



## Glen Cook (Aug 11, 2015)

Travelling Man91 said:


> Okay. That's why I asking you do you ever see both grand lodges come together with mutual recognition. Of course the South is always the last to change, which could explain why.


I am not sure what you mean by "come together,". If you mean recognize one another, I am not a TN Mason. You would know better than I


----------



## dfreybur (Aug 11, 2015)

Travelling Man91 said:


> do you ever see both grand lodges come together with mutual recognition.



The most recent advancement was 2011 when KY recognized.  Time, patience and perseverance will accomplish all things.  "Never give up.  Never surrender".

Back to stuff that brothers do out on the streets - Some jurisdictions are more okay with this than others.  At times it seems that the less recognition a jurisdiction has the more aggressive they are in using tests out in the public.


----------



## Dontrell Stroman (Aug 11, 2015)

Yes I agree. I'm just traditional in a lot of way. Have you ever seen the movie rose wood ?


----------



## Dontrell Stroman (Aug 11, 2015)

Well I know from talking with a lot of brothers, I've seen both Prince Hall and Mainstream masons use catch e kisms on the street. It's not so much as revealing secrets as it is just seeing if a brother has traveled the same road as you.


----------



## Dennis Hurts (Aug 11, 2015)

My Brothers, you all know a Mason(A BROTHER) when you meet one,it feels natural, it feels right, you both walked the same walk,talked the same talk,there's a since of camaraderie  whether or your PH or Mainstream you just know!


----------



## Dontrell Stroman (Aug 11, 2015)

Yes I know, I just like getting different brothers opinions on the matter.


----------



## crono782 (Aug 11, 2015)

I wouldn't say that I think "street challenges" are wrong, I just don't see the point in them. I don't intend on discussing the finer points of ritual with a complete stranger and I've got plenty of non-secretive natured stuff relating to Freemasonry that I can discuss with anyone who is interested. Like others have said, I can typically figure out if someone is one either by feeling it out or just flat out asking. It becomes pretty obvious in a short conversation if they are being square with me or not.


----------



## BroBook (Aug 12, 2015)

Travelling Man91 said:


> Yes bro. Book, but some believe not discussing Masonic business without being in a lodge


What's the point of having ways to recognize each other, for the record, I was told that masonry is to be practiced in the lodge, which implies what?


----------



## Dontrell Stroman (Aug 12, 2015)

Are you asking me Bro. Books ?


----------



## BroBook (Aug 13, 2015)

What question was that, my brother?


----------



## Dontrell Stroman (Aug 14, 2015)

You said whats the point in Recognizing ?


----------



## BroBook (Aug 14, 2015)

No sir I think my point was why have ways to recognize each other if they are only used in a tyled lodge, now on the other hand the only  place they should be  taught is in a tyled lodge.


----------



## Dontrell Stroman (Aug 14, 2015)

Okay I see what your saying. I agree 100% with you. That's why I asking other brothers on this form about catch e kisms on the street


----------



## BroBook (Aug 14, 2015)

The fact that we have them means someone uses them , the work itself is meant to teach you how to catch an impostor, there are certain things that you will only learn by being with the brothers in a secure location.


----------



## hanzosbm (Aug 14, 2015)

BroBook said:


> No sir I think my point was why have ways to recognize each other if they are only used in a tyled lodge, now on the other hand the only  place they should be  taught is in a tyled lodge.


I'm not sure I entirely agree with this.  In the early days when Masonry was operative and the grips and words were used to distinguish who was a Mason and who was not, it was because a man was coming to receive some sort of benefit.  That might be work, it might be relief, whatever.  But the traveling Mason was going to actively seek out his brethren for a purpose.  In this case, the man would be tested using the ways that are taught. 
The subtle clues and hints that we're talking about here were not the original intent.


----------



## BroBook (Aug 14, 2015)

How else would you attract the attention of a stranger?


----------



## Levelhead (Aug 14, 2015)

Thats why we don't recognize prince hall, always trying to challenge and prove something (not all)

You wanna know what we do???

I see a masonic ring i say "hey brother good to see another brother" regular handshake and keep on moving unless he feels like talking. Keep walking and going on about my business.

Not gonna interrogate to show im real and demans proof from him. 

If that mini convo i had confused him i would be able to tell and keep on moving. If he was real both out hearts would be touched with brotherly love.

Nothing against prince hall.  Just the having something to prove and the challenge. Who cares.

You want to know when i care and will "try you" when you try to walk through the west gate. 


Sent from Mossy Oak Swamp Bottom.


----------



## Levelhead (Aug 14, 2015)

dfreybur said:


> The topic of this thread is traveling and that technically means attending other lodges not meeting on the street



Amen my brother. Its words like this that are misused that red flags my brain. 


Sent from Mossy Oak Swamp Bottom.


----------



## BroBook (Aug 14, 2015)

Levelhead said:


> Thats why we don't recognize prince hall, always trying to challenge and prove something (not all)
> 
> You wanna know what we do???
> 
> ...


My brother you are out of bounds, this was just a conversation, I could care less who is or is not a seeker of light.  I as a prince hall mason have no need to be recognized I am what I am and no man or body of men can change that, it matters not what ever reason they profess to give. SMIB


----------



## Dontrell Stroman (Aug 14, 2015)

One second brother. Traveling doesn't necessarily mean going to another lodge. I referred the word "traveling" to the everyday  journey that we as masons go through. Hence, that's why when a lot of brothers part they say "travel light" or be careful traveling" Doesnt actually mean be careful going to another lodge............


----------



## Dontrell Stroman (Aug 14, 2015)

I believe you were out of line, in reality I never once said challenge anyone, I was speaking on using catch e kisms to see if a brother has traveled the same road as you. I have never once challenged a brother.


----------



## Dontrell Stroman (Aug 15, 2015)

It's funny that you would say "Prince Hall",  as if Prince Hall are the only masons that are skeptical of imposters, but I have a brother that is mainstream and he found out that a mutual friend was one. You know what he said....... I don't believe it until I see a dues card or me and him talk....... Might want to go over your EA  OB again.


----------



## Levelhead (Aug 15, 2015)

Read your MM OBLIGATION. Traveling masonically means visiting other lodges.

As you say "catch e kisms" means challenging them with a part of your CHETICHISM to see if he gets stuck. 

Keep your CHETICHISMS in lodge or for INSTRUCTION of a brother. 

I speak the truth and give reality. Im not a ring tapper looking to be recognized so i can gain respect or see if the person im talking to deserves my respect. 




Sent from Mossy Oak Swamp Bottom.


----------



## Dontrell Stroman (Aug 15, 2015)

I have read it , through all three degrees the word "traveling" is used. Masonry is not all literal, a lot of it is allegorical.


----------



## Levelhead (Aug 15, 2015)

Reading it and knowing it is 2 different things. Understanding it is key.


Sent from Mossy Oak Swamp Bottom.


----------



## Dontrell Stroman (Aug 15, 2015)

Levelhead said:


> Read your MM OBLIGATION. Traveling masonically means visiting other lodges.
> 
> As you say "catch e kisms" means challenging them with a part of your CHETICHISM to see if he gets stuck.
> 
> ...



If you paid attention, i never once stated challenge a brother. I said use catch e kisms as a way of recognition. I'm not speaking on challenging a brother at all. A challenge would be to try and see all he knows, I'm speaking on maybe using a couple Q&A to see if he is a brother.


----------



## Dontrell Stroman (Aug 15, 2015)

Levelhead said:


> Thats why we don't recognize prince hall, always trying to challenge and prove something (not all)
> 
> You wanna know what we do???
> 
> ...



You speak on Prince Hall masons as if you have a problem with it. Any brother regardless of mainstream or Prince Hall that makes sure a brother is who he say he is is keeping his OB.


----------



## Levelhead (Aug 15, 2015)

I read catch a kisms as...

Saying a part of a chetichism to see if you can CATCH him not knowing.


Sent from Mossy Oak Swamp Bottom.


----------



## Levelhead (Aug 15, 2015)

Travelling Man91 said:


> You speak on Prince Hall masons as if you have a problem with it. Any brother regardless of mainstream or Prince Hall that makes sure a brother is who he say he is is keeping his OB.


No i have a problem with people needing the satisfaction of recognition in the streets. People worried about if someone is a cowan or not. Who cares. Unless its a family member who is directly making you look bad who cares?




Sent from Mossy Oak Swamp Bottom.


----------



## Dontrell Stroman (Aug 15, 2015)

No no no...... I've yet to see a brother use it to try and catch a brother not knowing something. I believe you are way of track of what this conversation is about.


----------



## Dontrell Stroman (Aug 15, 2015)

Once again it's not a challenge, it's used as a way of recognition. No different than seeing a dues card.


----------



## Dontrell Stroman (Aug 15, 2015)

Levelhead said:


> I read catch a kisms as...
> 
> Saying a part of a chetichism to see if you can CATCH him not knowing.
> 
> ...



You stated "I'll just ask if he is a mason" and what exactly did you just do. You would be doing exactly what I'm saying, you asked a question and got a answer. No difference


----------



## Levelhead (Aug 15, 2015)

Travelling Man91 said:


> Once again it's not a challenge, it's used as a way of recognition. No different than seeing a dues card.


Bull crap ask me to see my dues card on the street! Ill laugh in your face. 


Sent from Mossy Oak Swamp Bottom.


----------



## Dontrell Stroman (Aug 15, 2015)

Levelhead said:


> Reading it and knowing it is 2 different things. Understanding it is key.
> 
> 
> Sent from Mossy Oak Swamp Bottom.



Hence that's why I used the word allegorical. It's deeper than just reading it and taking everything literal.


----------



## Levelhead (Aug 15, 2015)

Travelling Man91 said:


> When approaching a guy in public that you believe may be a mason, do you think "street masonry" or book catch e kisms are more appropriate to find out ?


Ill quote your original post.  

"Street masonry" never heard of that? 
Explain that crap? Ill check my monitor so see when i fell to sleep while i was being taught that.

BOOK!!!!!! BOOK!!! Catch e Kisms.

Something with a chetichism from a book!!!

Read your own post. 


Sent from Mossy Oak Swamp Bottom.


----------



## Dontrell Stroman (Aug 15, 2015)

How about you ask what street Masonry is instead of commenting on something you have no knowledge of.


----------



## Levelhead (Aug 15, 2015)

Street masonry is not even a set of words that is masonically correct.


Sent from Mossy Oak Swamp Bottom.


----------



## Dontrell Stroman (Aug 15, 2015)

Exactly, your not taught in in a lodge. Exactly why it's called, street masonry. Come on man.


----------



## Levelhead (Aug 15, 2015)

Nope your making something up to justify your need to recognize someone.


Sent from Mossy Oak Swamp Bottom.


----------



## Dontrell Stroman (Aug 15, 2015)

I'd hate to see all the guys you had Masonic conversations with without verifying membership.


----------



## Levelhead (Aug 15, 2015)

Im studying to be a district instructor, so im all about wording. Sorry for knowing my work and realizing when i hear made up crap.


Sent from Mossy Oak Swamp Bottom.


----------



## Levelhead (Aug 15, 2015)

Travelling Man91 said:


> I'd hate to see all the guys you had Masonic conversations with without verifying membership.


I dont have masonic conversations in the streets !! I just say hi! 




Sent from Mossy Oak Swamp Bottom.


----------



## Dontrell Stroman (Aug 15, 2015)

You have no ideal what I'm referring to. Expand your knowledge. And for the record, I would ask to see your dues card if I couldn't determine if you were a brother or not. And if you laughed and thought it was a joke, I'd part ways. It's funny that you say " why do you have to make sure their not a cowan" well why not...  Making me wonder if you missed the lectures of the first three degrees


----------



## Dontrell Stroman (Aug 15, 2015)

Well it's like this, maybe you should do more "traveling" since the word only pertains to going to another lodge. And see how other Jurisdictions do things. I'm not saying I agree with street masonry, but years ago when some brothers had problems with reading they would use what you call "street masonry" to see if a guy was a mason. All it is is just random Q&A throughout the first three degrees.


----------



## Dontrell Stroman (Aug 15, 2015)

What do you define Masonic conversation as ?


----------



## Levelhead (Aug 15, 2015)

Travelling Man91 said:


> What do you define Masonic conversation as ?


Definition. Ending convo until i see your dues card. 


Sent from Mossy Oak Swamp Bottom.


----------



## Dontrell Stroman (Aug 15, 2015)

Exactly, my point taken. Travel Light brother


----------



## Brother JC (Aug 15, 2015)

Just for the record, the word is spelled catechism.
Masonic discourse would include ritual etc. Conversations about Freemasonry are another animal and can be had anywhere.
Carry on within due bounds or this conversation will be closed.


----------



## Dontrell Stroman (Aug 15, 2015)

I know how its spelled, I use the talk text so I don't have to type all the time


----------



## Dontrell Stroman (Aug 15, 2015)

But hey, you can close it, won't bother me any. I was in due bounds


----------



## LAMason (Aug 15, 2015)

trysquare said:


> Just for the record, the word is spelled catechism.



He is not talking about the Catechism we learn to prove proficiency.  He is talking about a bunch of silly questions and answers that prince halls use on the street in a game of one upmanship which they call catch-e-kisms:






I had a business that did tax prep, small loans, and check cashing.  I had to stop wearing my Masonic ring at work because I kept having prince halls coming in and after seeing my ring start asking a bunch of silly questions and wanting me to give them special deals.


----------



## Levelhead (Aug 15, 2015)

EXACTLY! Thank you my brother! 


Sent from Mossy Oak Swamp Bottom.


----------



## Brother JC (Aug 15, 2015)

For the record: I didn't direct that at any one person. It seemed temperatures were rising and I merely wanted to remind everyone to keep their cool.


----------



## Dontrell Stroman (Aug 15, 2015)

LA mason, that's exactly what I was referring to brother. The thing is, those questions were used in a time when a lot of Prince Hall masons were not proficient at reading. That's why I said if a guy came up to me with "street masonry" I would want to verify his membership.


----------



## Levelhead (Aug 15, 2015)

Travelling Man91 said:


> LA mason, that's exactly what I was referring to brother. The thing is, those questions were used in a time when a lot of Prince Hall masons were not proficient at reading. That's why I said if a guy came up to me with "street masonry" I would want to verify his membership.



Glad we agree that you are about "upmanship, and silly questions" 

Thx LAMASON for putting that proof of unmasonic acts and with this guy (traveling man91) so brotherly agreeing that he was talking about doing these actions. My point is made!



Sent from Mossy Oak Swamp Bottom.


----------



## Dontrell Stroman (Aug 15, 2015)

Ha ha. That's funny man. I never once said I use street masonry. No point was made on your end man. The original question was "If you believe a mason to be a mason, would you find out by street masonry or catchechism."  I've seen both used


----------



## Dontrell Stroman (Aug 15, 2015)

Never said I agreed with "street masonry" but being open minded, I could see a time when it was used by brothers that couldn't read well.


----------



## Dontrell Stroman (Aug 15, 2015)

Levelhead said:


> Glad we agree that you are about "upmanship, and silly questions"
> 
> Thx LAMASON for putting that proof of unmasonic acts and with this guy (traveling man91) so brotherly agreeing that he was talking about doing these actions. My point is made!
> 
> ...



What exactly do you believe you proved?? I've yet to see it, and for the record I have no hard feelings towards level head, but I do believe that a part of freemasonry is expanding your mind.


----------



## Glen Cook (Aug 15, 2015)

Levelhead said:


> I read catch a kisms as...
> 
> Saying a part of a chetichism to see if you can CATCH him not knowing.
> 
> ...


So, the purpose really isn't to  determine if he is a Mason, just to embarrass him?

Just to toss in: I didn't know challenge questions by the name of the popular book title. Is this a PHA custom?


----------



## Glen Cook (Aug 15, 2015)

Travelling Man91 said:


> You speak on Prince Hall masons as if you have a problem with it. Any brother regardless of mainstream or Prince Hall that makes sure a brother is who he say he is is keeping his OB.


Depending on the ob.  Mine does not have that requirement.


----------



## Glen Cook (Aug 15, 2015)

Levelhead said:


> Thats why we don't recognize prince hall, always trying to challenge and prove something (not all)
> 
> 
> Sent from Mossy Oak Swamp Bottom.


Inappropriate and untrue. I think the challenge questions rather juvenile as well, but really, the only reason PHA not recognized by its state GL counterpart is racism.


----------



## Glen Cook (Aug 15, 2015)

Levelhead said:


> Read your MM OBLIGATION. Traveling masonically means visiting other lodges.
> 
> As you say "catch e kisms" means challenging them with a part of your CHETICHISM to see if he gets stuck.
> 
> ...


Is this the spelling your GL uses for catechism?


----------



## Dontrell Stroman (Aug 15, 2015)

Bro. Glen Cook it speaks on not holding Masonic conversation unless you know him to be such.


----------



## Dontrell Stroman (Aug 15, 2015)

I don't believe the book is just for Prince Hall. I own this book and it says no where about Prince Hall. As a matter of fact, I have heard mainstream  masons use these questions as well.


----------



## Glen Cook (Aug 15, 2015)

Travelling Man91 said:


> Bro. Glen Cook it speaks on not holding Masonic conversation unless you know him to be such.


My ob. says I don't converse on the secrets of Freemasonry. I do not do so on the street


----------



## Glen Cook (Aug 15, 2015)

Travelling Man91 said:


> I don't believe the book is just for Prince Hall. I own this book and it says no where about Prince Hall. As a matter of fact, I have heard mainstream  masons use these questions as well.


I didn't say the book was for PH.  Rather, use of the book's _title_  to refer to challenge questions I have not heard of outside of PH.  Thus the question


----------



## Dontrell Stroman (Aug 15, 2015)

For instance, one of the questions is how old is your grandmother ? That question has been used by masons for years. Growing up around both Prince Hall and mainstream I have heard both use almost the same questions. There is no difference in mainstream masonry and Prince hall masonry. The rituals may be a little different but it's no different than Prince hall or mainstream having different rituals depending on your jurisdictions. I see mainstream masons just as a i see a Prince hall masons, a brother mason. I would run to the aid of a mainstream mason in distress just as fast as I would run to aid of a Prince Hall mason.


----------



## Dontrell Stroman (Aug 15, 2015)

No brother cook, I'm just clarifying.


----------



## Dontrell Stroman (Aug 15, 2015)

Being from a military back ground, I've had the opportunity to see how both sides conversate. In my own opinion I don't believe in speaking for a organization as a whole. I believe it depends on the brother. Some brothers choose to do it, and some do not.


----------



## Glen Cook (Aug 15, 2015)

BroBook said:


> No sir I think my point was why have ways to recognize each other if they are only used in a tyled lodge, now on the other hand the only  place they should be  taught is in a tyled lodge.


That's not the rule in my jurisdiction


----------



## Glen Cook (Aug 15, 2015)

BroBook said:


> How else would you attract the attention of a stranger?


Say Hello


----------



## Brother JC (Aug 15, 2015)

Travelling Man91 said:


> For instance, one of the questions is how old is your grandmother ? That question has been used by masons for years.


Only by some of the recognized GLs. I had never heard that question, nor had many of the Brethren here (except on this forum).
My GLs recognize nearly one-hundred GLs in this country and many more worldwide, and only a handful use such questions.


----------



## Glen Cook (Aug 15, 2015)

W


Travelling Man91 said:


> Being from a military back ground.....


Which branch?


----------



## Glen Cook (Aug 15, 2015)

Travelling Man91 said:


> No brother cook, I'm just clarifying.


Have no idea to which post this was a reply


----------



## Dontrell Stroman (Aug 15, 2015)

Army


----------



## Dontrell Stroman (Aug 15, 2015)

Brother try square, that's why I say I don't won't to speak as a whole. I ran into brothers on both sides that use these questions. They don't ask each other to challenge each other, it's almost a way of starting a conversation in a sence. For instance a brother walking up to you that see you wearing a Masonic ring might say " you traveling man "


----------



## Glen Cook (Aug 15, 2015)

Travelling Man91 said:


> Army


_Almost_ as good as the Navy


----------



## LAMason (Aug 15, 2015)

Glen Cook said:


> the only reason PHA not recognized by its state GL counterpart is racism



That is your opinion and while it may be one reason, it is not the only reason.  It is well known that "...the formation of the Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Massachusetts was irregular..." (Report From The United Grand Lodge of England Prince Hall Masonry and the Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Massachusetts).  The first Standard of Recognition listed by the CGMNA, Commission on Information for Recognition is  "Legitimacy of Origin".  The UGLE  report also states "...that the proper course is now to ignore the unusual formation of the African Grand Lodge..." so it is clear that the UGLE and other Grand Lodges that recognize Prince Hall have made a decision to ignore the fact that their formation was irregular.  In addition to that the Grand Lodges that do not recognize Prince Hall are upholding the long standing precedent of Exclusive Territorial Jurisdiction.

[url=https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-tkBBXwyOFNTVVReTB5U1N4LU0/view?usp=sharing] The Doctrine of Exclusive Territorial Jurisdiction Grayson W. Mayfield, III, P M, Heredom, Volume 17, 2009[/URL]


----------



## Glen Cook (Aug 15, 2015)

LAMason said:


> That is your opinion and while it may be one reason, it is not the only reason.  It is well known that "...the formation of the Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Massachusetts was irregular..." (Report From The United Grand Lodge of England Prince Hall Masonry and the Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Massachusetts).  The first Standard of Recognition listed by the CGMNA, Commission on Inform....
> 
> The Doctrine of Exclusive Territorial Jurisdiction Grayson W. Mayfield, III, P M, Heredom, Volume 17, 2009



Yes, as one who deals with recognition matters, I am aware of this. I am also aware that the Commission and UGLE consider PHA regular, as stated in their reports. ETJ is simply a guise for racism.


----------



## dfreybur (Aug 15, 2015)

Travelling Man91 said:


> For instance a brother walking up to you that see you wearing a Masonic ring might say " you traveling man "



Which is not in any catechism I have ever seen, nor is it among the secrets of any of my jurisdictions.

I used to like "Are you a Brother" but there was that time at a big camp out when I was hanging around sharing beers with a guy and he ended up giving me some unfamiliar grips that are apparently used among International Order of Odd Fellows.  The fraternal bond works even across organizations at time.  I learned that all men are brothers before I ever petitioned.


----------



## Dontrell Stroman (Aug 15, 2015)

Glen Cook said:


> _Almost_ as good as the Navy



Ha ha. Hey, we can't all be great


----------



## Dontrell Stroman (Aug 15, 2015)

The saying are you a traveling man is in reference to getting your 3rd degree. After you receive your 3rd degree you are free to travel/ visit other lodges.


----------



## Glen Cook (Aug 15, 2015)

Travelling Man91 said:


> The saying are you a traveling man is in reference to getting your 3rd degree. After you receive your 3rd degree you are free to travel/ visit other lodges.


In some jurisdictions, you may do so upon initiation


----------



## Dontrell Stroman (Aug 15, 2015)

Learned something new. When I was initiated I was taught that you do not wear emblems, not to visit other lodges, or speak on masonic topics until you have been raised to the sublime degree of a MM. Then you are free to do all those things. I guess it's actually a good thing for simple fact you have very little light in the first degree.


----------



## Glen Cook (Aug 16, 2015)

Travelling Man91 said:


> Learned something new. When I was initiated I was taught that you do not wear emblems, not to visit other lodges, or speak on masonic topics until you have been raised to the sublime degree of a MM. Then you are free to do all those things. I guess it's actually a good thing for simple fact you have very little light in the first degree.


And, if I may suggest, there is very little light immediately after receiving the MM.  Yet, (as I begin a rant) there are those not in the fraternity for a year who think themselves knowledgeable in Masonic jurisprudence, protocol, and ritual for all jurisdictions, nations and planetary systems.


----------



## Dontrell Stroman (Aug 16, 2015)

That is very true


----------



## Dontrell Stroman (Aug 16, 2015)

Bro cook, have you seen a EA in another jurisdiction that was allowed to travel freely as a master mason would ?


----------



## LAMason (Aug 16, 2015)

Glen Cook said:


> I am also aware that the Commission and UGLE consider PHA regular



I also am aware of that.  The UGLE recognition was in 1994, but they had denied recognition as recently as 1988.  So, were prior decisions by the UGLE not to recognize Prince Hall due to racism, if not why had they denied recognition?  The Commission also states "...We continue to be of the opinion that establishment of fraternal relationships with Prince Hall Grand Lodges remains the prerogative of each individual Grand Lodge"  (2006 Commission Report).



Glen Cook said:


> ETJ is simply a guise for racism



Again, your opinion.  As pointed out in the article I attached in my previous post, the Doctrine of ETJ has been used to defend a Grand Lodge's Territorial Sovereignty in cases other than PH recognition. In fact the UGLE acknowledges ETJ and admits that it "has *recently been qualified* as being 'subject to exceptions'".  This is from the same report quoted in my previous post:

"...A Grand Lodge must have undisputed authority over Craft (or basic) Freemasonry within its jurisdiction, and not be subject in any way to or share power with any other Masonic body.

This principle is expressed overseas as exclusive Territorial jurisdiction, but has recently been qualified as being "subject to exceptions" This qualification means the principle is not violated if Grand Lodges agree to share territory while remaining authority over Brethren under their jurisdiction

England does not ignore territorial sovereignty when it considers recognition..."

I am a strong believer in the Sovereignty of each Grand Lodge.  If a Grand Lodge votes to recognize PH for whatever reason that is fine with me, but by the same token other Grand Lodges should not be demonized if they do not because they choose to honor long standing standards of recognition.


----------



## Glen Cook (Aug 16, 2015)

I too believe in the sovereignty of each GL. That doesn't mean the GL may not be criticized for racism


----------



## Glen Cook (Aug 16, 2015)

Travelling Man91 said:


> Bro cook, have you seen a EA in another jurisdiction that was allowed to travel freely as a master mason would ?


Perhaps not as freely, as he has neither dues card nor GL certificate in the GLs with  which I am familiar.  Further, he could not attend lodges meeting in the higher degree.


----------



## dfreybur (Aug 16, 2015)

trysquare said:


> I had never heard that question, nor had many of the Brethren here (except on this forum).



The only place I have ever heard the word grandmother in a Masonic context is on this forum.



Glen Cook said:


> In some jurisdictions, you may do so upon initiation



California and Illinois - An MM may vouch for and bring an EA or FC as guest to another lodge in the same jurisdiction, but not across jurisdictions.

Texas - EAs and FCs are issued special dues cards identifying them as such.  This allows them to visit other GLofTX lodges when tiled on the appropriate degree.  I have seen visitors who are there to watch degrees.  I don't recall if they had to come with an MM to vouch for them.

The Masonic world outside of North America never did change away from Stated meetings in the EA degree.  I take it in many world jurisdictions EAs and FCs are welcome to visit other lodges after following whatever the local protocol is.


----------



## Glen Cook (Aug 16, 2015)

In Cheshire, the Province formed a group to encourage EA and FC to travel.  They came to Sentinel when I was Master


----------



## MRichard (Aug 16, 2015)

dfreybur said:


> Texas - EAs and FCs are issued special dues cards identifying them as such.  This allows them to visit other GLofTX lodges when tiled on the appropriate degree.  I have seen visitors who are there to watch degrees.  I don't recall if they had to come with an MM to vouch for them.



As I was recently (within the last year) an EA & FC in Texas, I am not aware of any dues cards until after you are raised. EAs & FCs are generally advised not to travel to other lodges unless a MM from their lodge accompanies them. They couldn't sit in lodge anyway unless it was opened up on their degree.


----------



## BroBook (Aug 16, 2015)

Glen Cook said:


> That's not the rule in my jurisdiction


Brother Cook my point is you don't teach strangers, and I am not really concerned with differences in jurisdictions, I would like to focus on what unites us into one band of brothers, but I am just a dreamer, dreaming dreams of how good and pleasant it would be, if .........


----------



## Dontrell Stroman (Aug 16, 2015)

Okay I see. You know at the core of recognition, some of it has to do with racism. For instance, I ran into a mason front Alabama, I then preceded to tell him I was looking forward to the day that we all see each others as brothers. You know what he said, he stated "that will never happen, Prince Hall stole the knowledge by hiding in lodges and watching what the masons did and took it back and taught other guys." Although we know history tells us different, say I was a guy that had no ideal about the history of Prince Hall, I would have believed what he said. Also, more brothers are saying history, but no one is saying do any way any GL, just mutual recognition and visitation would be a sign of progression in today's time.


----------



## BroBook (Aug 16, 2015)

Brothers, I have a copy of a pamphlet, that was giving to me by my SW because he knows that I like to study, it is called " Masonic CATCH-E-KISM Some Old Masonic Catch Questions and some new ones with Answers" printed by Macoy Publishing & Masonic Supply Co., Richmond, Virginia. So I am sure that even if "PRINCE HALL" uses them we did not create them. Here is one of the silly questions: What great lesson do you learn from your master?


The answer is equally silly: To circumscribe myself and keep passion within due bounds. Now that's  some male cow manure there for watch your step!!!


----------



## BroBook (Aug 16, 2015)

Traveling Man91 I dare say, am glad people were/are racist, because if it was not for racism there would be no irregularly formed Grand lodge called Prince Hall for us to be affiliated with, I dare to say that as of the present day there are States that would have no masons of color.


----------



## Levelhead (Aug 16, 2015)

Tired of people allways using the racist card. 

These days the white man is the new slave in america. Prince hall is very racist.

Yes this crap needs to stop but the only way it will is if we stop using the race card. 

Let brotherly love prevail and let every social and moral virtue cement us.


Sent from Mossy Oak Swamp Bottom.


----------



## MRichard (Aug 16, 2015)

Levelhead said:


> Tired of people allways using the racist card.
> 
> These days the white man is the new slave in america. Prince hall is very racist.
> 
> ...



Are you serious? If you think race has nothing to do with this, you need to get a clue.


----------



## MRichard (Aug 16, 2015)

Levelhead said:


> Tired of people allways using the racist card.
> 
> These days the white man is the new slave in america. Prince hall is very racist.
> 
> ...



Please elaborate on how Prince Hall is racist and what is the effect of such racism. Does it affect whether a mainstream grand lodge is recognized by the UGLE?


----------



## Levelhead (Aug 16, 2015)

It works both ways. Not one side is more guilty. That needs to be accepted before any progress is made.


Sent from Mossy Oak Swamp Bottom.


----------



## MRichard (Aug 16, 2015)

Levelhead said:


> It works both ways. Not one side is more guilty. That needs to be accepted before any progress is made.
> 
> 
> Sent from Mossy Oak Swamp Bottom.



Wrong. One side has way more leverage in the states where Prince Hall lodges are not recognized and that is the senior grand lodges which are the mainstream lodges. It's their way or the highway.


----------



## LAMason (Aug 16, 2015)

BroBook said:


> male cow



I know you mean bull but there is not such thing as a "male cow".


----------



## BroBook (Aug 16, 2015)

Right because the question was not silly, I was being not funny.


----------



## Glen Cook (Aug 16, 2015)

BroBook said:


> Brother Cook my point is you don't teach strangers, and I am not really concerned with differences in jurisdictions, I would like to focus on what unites us into one band of brothers, but I am just a dreamer, dreaming dreams of how good and pleasant it would be, if .........



Well, your first point was "No sir I think my point was why have ways to recognize each other if they are only used in a tyled lodge, now on the other hand the only place they should be taught is in a tyled lodge."

And I indicated that was not the rule for my jurisdiction: we need not teach the modes of recognition  only in a tiled lodge. When you indicate a blanket rule and then state you aren't concerned about differences in jurisdictions, you give the impression that your rule is the only rule.  I really don't think that's what you meant.


----------



## Glen Cook (Aug 16, 2015)

Levelhead said:


> Tired of people allways using the racist card.
> 
> These days the white man is the new slave in america. Prince hall is very racist.
> 
> ...


And that's how you get brotherly love to prevail?


----------



## Levelhead (Aug 16, 2015)

Both sides just put the past behind them, move forward towards the same light. 


Sent from Mossy Oak Swamp Bottom.


----------



## Glen Cook (Aug 16, 2015)

BroBook said:


> Brothers, I have a copy of a pamphlet, that was giving to me by my SW because he knows that I like to study, it is called " Masonic CATCH-E-KISM Some Old Masonic Catch Questions and some new ones with Answers" printed by Macoy Publishing & Masonic Supply Co., Richmond, Virginia. So I am sure that even if "PRINCE HALL" uses them we did not create them. !!!



If you are replying  to my comment, I did not indicate that PHA either created or are the only ones to use challenge questions.  I indicated I had only heard challenge questions referred to by the book title of Catch E Kisms by PHA.


----------



## Glen Cook (Aug 16, 2015)

Levelhead said:


> Both sides just put the past behind them, move forward towards the same light.
> 
> 
> Sent from Mossy Oak Swamp Bottom.


But that's the point.  Until the the remaining Southern GLs decide to move toward the light*, no movement can happen.  And the reason no movement can happen is simple racism.  I sat in an appendant body meeting when members  of a Southern GL used the N Word and walked out over PHA recognition. You have the personal statement of another brother demonstrating the same bias. 

*I think we all mean this in the Masonic sense, not as in the sense of departing this earth!


----------



## Dontrell Stroman (Aug 16, 2015)

Yes it's racism in both sides, but I'm not speaking for masonry as a whole. But I won't deny the fact that there are some GLS on both sides that don't won't change, but I would like to know why. The excuse we want to preserve our lineage and history is a cover up for some masons. It's like I stated before, no one is trying  to take any ones history.  I would just like to see both GL treat each other as a brother, like we should.


----------



## Levelhead (Aug 16, 2015)

Ill say this, if i see another mason giving the GHSOD i will come to his relief no matter what anyone says, black, white, green, brown . 

If i were to be in a dark room and i shook your hand and i felt the grip, your my brother!

Maybee both grand lodges need to be in a pitch dark room and meet and have discussions. Then turn the lights on. 




Sent from Mossy Oak Swamp Bottom.


----------



## Dontrell Stroman (Aug 16, 2015)

Ha ha. That would be a moment to remember, but the sad thing is I've seen masons black and white look at each other and turn their head. That's not brotherly love to me


----------



## Levelhead (Aug 16, 2015)

Im in a lodge of old men and good ol boys in a small farm town in the south. They dont speak as bad as you would think. They are just strict on following their obligations.


Sent from Mossy Oak Swamp Bottom.


----------



## Dontrell Stroman (Aug 16, 2015)

Yes I understand that, but if Prince Hall is regular then how would that be violating the ob.


----------



## Levelhead (Aug 16, 2015)

I guess prince hall not being recognized. Pretty much. Guess it would fall under clandestine (to them)


Sent from Mossy Oak Swamp Bottom.


----------



## Dontrell Stroman (Aug 16, 2015)

Someone explain the difference between regular and recognized ? Because I'm confused with the content people use the words on the forum


----------



## BroBook (Aug 16, 2015)

I'll take a stab,regular means that the lodge is properly chartered or has a dispensation and they are doing the work according to establish customs ( yea I know), i.e. Males only, great lights, ect... Recognized means  just that, this was addressed on another thread I can't remember where, by one the mainstream brothers, they did it better!!!


----------



## Bill Lins (Aug 16, 2015)

Levelhead said:


> Thats why we don't recognize prince hall


Who is "we"?


----------



## BroBook (Aug 16, 2015)

As far as clandestine goes, someone said it is whatever your Grand lodge says it is. That's why it's so important  to define terms like masonic conversation, but on the real if we really want change we must do it though proper channels.


----------



## BroBook (Aug 16, 2015)

Bill_Lins77488 said:


> Who is "we"?


I wondered the same thing he means FLORIDA, I think .


----------



## Bill Lins (Aug 16, 2015)

MRichard said:


> As I was recently (within the last year) an EA & FC in Texas, I am not aware of any dues cards until after you are raised.


Bro. Richard, you should have been given a buff-colored card signifying your status as an EA upon your initiation. When you were passed, your Secretary should have crossed out "EA" and circled "FC" on the same card. Once you have been raised, Grand Lodge issues a blue "dues" card.


----------



## Levelhead (Aug 16, 2015)

Regular lodge chartered under the GLOF empowering them to work.


Sent from Mossy Oak Swamp Bottom.


----------



## Ripcord22A (Aug 16, 2015)

Regular is a lodge that can trace its history back to one of the original GLs that formed the UGLE(or african 459) AND follows the established customs as BroBook stated.  Recognized is exactly what brobook said..that ur GL recognizes said GL as being regular.  Now clandestine is a lodge that has no regular lineage.  Meaning lodges like John G Jones lodegs.  However a lodge can be regular and not recognized such as a lodge that has their charter revoked from its gl....if they contined to work they are still regular but are clandestine untill such time they have their charter reinstated but if they continue to work that probably wont ever happen....irregular lodges are those that dont follow established customs..such as co-masonry lodges....


----------



## Brother JC (Aug 16, 2015)

All I know is that I am glad that every GL I am or have been a member of is in fraternal relations with its PHA counterpart, and my lodges all have Brethren from all races and religions. Just makes sense to me.


----------



## BroBook (Aug 16, 2015)

Levelhead said:


> Regular lodge chartered under the uglof empowering them to work.
> 
> 
> Sent from Mossy Oak Swamp Bottom.


What does the u stand for is that typo?


----------



## Bill Lins (Aug 16, 2015)

"uglof"?


----------



## Glen Cook (Aug 16, 2015)

The CGMNA standards are here.  http://www.recognitioncommission.org/publish/2004/06/10/the-standards-of-recognition/

The GL does not need trace its lineage to England.  

Some GLs treat "unrecognized" and clandestine as the same.  Masonic jurisprudence is a bit sloppy in this regard.


----------



## Glen Cook (Aug 16, 2015)

Bill_Lins77488 said:


> "uglof"?


I suspect Union Grand Lodge Of Flrida.


----------



## MRichard (Aug 16, 2015)

Bill_Lins77488 said:


> Bro. Richard, you should have been given a buff-colored card signifying your status as an EA upon your initiation. When you were passed, your Secretary should have crossed out "EA" and circled "FC" on the same card. Once you have been raised, Grand Lodge issues a blue "dues" card.



First, I heard of this. Wasn't an issue to me as I was not gonna visit any lodge until after I was raised. I am sure you know my mentor. He was from another lodge. JPM from Memorial lodge and a member of the Shrine.


----------



## MRichard (Aug 16, 2015)

Glen Cook said:


> I suspect Union Grand Lodge Of Flrida.


 
I was thinking maybe UGLE but a typo?


----------



## Levelhead (Aug 16, 2015)

BroBook said:


> What does the u stand for is that typo?


Typo lol


Sent from Mossy Oak Swamp Bottom.


----------



## Glen Cook (Aug 16, 2015)

Levelhead said:


> Typo lol
> 
> 
> Sent from Mossy Oak Swamp Bottom.


Another Masonic Mystery solved


----------



## Dontrell Stroman (Aug 17, 2015)

So if Prince Hall is regular, then how could a Grand Lodge consider them clandestine ? There not irregular because they do follow Masonic customs.


----------



## LAMason (Aug 17, 2015)

Glen Cook said:


> The CGMNA standards are here. http://www.recognitioncommission.org/publish/2004/06/10/the-standards-of-recognition/



How does the CGNMA determine "Legitimacy of Origin"?


----------



## dfreybur (Aug 17, 2015)

Travelling Man91 said:


> So if Prince Hall is regular, then how could a Grand Lodge consider them clandestine ?



Ignorance of the difference between irregular and clandestine.  Combined with unMasonic motivations to speak about a group of brothers behind their backs besmirching their reputations.  Combined with ignorance of having been taught that.



Glen Cook said:


> Until the the remaining Southern GLs decide to move toward the light*, no movement can happen.



I suggest this might not be true if tested.  Back when CT first recognized PHA, some jurisdictions pulled recognition.  Granting recognition and pulling recognition are swords that cut both ways.  Remember that jurisdictions that pulled CT recognition became the laughing stock of the Masonic world and relented in a couple of years.

What will happen if some state recognizes one of the PHA jurisdictions on the list of "Conference of Grand Masters, Prince Hall Masons, Inc" but that does not have local recognition?  Would that even technically be a violation of sovereignty?  It's not completely clear.  Regular GLs get to recognize regular GLs.  If the local GLofXX pulls recognition over granting recognition, I may well become the laughing stock of the Masonic world as happened in the 1980s.  Even better if the target that is picked already deserves it like one that danced the dance of mutual destruction with the Shrine in their territory ...



Travelling Man91 said:


> Yes it's racism in both sides, but I'm not speaking for masonry as a whole.



Neither side gets a pass on that accusation.  Find a GL that has not granted recognition to the full slate and the finger is appropriately pointed.  There are lot of jurisdictions that have not yet extended invitations to all. There are a lot of jurisdictions that have not responded to invitations.  Each of us need to clean up our own soul then clean up our own house.



Travelling Man91 said:


> Someone explain the difference between regular and recognized ?



Regular - Valid lineage to the mother jurisdictions.  Follow all of the ancient landmarks.  Available to be recognized.

Clandestine - Lineage based on a self organized jurisdiction. And/or does not follow all of the ancient landmarks.

Recognized - A vote or edict has been issued that recognition is in place. 

The process of recognition closely parallels the process between countries.  Does any country not realize that Cuba is a country?  Yet the US has long decided to not recognize Cuba for reasons other than "They really are a country at this point".  Sure enough the argument for some time was basically calling Cuba clandestine because of invalid lineage.


----------



## dfreybur (Aug 17, 2015)

LAMason said:


> I know you mean bull but there is not such thing as a "male cow".



Terminology varies.

Cow - Species common name with bull as the male, bossy as the female, steer as the castrated male.

Cattle - Species common name with bull as the male, cow as the female, ox as the castrated male.


----------



## LAMason (Aug 17, 2015)

dfreybur said:


> Even better if the target that is picked already deserves it like one that danced the dance of mutual destruction with the Shrine in their territory ...



So, are you suggesting that recognition of the Grand Lodge of Arkansas be pulled because you do not agree with what they did?


----------



## LAMason (Aug 17, 2015)

dfreybur said:


> Cow - Species common name with bull as the male, bossy as the female, steer as the castrated male.



Some people may use it in that manner but it is not correct.


----------



## dfreybur (Aug 17, 2015)

LAMason said:


> So, are you suggesting that recognition of the Grand Lodge of Arkansas be pulled because you do not agree with what they did?



The best reason - A couple of years ago the MWGM of the MWPHGLofAR issued an edict recognizing all GLofXX that recognize MWPHGLofXX.  Since then recognizing MWPHGLofAR is returning a favor already granted.

So I am suggesting that MWPHGLofAR be recognized in spite of lack of local recognition.  Then if GLofAR or any other GLofXX pulls recognition for it, laugh at them. It happened before when GLofCT recognized MWPHGLofCT so it should work again.

It would be a tough sell on the floor at any Grand Lodge communication and unlikely to pass.  it might be worth the effort.  I figure it would have to be proposed every other year for several times, just like happened before in some states when local recognition was worked on.


----------



## dfreybur (Aug 17, 2015)

LAMason said:


> Some people may use it in that manner but it is not correct.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cattle

It is among the several acceptable usages.  Not the usage common in your geography it seems.


----------



## LAMason (Aug 17, 2015)

dfreybur said:


> The best reason - A couple of years ago the MWGM of the MWPHGLofAR issued an edict recognizing all GLofXX that recognize MWPHGLofXX.  Since then recognizing MWPHGLofAR is returning a favor already granted.
> 
> So I am suggesting that MWPHGLofAR be recognized in spite of lack of local recognition.  Then if GLofAR or any other GLofXX pulls recognition for it, laugh at them. It happened before when GLofCT recognized MWPHGLofCT so it should work again.
> 
> It would be a tough sell on the floor at any Grand Lodge communication and unlikely to pass.  it might be worth the effort.  I figure it would have to be proposed every other year for several times, just like happened before in some states when local recognition was worked on.



So you want to create a recognition war between State Grand Lodges that have recognized each other for decades.  And how could this be good for Freemasonry in the U S?


----------



## MRichard (Aug 17, 2015)

Travelling Man91 said:


> So if Prince Hall is regular, then how could a Grand Lodge consider them clandestine ? There not irregular because they do follow Masonic customs.



In the states with no recognition, the Prince Hall grand lodges are regular but unrecognized. It is really borderline unmasonic to call a regular grand lodge clandestine. Some people wouldn't use the borderline. Yet, some of these states do. But there is no racism at all. Yeah right!


----------



## LAMason (Aug 17, 2015)

dfreybur said:


> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cattle
> 
> It is among the several acceptable usages.  Not the usage common in your geography it seems.



The noun _cattle_ (which is treated as a plural and has no singular) encompasses both sexes. The singular, _cow_, unambiguously means the female, the male being _bull_. *The plural feminine form cows is sometimes used colloquially to refer to both sexes collectively, as e.g. in a herd*, but that usage can be misleading as the speaker's intent may indeed be just the females. The bovine species _per se_ is clearly dimorphic.

This is the note from the source you referenced.  As you can see it say the "plural feminine form cows" can be used to refer to both sexes, not the singular feminine for "cow" which was how it was used in the post.


----------



## Levelhead (Aug 17, 2015)

Theres racism on both sides. Rekon that buddy. Dont just blame one side. Not to say you are. Just saying.


Sent from Mossy Oak Swamp Bottom.


----------



## MRichard (Aug 17, 2015)

Levelhead said:


> Theres racism on both sides. Rekon that buddy. Dont just blame one side. Not to say you are. Just saying.
> 
> 
> Sent from Mossy Oak Swamp Bottom.



Funny how you keep saying that but yet you couldn't answer any of the questions I asked you earlier or provide any examples.


----------



## Levelhead (Aug 17, 2015)

What do you want? Florida don't recognize prince hall. Get over it. Worry about bettering yourself and your lodge. Focus on positive and not negative.

Im not worrying about prince hall recognizing me. I don't care. 

Wish it wasn't that way but what can i do?

Just cause i cant sit in your lodge dont mean were not both widows sons and brothers.


Sent from Mossy Oak Swamp Bottom.


----------



## MRichard (Aug 17, 2015)

Levelhead said:


> What do you want? Florida don't recognize prince hall. Get over it. Worry about bettering yourself and your lodge. Focus on positive and not negative.
> 
> 
> Sent from Mossy Oak Swamp Bottom.



Why are you so defensive about it? Please tell me how this Prince Hall racism affects your grand lodge. Interesting that you chose Levelhead as an username.


----------



## Levelhead (Aug 17, 2015)

Tired of always hearing and every topic turn into a race thing.  


Sent from Mossy Oak Swamp Bottom.


----------



## MRichard (Aug 17, 2015)

Levelhead said:


> Tired of always hearing and every topic turn into a race thing.
> 
> 
> Sent from Mossy Oak Swamp Bottom.



Every topic or this topic regarding recognition. I don't recall race being a factor in most.


----------



## MRichard (Aug 17, 2015)

Levelhead said:


> Just cause i cant sit in your lodge dont mean were not both widows sons and brothers.



Are you referring to me and my grand lodge or is that just a statement in general? The main issue is recognition. You can have a recognition agreement without visitation.


----------



## Levelhead (Aug 17, 2015)

General statement.


Sent from Mossy Oak Swamp Bottom.


----------



## LAMason (Aug 17, 2015)

MRichard said:


> In the states with no recognition, the Prince Hall grand lodges are regular but unrecognized. It is really borderline unmasonic to call a regular grand lodge clandestine. Some people wouldn't use the borderline. Yet, some of these states do. But there is no racism at all. Yeah right!



Here is a scenario:

A Lodge that has a Charter from a recognized regular Grand Lodge, so it is a regular constituent Lodge of that Grand Lodge.

It decides that it wants to form it own Grand Lodge, so it breaks with its chartering Grand Lodge, forms two other lodges and issues them a charter and then joins with the two lodges it chartered to form a Grand Lodge.

So, would you consider that Grand Lodge, its lodges, and members to be regular?


----------



## Levelhead (Aug 17, 2015)

The only lodge ill sit in is lodges recognized by my home lodge. I abide by all the laws, rules regulations of my grand lodge. 


Sent from Mossy Oak Swamp Bottom.


----------



## MRichard (Aug 17, 2015)

LAMason said:


> Here is a scenario:
> 
> A Lodge that has a Charter from a recognized regular Grand Lodge, so it is a regular constituent Lodge of that Grand Lodge.
> 
> ...



That scenario has already played out. Prince Hall Origin. They are not regular anymore.


----------



## MRichard (Aug 17, 2015)

Levelhead said:


> The only lodge ill sit in is lodges recognized by my home lodge. I abide by all the laws, rules regulations of my grand lodge.
> 
> 
> Sent from Mossy Oak Swamp Bottom.



Everybody has to do the same. Your Obligation.


----------



## Levelhead (Aug 17, 2015)

You know what i would love to see. 

They should make one week a year (to start) called intervisitation week.

During this week prince hall can visit mainstream and mainstream can visit prince hall.

I bet this would put a new view on brotherhood. 


Sent from Mossy Oak Swamp Bottom.


----------



## MRichard (Aug 17, 2015)

Levelhead said:


> You know what i would love to see.
> 
> They should make one week a year (to start) called intervisitation week.
> 
> ...



I don't see how that would be possible in the states without recognition agreements. In the vast majority of states, it is not an issue.


----------



## LAMason (Aug 17, 2015)

MRichard said:


> That scenario has already played out. Prince Hall Origin. They are not regular anymore.



So, you do not know that PHO and PHA share the same lineage to African Lodge #459 which did exactly what was outlined in the scenario I put forward:

"In 1797 African Lodge, contrary to the terms of its warrant and the English Book of Constitutions by which it was bound, gave authority to two groups of men to meet as Lodges: African Lodge No. 459B to meet at Philadelphia in Pennsylvania and Hiram Lodge (without a number) to meet at Providence, Rhode island. Authority may have been given to others after 1808."  http://bessel.org/masrec/phaugle.htm

So why do you consider PHA to be regular but not PHO?


----------



## MRichard (Aug 17, 2015)

LAMason said:


> So, you do not know that PHO and PHA share the same lineage to African Lodge #459 which did exactly what was outlined in the scenario I put forward:
> 
> "In 1797 African Lodge, contrary to the terms of its warrant and the English Book of Constitutions by which it was bound, gave authority to two groups of men to meet as Lodges: African Lodge No. 459B to meet at Philadelphia in Pennsylvania and Hiram Lodge (without a number) to meet at Providence, Rhode island. Authority may have been given to others after 1808."  http://bessel.org/masrec/phaugle.htm
> 
> So why do you consider PHA to be regular but not PHO?



I don't know how you came to that conclusion. Of course, I knew and maybe that is why I said that scenario has already played out when discussing the scenario you laid out. I don't determine the landmarks, they have already been established. PHA is also recognized by the UGLE except in 8 or 9 states whereas PHO is not. Please look at the UGLE website and show me one PHO grand lodge that has been recognized. http://www.ugle.org.uk/about/foreign-grand-lodges


----------



## MRichard (Aug 17, 2015)

I will make it easy for you. This is a list of the recognized foreign grand lodges in the US.

*RECOGNISED GRAND LODGES IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA*
Grand Lodge of Alabama
Grand Lodge of Alaska
Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Alaska
Grand Lodge of Arizona
Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Arizona
Grand Lodge of Arkansas
Grand Lodge of California
Prince Hall Grand Lodge of California
Grand Lodge of Colorado
Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Colorado
Grand Lodge of Connecticut
Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Connecticut
Grand Lodge of Delaware
Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Delaware
Grand Lodge of the District of Columbia   [Washington DC]
Prince Hall Grand Lodge of the District of Columbia   [Washington DC]
Grand Lodge of Florida
Grand Lodge of Georgia
Grand Lodge of Hawaii
Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Hawaii
Grand Lodge of Idaho
Grand Lodge of Illinois
Prince Hall Grand Lodge of the State of Illinois
Grand Lodge of Indiana
Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Indiana
Grand Lodge of Iowa
Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Iowa
Grand Lodge of Kansas
Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Kansas
Grand Lodge of Kentucky
Grand Lodge of Louisiana
Grand Lodge of Maine
Grand Lodge of Maryland
Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Maryland
Grand Lodge of Massachusetts
Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Massachusetts
Grand Lodge of Michigan
Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Michigan
Grand Lodge of Minnesota
Prince Hall Grand Lodge, Jurisdiction of Minnesota
Grand Lodge of Mississippi
Grand Lodge of Missouri
Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Missouri
Grand Lodge of Montana
Grand Lodge of Nebraska
Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Nebraska
Grand Lodge of Nevada
Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Nevada
Grand Lodge of New Hampshire
Grand Lodge of New Jersey
Prince Hall Grand Lodge of New Jersey
Grand Lodge of New Mexico
Prince Hall Grand Lodge of New Mexico
Grand Lodge of the State of New York
Prince Hall Grand Lodge of New York
Grand Lodge of North Carolina
The Prince Hall Grand Lodge of North Carolina
Grand Lodge of North Dakota
Grand Lodge of Ohio
Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Ohio
Grand Lodge of Oklahoma
Grand Lodge of Oregon
Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Oregon
Grand Lodge of Pennsylvania
Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Pennsylvania
Grand Lodge of Rhode Island
Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Rhode Island
Grand Lodge of South Carolina
Grand Lodge of South Dakota
Grand Lodge of Tennessee
Grand Lodge of Texas
Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Texas & Jurisdictions
Grand Lodge of Utah
Grand Lodge of Vermont
Grand Lodge of Virginia
Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Virginia
Grand Lodge of Washington
Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Washington
Grand Lodge of West Virginia
Grand Lodge of Wisconsin
Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Wisconsin
Grand Lodge of Wyoming


----------



## dfreybur (Aug 17, 2015)

LAMason said:


> A Lodge that has a Charter from a recognized regular Grand Lodge, so it is a regular constituent Lodge of that Grand Lodge.
> 
> It decides that it wants to form it own Grand Lodge, so it breaks with its chartering Grand Lodge, forms two other lodges and issues them a charter and then joins with the two lodges it chartered to form a Grand Lodge.
> 
> So, would you consider that Grand Lodge, its lodges, and members to be regular?



You understand that's not the history of PHA, right?

African 459 remained in touch with the Premier GL of England.  They kept sending reports but were ignored.  Lacking response they did what they could in the face of expanding and dispersing membership.  They continued sending reports to the Premier GLoE but were ignored.  By then they were also being ignored internal to the US.  As they had a quorum they founded their own GL.  The American Principle of Exclusive Jurisdiction is NOT a landmark and as such they remained regular from the beginning on.

So the example you offer is that of PHO which is not regular in origin. PHO went out of business and the name was resurrected, giving the organization a "sounds good but not valid" origin story.  I would still love PHO brothers individually, PHO lodges collectively, even entire PHO jurisdictions to apply for healing.


----------



## MRichard (Aug 17, 2015)

LAMason said:


> So, you do not know that PHO and PHA share the same lineage to African Lodge #459 which did exactly what was outlined in the scenario I put forward:
> 
> "In 1797 African Lodge, contrary to the terms of its warrant and the English Book of Constitutions by which it was bound, gave authority to two groups of men to meet as Lodges: African Lodge No. 459B to meet at Philadelphia in Pennsylvania and Hiram Lodge (without a number) to meet at Providence, Rhode island. Authority may have been given to others after 1808."  http://bessel.org/masrec/phaugle.htm
> 
> So why do you consider PHA to be regular but not PHO?



You did leave out some important details from that same site.

"1. On 29 September 1784 a warrant was granted by the premier Grand Lodge of England to 15 men in Boston, Massachusetts (including Bro Hall, whose first name was Prince) forming them into African Lodge, No. 459 on the English Register."

"*RESOLUTION FOR GRAND LODGE*

The Grand Registrar to move that, notwithstanding its unusual formation, the Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Massachusetts should now be accepted as regular, and be recognised.

[This resolution was adopted by the United Grand Lodge of England in December 1994.]"


----------



## LAMason (Aug 17, 2015)

dfreybur said:


> As they had a quorum they founded their own GL



By quorum do you mean African Lodge No. 459B and Hiram Lodge?  They were never considered regular by the UGLE? 



dfreybur said:


> they remained regular from the beginning on



Then why did the UGLE deny recognition only six years before the 1994 ruling?



dfreybur said:


> PHO went out of business and the name was resurrected



I do not claim to be an expert on the PHO/PHA origin controversy, but Alton Roundtree certainly is and the Forward to his book Out of the Shadows by Brent S. Morris says:  "The book gives a detailed account of the history of the NGL, concluding that the NGL was never dissolved, and that its 27 State Grand Lodges, designated "Prince Hall Origin" (PHO), are therefore regular. They have 300 lodges with about 5000 members."  http://www.freemasons-freemasonry.com/libro_bessel_Shadows.html 

Just because the UGLE and other Grand Lodges decide to modify and ignore longstanding Standards of Recognition does not mean that other Grand Lodges have to do the same.


----------



## dfreybur (Aug 17, 2015)

LAMason said:


> So you want to create a recognition war between State Grand Lodges that have recognized each other for decades.  And how could this be good for Freemasonry in the U S?



It's not a war when no one gets killed and one side laughs at the other.  It is a scenario that already played out when GLofCT recognized MWPHGLofCT so there is already precedent for it turning out well.

An end to the American idea of racism is good for fraternity and society in general, even if in the form of official Masonic recognition by more states.



MRichard said:


> Funny how you keep saying that but yet you couldn't answer any of the questions I asked you earlier or provide any examples.



The process should work for a lot of states -

Go to a GL library (might be on line) and find the list of offers of recognition.  See if there are any missing states that have local recognition.  See if there are separate lists of recognition offers returned and of recognition offers ignored.  If there is a list of recognition offers ignored try to find some other reason; good luck with that.  If there is not list of recognition offers ignored go to the libraries of each of those jurisdictions and find their list too cross reference.  Any missing returned offers of recognition try to find some other reason; good luck with that.

My example of the list of ignored offers of recognition appears in every Proceedings from GLofCA in recent years.  California misses the mark by failing to offer recognition to two states.  I wrote to the Gr Sec last year to see if this is a listing oversight and I await the 2015 Proceedings to see if the list is corrected.  Twelve PHA jurisdictions have returned the California offer covering 18 states.  Seventeen PHA jurisdictions miss the mark by failing to return California's offer of recognition.

I am also a member in Illinois.  Illinois uses the blanket recognition system so they recognize all states that have local recognition.  I've looked but I never found in Illinois records any list of which states return the recognition and which do not.  Because I know the list for California is not complete I have not attempted such a list for Illinois because that would entail research in the libraries of 27 PHA juridictions covering 35 states.  And I already know the approximate result based on the California outcome.

When folks state the problem goes in both directions, numerical tabulation by direction confirm that is correct.  Both branches of our family need to get our houses in order all over the country.


----------



## MRichard (Aug 17, 2015)

LAMason said:


> Just because the UGLE and other Grand Lodges decide to modify and ignore longstanding Standards of Recognition does not mean that other Grand Lodges have to do the same.



Excuses, excuses.

Let's look at this map and see where are these 9 states without recognition. http://bessel.org/masrec/phamap.htm 
Oh my goodness. These are states in the deep south with the exception of WV. Most were Confederate states with the exception of WV.


----------



## LAMason (Aug 17, 2015)

MRichard said:


> You did leave out some important details from that same site.
> 
> "1. On 29 September 1784 a warrant was granted by the premier Grand Lodge of England to 15 men in Boston, Massachusetts (including Bro Hall, whose first name was Prince) forming them into African Lodge, No. 459 on the English Register."
> 
> ...



I never said that African Lodge No. 459 was not originally a regular lodge warranted/chartered by the Grand Lodge of England, but when they began chartering other lodges without authority their warrant/charter was no longer valid.

I also never said that the UGLE did not recognize them, but the UGLE hold no special authority in determining recognition.  They like every other Grand Lodge can only decide what Grand Lodges they recognize.


----------



## LAMason (Aug 17, 2015)

MRichard said:


> Excuses, excuses.



No, just facts.


----------



## MRichard (Aug 17, 2015)

LAMason said:


> I never said that African Lodge No. 459 was not originally a regular lodge warranted/chartered by the Grand Lodge of England, but when they began chartering other lodges without authority their warrant/charter was no longer valid.
> 
> I also never said that the UGLE did not recognize them, but the UGLE hold no special authority in determining recognition.  They like every other Grand Lodge can only decide what Grand Lodges they recognize.



Without acknowledging that they faced extenuating circumstances that no other grand lodge has probably ever faced is part of the problem.


----------



## MRichard (Aug 17, 2015)

LAMason said:


> No, just facts.



Some but certainly not all.


----------



## dfreybur (Aug 17, 2015)

LAMason said:


> By quorum do you mean African Lodge No. 459B and Hiram Lodge?  They were never considered regular by the UGLE



That's the second level needed, yes.  The first level was having enough members that the formation of those two lodges by hiving.



> Then why did the UGLE deny recognition only six years before the 1994 ruling?



People confuse recognition with regularity all the time.  Without digging into the Proceedings of the UGLE we can't know for certain, but it was probably about allowing US jurisdictions work their principle of exclusive jurisdiction.



> Just because the UGLE and other Grand Lodges decide to modify and ignore longstanding Standards of Recognition does not mean that other Grand Lodges have to do the same.



This part of the topic has already been much discussed.


----------



## Glen Cook (Aug 17, 2015)

MRichard said:


> Are you referring to me and my grand lodge or is that just a statement in general? The main issue is recognition. You can have a recognition agreement without visitation.


Actually, you can


----------



## Glen Cook (Aug 17, 2015)

Travelling Man91 said:


> Yes I understand that, but if Prince Hall is regular then how would that be violating the ob.


Think of Cuba. It meets the requirements for recognition as a nation state, just as PHA meets the requirements of Masonic regularity. However, until recently, U.S. Citizens were (largely) prevented from visiting there.


----------



## MRichard (Aug 17, 2015)

Glen Cook said:


> Actually, you can



I know Texas was like that for a long time since 2007 I believe. Visitation was just approved in December and it was not well liked by all. That's why I find it funny that some people claim that racism is not an issue at all in states without recognition. It is still an issue here whether some want to admit it or not.


----------



## LAMason (Aug 17, 2015)

dfreybur said:


> it was probably about allowing US jurisdictions work their principle of exclusive jurisdiction.



This makes it clear that the UGLE considered Prince Hall Grand Lodges irregular until they modified their Standards of Recognition.

“Furthermore, these two papers (‘Regularity and Recognition’ and a ‘Short History of Prince Hall Masonry’) at last make it clear why the BGP* had had such difficulty over the recognition of any Prince Hall Grand Lodge since the Prince Hall Grand Lodge (‘PHGL’) of Massachusetts first applied for recognition in 1988: by the standard the UGLE had codified in the 1920s the formation in the early 1800s of the PHGL of Massachusetts, from which ‘All Prince Hall Grand Lodges are descended,’ was irregular. It had not been ‘established lawfully by a duly recognized Grand Lodge or by three or more regularly constituted Lodges’ as the first Basic Principle required. *Any Grand Lodge that permitted intervisitation with and/or recognized a PHGL – and there were now at least thirty-four such in North America – was therefore permitting association with not only an unrecognized body (in which case the BGP could just have instructed members to exercise due caution when visiting within its jurisdiction) but with an irregular body.” 
*
_The UGLE Board of General Purposes BGP manages the Grand Lodges External Affairs_

Page 30 _UGLE’s External Relations 1950-2000: policy & practice Inaugural Address by Bro *James W. Daniel *13 November 2003Transactions of Quatuor Coronati Lodge _


----------



## Glen Cook (Aug 17, 2015)

dfreybur said:


> The best reason - A couple of years ago the MWGM of the MWPHGLofAR issued an edict recognizing all GLofXX that recognize MWPHGLofXX.  Since then recognizing MWPHGLofAR is returning a favor already granted.
> 
> So I am suggesting that MWPHGLofAR be recognized in spite of lack of local recognition.  Then if GLofAR or any other GLofXX pulls recognition for it, laugh at them. It happened before when GLofCT recognized MWPHGLofCT so it should work again.
> .....



This really would be problematic with the other CGMNA GLs and the doctrine of ETJ. It could, indeed, start a recognition war. I support the doctrine as a system of governing the fraternity, but it can lead to inappropriate results.


----------



## Glen Cook (Aug 17, 2015)

Levelhead said:


> What do you want? Florida don't recognize prince hall. Get over it. Worry about bettering yourself and your lodge. Focus on positive and not negative.
> 
> Im not worrying about prince hall recognizing me. I don't care.
> 
> ...


 You can sponsor legislation in your Grand Lodge to change this. Your Grand Lodge, commendably, over rode the grandmaster in his exclusion of various religious beliefs. It can make this gesture of inclusion as well


----------



## Glen Cook (Aug 17, 2015)

Levelhead said:


> The only lodge ill sit in is lodges recognized by my home lodge. I abide by all the laws, rules regulations of my grand lodge.
> 
> 
> Sent from Mossy Oak Swamp Bottom.


And I'm sure every regular Freemason on this list agrees. That is not the issue. The issue is why a GL does not recognize its PHA counterpart, which now places it in the minority of CGMNA GLs


----------



## MRichard (Aug 17, 2015)

Glen Cook said:


> This really would be problematic with the other CGMNA GLs and the doctrine of ETJ. It could, indeed, start a recognition war. I support the doctrine as a system of governing the fraternity, but it can lead to inappropriate results.



Something similar happened between West Virginia and Ohio concerning Past Grand Master of WV Frank Haas. http://freemasonsfordummies.blogspot.com/2010/04/pgm-frank-haas-initiated-passed-and.html


----------



## Dontrell Stroman (Aug 17, 2015)

Levelhead said:


> Tired of always hearing and every topic turn into a race thing.
> 
> 
> Sent from Mossy Oak Swamp Bottom.



Bro level head, you can't not be that naive to believe that racism doesn't play a major part in why the two don't recognize each other. Example : I have walked up to many GL brothers and seen a ring and asked when do you believe we can all sit together in a lodge as brothers should. Know what the response was.... You have your own lodges and we have ours. Tell me that's not racism or some kind of prejudice.


----------



## Levelhead (Aug 17, 2015)

Sucks. That what that is. Sucks


Sent from Mossy Oak Swamp Bottom.


----------



## pointwithinacircle2 (Aug 17, 2015)

Perhaps we are beginning to see the end of racism as a definition. This week in social media I saw the more accurate terms "white racism" and "black racism" were being used. Perhaps our is time we stopped believing that racists are the "other guys" and began defining what we are actually talking about.

I remember the first time someone from another racial background said to me "when I was in high school I couldn't have invited you to my house because my daddy hates white people". I was shocked at first. But I could see in his eyes that he was as saddened and embarrassed by his father's attitude as I was by my father's.   all races have a way to travel to correct this problem.  Perhaps admitting that is a place to start.


----------



## MRichard (Aug 17, 2015)

pointwithinacircle2 said:


> Perhaps our is time we stopped believing that racists are the "other guys" and began defining what we are actually talking about.



Somehow I don't think this is the issue in the states without recognition.


----------



## Dontrell Stroman (Aug 17, 2015)

I will say this though, I'm not one to just post this topic on this forum and not try and make a change myself. I have a friend that is a white a guy and he's been asking me for a while if I could help him petition the lodge I'm in. I'm in the process  right now of breaking a barrier in my own lodge. Although Prince Hall Masonry allows men from all walks of life regardless of race, it has never happened in my lodge. Not because we don't allow it, but we have never had a white guy want to join our lodge that I know of. There may be some brothers that oppose the idea, but progress will never happen if we don't try.


----------



## Levelhead (Aug 17, 2015)

Same way in all 3 of my lodges. Never had a african american petittion.


Sent from Mossy Oak Swamp Bottom.


----------



## MRichard (Aug 17, 2015)

Travelling Man91 said:


> I will say this though, I'm not one to just post this topic on this forum and not try and make a change myself. I have a friend that is a white a guy and he's been asking me for a while if I could help him petition the lodge I'm in. I'm in the process  right now of breaking a barrier in my own lodge. Although Prince Hall Masonry allows men from all walks of life regardless of race, it has never happened in my lodge. Not because we don't allow it, but we have never had a white guy want to join our lodge that I know of. There may be some brothers that oppose the idea, but progress will never happen if we don't try.



Is it really a barrier if no one has tried yet? A barrier is when men of a certain race petition a lodge and constantly get blackballed. There are white men in Prince Hall lodges.


----------



## perryel (Aug 17, 2015)

I was initiated, passed, and raised Prince Hall Affiliated in Ohio.  There were white members of my PHA lodge, however, I was never invited to sit in fellowship with white Freemasons under the GL of OH. Then I moved to PA where I experienced such harmony between PHA and GL of PA that I was created a noble of AAONMS.  I recently moved back to Ohio and attended a shrine event with my family; I was the only black noble in the Temple. I was greeted at the entrance as if I had wondered across the parking lot and were attempting to unlawfully gain access to the Temple. No one ever tried me or requested to see my dues card.  The message was clear to me.  Black Freemasons in Ohio belong in PHA.  My wife was so uncomfortable she asked that we not return to the Temple...ever again.  Call racism on both sides if you choose.


----------



## MRichard (Aug 17, 2015)

perryel said:


> I was initiated, passed, and raised Prince Hall Affiliated in Ohio.  There were white members of my PHA lodge, however, I was never invited to sit in fellowship with white Freemasons under the GL of OH. Then I moved to PA where I experienced such harmony between PHA and GL of PA that I was created a noble of AAONMS.  I recently moved back to Ohio and attended a shrine event with my family; I was the only black noble in the Temple. I was greeted at the entrance as if I had wondered across the parking lot and were attempting to unlawfully gain access to the Temple. No one ever tried me or requested to see my dues card.  The message was clear to me.  Black Freemasons in Ohio belong in PHA.  My wife was so uncomfortable she asked that we not return to the Temple...ever again.  Call racism on both sides if you choose.



That is unfortunate. I recently joined the Shrine at the Imperial Session in Houston. The person who mentored me was a Shriner and he would often ask me to come to the meetings. He asked me to go to some of the Shrine events when I was just an EA. I did have concerns but he assured me it wouldn't be an issue. I was somewhat uncomfortable at the first event but everyone was nice. So I kept going to their monthly meetings until I got raised. It is not even an issue anymore. I had to get out of my comfort zone though. My only problem now is that the building is so far away from where I live. 

I was impressed that they have always made me feel welcome.


----------



## perryel (Aug 17, 2015)

MRichard said:


> That is unfortunate. I recently joined the Shrine at the Imperial Session in Houston. The person who mentored me was a Shriner and he would often ask me to come to the meetings. He asked me to go to some of the Shrine events when I was just an EA. I did have concerns but he assured me it wouldn't be an issue. I was somewhat uncomfortable at the first event but everyone was nice. So I kept going to their monthly meetings until I got raised. It is not even an issue anymore. I had to get out of my comfort zone though. My only problem now is that the building is so far away from where I live.
> 
> I was impressed that they have always made me feel welcome.




Good news for you...I miss traveling in Pennsylvania.  Each lodge, grand lodge, affiliation has its own culture.  Harmony should be the strength and support of all institutions...especially ours.  S&F


----------



## MRichard (Aug 17, 2015)

perryel said:


> Good news for you...I miss traveling in Pennsylvania.  Each lodge, grand lodge, affiliation has its own culture.  Harmony should be the strength and support of all institutions...especially ours.  S&F



Unfortunately, there are states where the fellowship is great between both grand lodges and you can visit each other without issues and then there are the other states.


----------



## Bill Lins (Aug 17, 2015)

MRichard said:


> I am sure you know my mentor. He was from another lodge. JPM from Memorial lodge and a member of the Shrine.


Yes- I know him quite well. As he was your mentor, that speaks highly of you, my Brother.


----------



## Bill Lins (Aug 17, 2015)

dfreybur said:


> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cattle
> 
> It is among the several acceptable usages.  Not the usage common in your geography it seems.


Nor in ours.


----------



## Glen Cook (Aug 17, 2015)

Levelhead said:


> Sucks. That what that is. Sucks
> 
> 
> Sent from Mossy Oak Swamp Bottom.


Can't argue that!


----------



## Dontrell Stroman (Aug 18, 2015)

MRichard said:


> Is it really a barrier if no one has tried yet? A barrier is when men of a certain race petition a lodge and constantly get blackballed. There are white men in Prince Hall lodges.



The reason I say barrier is because my lodge is made up of a lot of older men. I have brought the conversation up before and got some looks that I wasn't so sure of.


----------



## Levelhead (Aug 18, 2015)

The older elder guys in my lodge are the same. 


Sent from Mossy Oak Swamp Bottom.


----------



## Dontrell Stroman (Aug 18, 2015)

I believe it's a generational thing.


----------



## BroBook (Aug 18, 2015)

And sad to say, those that are not GOOD & TRUE pass it on to the next, I say let's stop talking about it (FREEMASONRY) and be about it, that's why we meet in secret. Excuse the Brother!!!


----------



## Glen Cook (Aug 18, 2015)

Travelling Man91 said:


> I believe it's a generational thing.


So, all people of a certain age believe the same?  What's it called when we ascribe the same trait to an entire group?

FYI, I'm 60. I'm a life member of the NAACP and a former board member.


----------



## Dontrell Stroman (Aug 18, 2015)

Lol. Hey, brother cook I should have rephrased that a little different.


----------



## Glen Cook (Aug 18, 2015)

Travelling Man91 said:


> Lol. Hey, brother cook I should have rephrased that a little different.


----------



## Dontrell Stroman (Aug 18, 2015)

What I meant to say is, it seems to be older men in a primitive mind set.


----------



## MarkR (Aug 19, 2015)

When we had our first black petitioner, his race was not mentioned in the investigation committee's report, because it was deemed irrelevant.  He passed the vote with no problem.

On the night of his initiation, there were going to be four or five initiated (I don't remember exactly; it was quite a while ago,) so we had a couple of extra brothers ready to escort.  When they entered the lodge room, the brother who went to the black candidate and took him by the "peculiar grip" was the oldest brother in the lodge room, then well into his 80's.  So it's not just about age.


----------



## dfreybur (Aug 19, 2015)

MarkR said:


> When we had our first black petitioner, his race was not mentioned in the investigation committee's report, because it was deemed irrelevant.  He passed the vote with no problem.
> 
> On the night of his initiation, there were going to be four or five initiated (I don't remember exactly; it was quite a while ago,) so we had a couple of extra brothers ready to escort.  When they entered the lodge room, the brother who went to the black candidate and took him by the "peculiar grip" was the oldest brother in the lodge room, then well into his 80's.  So it's not just about age.



One night after a degree in the mid-1990s I was walking back to the dining room with some of the older guys.  One said "My Dad would roll over in his grave at what we did tonight."  I asked what he meant.  He looked at me for a bit and said "I am glad you are too young to understand."

It took me sleeping on it to add the pieces together.  The young new brother was a black guy.  This brother 20ish years older than me had had no problems with that.  He had said that his father would have objected.

Generational issues are trends that don't apply to all families and that happen in different times from family to family.

Glaciers are very slow but they cut down entire mountains.


----------



## Dontrell Stroman (Aug 19, 2015)

Well said brother.


----------



## Dontrell Stroman (Aug 19, 2015)

Times are changing, just slower than what no most want. A big change happened a couple years ago in Atlanta Ga. Check out Gate City Lodge #2. It was major deal with them. Made it all the way to the Grand Lodge of Ga


----------



## LAMason (Aug 22, 2015)

LAMason said:


> Here is a scenario:
> 
> A Lodge that has a Charter from a recognized regular Grand Lodge, so it is a regular constituent Lodge of that Grand Lodge.
> 
> ...





dfreybur said:


> You understand that's not the history of PHA, right?



It is in fact the history of PHA as well as PHO.
...
"In 1797 African Lodge, contrary to the terms of its warrant and the English Book of Constitutions by which it was bound, gave authority to two groups of men to meet as Lodges: African Lodge No. 459B to meet at Philadelphia in Pennsylvania and Hiram Lodge (without a number) to meet at Providence, Rhode island. Authority may have been given to others after 1808."
...
"In 1827, having been refused acknowledgment by the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts, African Lodge declared itself to be an independent Grand Lodge, the African Grand Lodge of Massachusetts. African Lodge was then (or later) disbanded."
http://bessel.org/masrec/phaugle.htm


----------



## perryel (Aug 22, 2015)

LAMason said:


> It is in fact the history of PHA as well as PHO.
> ...
> "In 1797 African Lodge, contrary to the terms of its warrant and the English Book of Constitutions by which it was bound, gave authority to two groups of men to meet as Lodges: African Lodge No. 459B to meet at Philadelphia in Pennsylvania and Hiram Lodge (without a number) to meet at Providence, Rhode island. Authority may have been given to others after 1808."
> ...
> ...




Thank you for posting the link.  After reading the full statement by UGLE it appears you've omitted several significant sections.  Notably, sections 3 &4...

"3. By the standards of today, the formation of the Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Massachusetts was irregular. In the 18th Century, however, three Grand Lodges in North America were formed by not three but two Lodges, and the Grand Lodge of New Jersey was formed simply by a Grand Convention of Masons. By standards then prevailing, the formation of the Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Massachusetts could have been seen as merely eccentric, and of acceptable regularity.

4. Notwithstanding the unusual transformation of its original Lodge into a Grand Lodge, the philosophy and practice of Prince Hall Masonry today are of exemplary regularity."


Whatever modern question of PHA regularity was addressed by this statement over 20 years ago.  In addition, the statement clearly places the establishment of PHA within the historic context of what was regular at the time of its origin. I'm not sure I follow the position you're advancing here, applying either 18th Century or 21st Century Masonic protocol.


----------



## MRichard (Aug 22, 2015)

perryel said:


> Whatever modern question of PHA regularity was addressed by this statement over 20 years ago.  In addition, the statement clearly places the establishment of PHA within the historic context of what was regular at the time of its origin. I'm not sure I follow the position you're advancing here, applying either 18th Century or 21st Century Masonic protocol.



That was already pointed out to him. He doesn't care.


----------



## LAMason (Aug 22, 2015)

perryel said:


> By standards then prevailing, the formation of the Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Massachusetts could have been seen as merely eccentric, and of acceptable regularity.



Note that it says "could have" and not "would have".  The fact that the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts declined to recognize them proves that they were not considered regular "By standards then prevailing".


----------



## MRichard (Aug 22, 2015)

LAMason said:


> Note that it says "could have" and not "would have".  The fact that the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts declined to recognize them proves that they were not considered regular "By standards then prevailing".



Recognition and regularity are two separate things. It is obvious to almost everyone why they were not recognized, had very little to do with regularity. Why there was even a need for another grand lodge! Prince Hall was initiated in a regular and recognized lodge, yet there was not a lodge that he could visit.


----------



## LAMason (Aug 22, 2015)

MRichard said:


> Recognition and regularity are two separate things.



Yes, but recognition is contingent upon regularity.



MRichard said:


> Prince Hall was initiated in a regular and recognized lodge



I have never said that Prince Hall was not initiated in a regular and recognized lodge, but that does not mean that a regular and recognized lodge cannot become irregular and unrecognized because of subsequent actions taken.

I also have never said that Prince Hall and others did not/do not believe that his actions were justified.

I also am not so naïve as to believe that some individuals do not oppose recognition because of racism, but I also believe that it is unfair to paint everyone that opposes recognition with the brush of racism.  Emotionalism aside, the historical evidence strongly supports the position that the formation of the lodges chartered without authority by African Lodge #459 and the formation of African Grand Lodge were in fact considered irregular by “prevailing standards”. The fact that the UGLE and other Grand Lodges have chosen to ignore long established Standards of Recognition does not erase that fact.

I respect the decision of the Grand Lodges that have decided to recognize Prince Hall, but I also believe that other Grand Lodges are justified in not ignoring those Standards.

This excerpt from Proceedings of the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts, From March 9 to December 17, 1870 provides a contemporaneous account of the question of the regularity of African Grand Lodge which is over 120 years closer in time to the matter than the 1992 UGLE Statement. It makes it clear that Prince Hall was considered irregular and explains why.:

_Without any other authority than that contained in the Warrant for said Lodge, Prince Hall, the Iater thereof, it is said, on the 22d of March, 1797, granted a Dispensation, preliminary to a Warrant, to certain persons in Philadelphia. Soon afterwards, Prince Hall established Lodge at Providence, R.I. African Lodge, of Boston, continued to act as a subordinate Lodge until 1808, when, ,with the assistance of the Lodges at Philadelphia and Providence, established as above stated, it organized a Grand Lodge, at Boston, which Body granted Charters to several subordinates, not only in Massachusetts, but in several other States.

In June, 1827, the African Lodge declared its independence, and published its Declaration in one of the newspapers printed at Boston.

It is unnecessary to argue the masonic and legitimate effect of this Declaration. It was a surrender of their Charter, and a public declaration that from thenceforth they ceased to act under it, or to recognize its validity or the authority from "whence it was derived. If the "African Lodge" had any existence at this time, by force of this Declaration its existence came to an end. In 1847, a National Grand Lodge was formed; and, says the petition of Lewis HIayden and others to this Grand Lodge, set out on page 132 of our printed Proceedings for 1869: "the African Lodge of Boston, becoming a part of that Body, surrendered its Charter, and received its present Charter, dated December 11, 1847, under the title of Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Free and Accepted Masons for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and by ,which authority we this day exist as a Masonic Body."

Under the direction of Prince Hall the Lodge prospered, but after his death, which occurred Dec. 4, 1807, it became dormant, and ceased to have any actual existence. In 1813, upon the union of the Grand Lodges of England, African Lodge, which had been registered a8 No. 459 and as 370, "Was removed from the list and was never after recognized by the United Grand Lodge. The Declaration of 1821, complains that the members of African Lodge could open no correspondence with the Grand Lodge ofEngland, and that their communications and advances were treated with the most studied neglect.

Boyer Lodge. No.1, was organized at New York City by the African Lodge or the Prince Hall Grand Lodge. The members of this Lodge applied to the Grand Lodge of New York for recognition in 1812, 1829, and again in 1845. Grand Secretary James Herring made a report - in 1846 which contains a letter from our Brother, Charles W. Moore, Grand Secretary, which throws some light upon the condition of the African Lodge in Boston at this time. _

_Why this Charter was granted without the consent of the Lodges in Massachusetts, and without any correspondence concerning the propriety of the step, is a question "which can be answered by every American who remembers the bitter hostility existing in England at that date towards the successful rebels against the crown of Great Britain. This Charter, in common form, conferring no extraordinary powers upon tbe petitioners, anthorizing them to hold a Lodge, enter, pass, and raise Masons, and no more, was undoubtedly granted by the Grand Master of England, and under it the petitioners commenced Work. The successors or the persons named in that Charter, have magnified the powers granted by it, have construed it to confer upon them Grand Lodge powers, have set up by virtue of it Grand Lodges, and finally a national Grand Lodge, with subordinate State Grand Lodges, and have established an "American doctrine of Grand Lodge jurisdiction" peculiar to themselves, distinct and separate from any other Grand Lodge government known to man. Their National Grand Body" claims and exercises masonic authority over these United States, with full power and authority to settle all masonic difficulties that may arise among the Grand Lodges of these States." The original Charter, granted September 29, 1784, under which the successors of the persons named therein have claimed to act from April, 1787, to the year 1847·, and which was the only plausible authority by which they could hope to be justified in their proceedings, was not only surrendered by operation of 
masonic law, June 18, 1827, by reason of the Declaration then made, but on the 11th of December, 1847, was actually in set form of words, and with premeditation, abandoned and surrendered, and if they now possess the parchment upon which it was written, it is kept only as a curious relic of the past, emasculated of its virility. _

_With a National Grand Lodge, State Grand Lodges, and subordinate Lodges, they have so complicated the primitive difficulty, that it will not be easy for them to escape from the triple bonds with which they have bound themselves, although many of them may be dissatisfied, some with their form of government, and slome with their associates. _

_This is simply a question or Grand Lodge jurisdiction, a question which was settled and determined by this Grand Lodge, September 17, 1797, when it incorporated into its Constitutions this Section :-_

_“The Grand Lodge will not hold communication with, or admit admit as visitiors,any Masons, residing in this State, who hold authority under, and acknowledge the supremacy of any foreign Grand Lodge."_

_This provision, in some form of language, has existed in our Constitutions from 1797 to this day. It now stands in the following form: "No Lodge of Ancient, Free, and Accepted Masons can legally assemble in this Commonwealth under a Warrant granted by any foreign masonic power."_

_This is, as I have said, simply a question.of Grand Lodge jurisdiction, and we can consider it calmly and without prejudice._

_The Institution of Freemasonry is universal. It stretches from East to West, from North to South, and embraces within itself the representatives of every branch of the human family. Its carefully-tyled doors swing open, not at the knock of every man, but at the demand of every true and worthy man, duly accepted, whatever his religion, his race, or his country may be. This Grand Lodge stands upon the high vantage ground of this catholic society, and recognizes the great principles which must necessarily underlie an Institution which has a home on the continents and on the islands of the seas. When that celebrated play of Terence, styled the "Self-Tormentor," was first introduced upon the Roman stage, before the great amphitheatre crowded ,with senators, knights, citizens, and men of rank, some of whom have been found worthy of a Roman triumph, and Chremes, in his reply to Menedemus, repeated the words,-

“Homo sum; humani nihil a me alienum puto,"
“ I am a man; nothing which relates to man is alien to me,"_

_the vast assemblage rose up, impelled by a common sentiment, and rent the air with reiterated plaudits. The memory of that scene has not yet faded away. The words of Chremes has not yet ceased to reverberate. We bear upon the Masons' arms of Massachusetts, and have inscribed upon our Grand Lodge banner, the motto, -_

_"Humani nibil alienum."
“Man everywhere our brother."

Proceedings of the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts, From March 9 to December 17, 1870, Pages 35-38._

Also, keep in mind that only 6 years prior to the 1992 in 1986 UGLE Statement , the UGLE considered Prince Hall not only unrecognized but irregular and denied recognition.



LAMason said:


> This makes it clear that the UGLE considered Prince Hall Grand Lodges irregular until they modified their Standards of Recognition.
> 
> “Furthermore, these two papers (‘Regularity and Recognition’ and a ‘Short History of Prince Hall Masonry’) at last make it clear why the BGP* had had such difficulty over the recognition of any Prince Hall Grand Lodge since the Prince Hall Grand Lodge (‘PHGL’) of Massachusetts first applied for recognition in 1988: by the standard the UGLE had codified in the 1920s the formation in the early 1800s of the PHGL of Massachusetts, from which ‘All Prince Hall Grand Lodges are descended,’ was irregular. It had not been ‘established lawfully by a duly recognized Grand Lodge or by three or more regularly constituted Lodges’ as the first Basic Principle required. *Any Grand Lodge that permitted intervisitation with and/or recognized a PHGL – and there were now at least thirty-four such in North America – was therefore permitting association with not only an unrecognized body (in which case the BGP could just have instructed members to exercise due caution when visiting within its jurisdiction) but with an irregular body.”
> *
> ...


----------



## MRichard (Aug 22, 2015)

One of the landmarks of masonry is the right of every mason to visit and sit in every regular lodge. How do you feel about that?


----------



## perryel (Aug 22, 2015)

LAMason said:


> Yes, but recognition is contingent upon regularity.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I'm still unsure re: your position here.  Is it, simply, that PHA was at one time considered irregular, and despite the fact that it is no longer considered irregular, shall forever be subject to questions re: regularity based on this historical artifact?   

That's like saying the U.S. Constitution was written in a manner that considered slaves to be equivalent to 3/5 of a person in determining congressional representation. Therefore, former slaves and their descendants shall forever be limited in their exercise of the rights and privileges of U.S. citizenship (and, before this gets attacked as invoking race let's be clear that the largest legal form of slavery in the world is the U.S. system of mass incarceration.  The potential impact here cuts across every demographic.)

"...All people seek the temple where God dwells, where the great Truth illuminates the shadows of human ignorance, but they know not which way to turn nor where the temple is. The mist of dogma surrounds them. Aged of thoughtlessness bind them in. Limitation weakens them and retards their footsteps. They wonder in darkness seeking light, failing to realize that the Light is in the heart of the darkness. To the few who have found him, God is revealed. These, in turn, reveal Him to man, striving to tell ignorance the message of wisdom. But seldom does man understand the mystery that has been unveiled..."

V.I.T.R.I.O.L.


----------



## LAMason (Aug 22, 2015)

perryel said:


> the fact that it is no longer considered irregular



Not all Grand Lodges consider PH to be regular.  The fact that some Grand Lodges have chosen to ignore long standing Standards of Recognition in order to grant recognition to PH has no binding effect on other Grand Lodges that choose to continue to follow the Standards of Recognition.  Each Grand Lodge is sovereign.

"We continue to be of the opinion that establishment of fraternal relationships with Prince Hall Grand Lodges remains the prerogative of each individual Grand Lodge." http://www.recognitioncommission.org/publish/2006/03/28/2006-commission-report/index.html

"If a Grand Lodge seeks recognition from England, and in due course is recognised, the mutual recognition between it and England cannot bind a third Grand Lodge." http://bessel.org/masrec/phaugle.htm


----------



## MRichard (Aug 22, 2015)

LAMason said:


> Not all Grand Lodges consider PH to be regular.  The fact that some Grand Lodges have chosen to ignore long standing Standards of Recognition in order to grant recognition to PH has no binding effect on other Grand Lodges that choose to continue to follow the Standards of Recognition.  Each Grand Lodge is sovereign.
> 
> "We continue to be of the opinion that establishment of fraternal relationships with Prince Hall Grand Lodges remains the prerogative of each individual Grand Lodge." http://www.recognitioncommission.org/publish/2006/03/28/2006-commission-report/index.html
> 
> "If a Grand Lodge seeks recognition from England, and in due course is recognised, the mutual recognition between it and England cannot bind a third Grand Lodge." http://bessel.org/masrec/phaugle.htm



You tend to quote selective items but leave out the important details. This is the whole statement:

A letter has been received from the Prince Hall Conference of Grand Masters requesting:

That all Prince Hall Grand Lodges be declared regular by the Conference of Grand Masters of North America, and That the policy of Exclusive Territorial Jurisdiction be clearly defined so that universal Masonry can prevail while keeping the Brotherhood Man through the Fatherhood of God; a viable cause for Freemasonry as a whole.

It has become generally accepted that Prince Hall Freemasonry is regular in form and practice. The Prince Hall Grand Lodges derive their origin from African Lodge No. 459, which received a charter from the United Grand Lodge of England in 1784. There are approximately 40 member Grand Lodges of the Conference of Grand Masters of North America that have established a fraternal relationship with one or more Prince Hall Grand Lodges. Therefore, the question of regularity does not seem to be an issue any longer. A current list and addresses of the member Grand Lodges of the Prince Hall Conference of Grand Masters is being requested, and will be posted on the Commission website as soon as it is received.

The issue of Exclusive Territorial Jurisdiction is one of the standards for recognition that has been strictly observed by this Conference. It is held that only one legitimate Grand Lodge will be recognized in a particular state or country, unless by treaty or mutual consent two Grand Lodges agree to share the same jurisdiction. This is the mechanism by which our Grand Lodges have established a fraternal relationship with Prince Hall Grand Lodges. The terms of such an agreement are usually negotiated and ratified by the two Grand Lodges in question and no change in that process is recommended.

We continue to be of the opinion that establishment of fraternal relationships with Prince Hall Grand Lodges remains the prerogative of each individual Grand Lodge.


----------



## LAMason (Aug 22, 2015)

MRichard said:


> One of the landmarks of masonry is the right of every mason to visit and sit in every regular lodge. How do you feel about that?



You are referring to Mackey’s Landmarks of Freemasonry #14, but there is no universally accepted list of Landmarks.

"Today, Albert Mackey’s Landmarks of Freemasonry are not universally accepted; they are not really landmarks at all. For example, No. 2, the three degrees of Craft Freemasonry aren't a landmark. The Third Degree didn't exist at the time of the formation of the first Grand Lodge in England. No. 3, the Master Mason Degree legend isn't unchanged as the oldest legends concern Noah, not Hiram Abiff. The five points of fellowship appear in ritual first in 1726, not at the time of founding in 1717. No. 4, there was no grand master in 1717 either. No’s. 5, 6, 7 and 8 are privileges vested in the Grand Master by the Grand Lodge. No. 9 is interesting as operative masons seemed to have the right to congregate for lodge purposes anytime five or six came together. No. 10, there was a time when the lodge was governed by the master and one Warden. *No. 14 is noteworthy since in some jurisdictions, visiting is considered a privilege. *No. 20, regarding resurrection, raises theological questions which some jurisdictions feel unqualified to address. And so on. "
http://freemasonry.bcy.ca/texts/landmarks.html

The UGLE lists:
c. adhere to 'landmarks' (a landmark is an essential characteristic of regular Freemasonry), viz:
(I) its Brethren must believe in a Supreme Being (the GAOTU);
(ii) Obligations must be taken on or in full view of the VSL;
(iii) it must display the three Great Lights of Freemasonry when it or its Lodges are open;
(iv) discussion of religion and politics in its Lodges must be prohibited, and
(v) its membership must be male, and it must have nothing to do with mixed or women's Lodges.
http://bessel.org/masrec/phaugle.htm

The Conference of Grand Masters of North America (CGMNA) lists:
Adherence to the Ancient Landmarks � specifically, a Belief in God, the Volume of Sacred Law as an indispensable part of the Furniture of the Lodge, and the prohibition of the discussion of politics and religion.
http://www.recognitioncommission.org/publish/2004/06/10/the-standards-of-recognition/


----------



## LAMason (Aug 22, 2015)

MRichard said:


> generally accepted



"generally accepted" is not "universally accepted".  It is up to each Grand Lodge to make that determination.


----------



## MRichard (Aug 22, 2015)

LAMason said:


> "generally accepted" is not "universally accepted".  It is up to each Grand Lodge to make that determination.



I am aware what it means. You used selected text to make a point that PHA was not regular. The source you cited states otherwise. Your source.


----------



## LAMason (Aug 22, 2015)

MRichard said:


> There are approximately 40 member Grand Lodges of the Conference of Grand Masters of North America that have established a fraternal relationship with one or more Prince Hall Grand Lodges. Therefore, the question of regularity does not seem to be an issue any longer.



It states that "the question of regularity *does not seem* to be an issue any longer" however the fact is that the "question of regularity" is still an issue with some Grand Lodges.  The point I was making  was if my Grand Lodge says it is regular, it is regular for me, if your Grand Lodge says it is regular, it is regular for you, and they are not always the same, and the CGMNA and the UGLE both acknowledge that it is the right of each Grand Lodge to make that determination.  

As I said previously I respect the decision made by the Grand Lodges that recognize PH, they feel that the right thing to do is recognize PH in effect healing them for their jurisdiction.  But the fact remains that the formation of African Grand Lodge/Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Massachusetts "was irregular" and was considered irregular "by standards then prevailing" (as shown by the excerpt from 1870 Proceedings of The Grand Lodge of Massachusetts) , and other Grand Lodges are entirely justified to consider that.  You are entitled to your opinion, but I also am entitled to mine.  My opinion is not a knee jerk reaction to the question based on what I have read in online forums and blogs, but is the result of much research.


----------



## MRichard (Aug 22, 2015)

Did racism factor into that equation? Yes or no. (Regarding the formation of the Prince Hall grand lodge).


----------



## Glen Cook (Aug 22, 2015)

MRichard said:


> One of the landmarks of masonry is the right of every mason to visit and sit in every regular lodge. How do you feel about that?



There is no accepted list of landmarks; my mother GL specifically states it is not a right.


----------



## MRichard (Aug 22, 2015)

Glen Cook said:


> There is no accepted list of landmarks; my mother GL specifically states it is not a right.



That's a little odd. I have seen several masonic entities mention the ancient landmarks but there are no accepted landmarks still in use. Learn something new everyday.


----------



## Glen Cook (Aug 22, 2015)

Oh


MRichard said:


> That's a little odd. I have seen several masonic entities mention the ancient landmarks but there are no accepted landmarks still in use. Learn something new everyday.


Oh, we mention them and some GLs have codified lists.  Rest of us just make it up as we go along .


----------



## LAMason (Aug 23, 2015)

MRichard said:


> Did racism factor into that equation? Yes or no. (Regarding the formation of the Prince Hall grand lodge).



Possibly.

Did the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts consider Prince Hall Grand Lodge irregular in 1870 because of racism?  I do not think so.  They detailed their reasons and ended with:

“This is, as I have said, simply a question of Grand Lodge jurisdiction, and we can consider it calmly and without prejudice.

The Institution of Freemasonry is universal. It stretches from East to West, from North to South, and embraces within itself the representatives of every branch of the human family. Its carefully-tyled doors swing open, not at the knock of every man, but at the demand of every true and worthy man, duly accepted, whatever his religion, his race, or his country may be.”

Did the UGLE consider the Warrant of African Lodge #459 invalid and Prince Hall Grand Lodge not to be regular in 1868 because of racism?  I doubt it since the Grand Lodge of England had issued the Warrant to African Lodge #459.

Letter from John Hervey, Grand Secretary of the United Grand Lodge of England, 11th November, 1868:

“DEAR SIR AND R.W. BROTHER,-I am in receipt of your favor of the 20th ult." making enquiries respecting a Warrant granted in 1784, to a certain "Prince Hall." I have caused a most diligent search to be made in our book here, …

It is quite clear that the Lodge referred to is not working under the English Constitutions, and that the parties holding the Warrant can have no right to it, and are not a regular Lodge, unless empowered to meet under your Constitutions.”

Was African Lodge #459 a regular lodge at the time its Warrant was issued?  Yes.

Did African Lodge #459 cease to operate as a regular lodge in 1797 when it began issuing Warrants for other lodges without authority?  Yes.

Are PH Grand Lodges regular in practice?  Yes.

Are PH Grand Lodges regular in origin?  No.

Can a legitimate case for recognition of Prince Hall Grand Lodges be made based on historical racism?  Yes.

Can a legitimate case for not recognizing Prince Hall Grand Lodges be based on historical facts?  Yes.


----------



## MRichard (Aug 23, 2015)

LAMason said:


> Possibly.
> 
> Did the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts consider Prince Hall Grand Lodge irregular in 1870 because of racism?  I do not think so.  They detailed their reasons and ended with:
> 
> ...



Why do you think he and the other men he was initiated with couldn't visit any US lodges? It was only possible that racism was an issue? Really. 

I won't argue this point any further as it is clear that your mind is closed on this issue.


----------



## BroBook (Aug 31, 2015)

I asked this in another thread, although I understand, and respect the idea of being regular, and recognized, but here is the question " Who gave the brothers that met at the tavern the Authority to form a Grand Lodge and issue anything"?


----------



## dfreybur (Aug 31, 2015)

BroBook said:


> I asked this in another thread, although I understand, and respect the idea of being regular, and recognized, but here is the question " Who gave the brothers that met at the tavern the Authority to form a Grand Lodge and issue anything"?



They took the authority themselves.  Every chicken has to have an egg.

Shortly after Scotland and Ireland formed their own on their own authority and then also the Antients.

At some point the community said that was enough and they started lineage from then on.  Fair?  It is if you are in a regular lineage.  It is not if you are in a clandestine lineage.  This is why I tend to point out that clandestine lodges tend to be forces for good in their communities and that most members have no idea.


----------



## BroBook (Aug 31, 2015)

Yes my brother, it is fair, the search continues!!! SMIB


----------



## Glen Cook (Aug 31, 2015)

BroBook said:


> I asked this in another thread, although I understand, and respect the idea of being regular, and recognized, but here is the question " Who gave the brothers that met at the tavern the Authority to form a Grand Lodge and issue anything"?


The same people  that give three regular lodges the power to form a GL today in an open jurisdiction: the three regular Lodges.

Edited lodges vice grand lodges


----------



## BroBook (Sep 1, 2015)

And those three regular GLs are ?


----------



## Glen Cook (Sep 1, 2015)

BroBook said:


> And those three regular GLs are ?


Three regular Lodges, not Grand Lodges. Edited the prior post. Apologies.


----------



## Akiles (Sep 2, 2015)

Travelling Man91 said:


> I'm just getting other brother opinions. I've never heard of a GL not using dues cards



Grand Lodge of Spain, for example.... That's why during the dictatorial government of Franco the Masonry was forbidden (1939-1975).... And every mason was hunted and killed....


----------



## dfreybur (Sep 3, 2015)

On dues cards -

I once had an on-line discussion with a European brother who stated that his jurisdiction issues warrant documents so he would not accept dues cards.  I asked him what a warrant document was (I have seen them so I knew already).  Once he described one I asked "So you mean a document printed by Grand Lodge showing that you are on the roles at Grand Lodge and that is signed and dated by your own lodge showing when your dues are paid until?"  He said yes.  "So then what I need to do when visiting your lodge is hand you my document printed by GL showing that I am on the roles at GL and that is signed, dated and embossed by my own lodge secretary showing when my dues are paid until?"  He said yes.  "In other words I should not call my dues card a dues card because this simple matter of terminology confuses you.  I need to call it a warrant document?"  No response.

We call them "dues cards".  Some number of jurisdictions call them "warrant documents".  A rose by any other name.  Those documents tend to be big and folded up.  Not as practical but very nice looking!


----------



## Glen Cook (Sep 3, 2015)

Though my grand lodge certificate in England is issued once, and not renewed annually. I have to pay for re issuance. In England, a warrant is the charter issued to the lodge by the GL


----------



## MRichard (Sep 19, 2015)

@LAMason 

Just noticed the following section the other day. So I assume that you have issues with the 3 Grand Lodges that were formed with just two lodges and the Grand Lodge of New Jersey as well. Does your grand lodge recognize them? Checking for consistency.

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

*COMMENT ON PRINCE HALL MASONRY*

3. By the standards of today, the formation of the Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Massachusetts was irregular. In the 18th Century, however, three Grand Lodges in North America were formed by not three but two Lodges, and the Grand Lodge of New Jersey was formed simply by a Grand Convention of Masons. By standards then prevailing, the formation of the Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Massachusetts could have been seen as merely eccentric, and of acceptable regularity.


----------



## Glen Cook (Sep 20, 2015)

It's not clear to me how many lodges formed GL of ND. See http://www.ndmasons.com/history-of-the-grand-lodge/


----------



## MRichard (Sep 20, 2015)

Glen Cook said:


> It's not clear to me how many lodges formed GL of ND. See http://www.ndmasons.com/history-of-the-grand-lodge/



That is confusing but it looks like two (Fargo & Bismarck) and their charters had to be reissued after some confusion. The first lodges established appeared to be military that didn't last.


----------



## LAMason (Sep 20, 2015)

MRichard said:


> @LAMason
> 
> Just noticed the following section the other day. So I assume that you have issues with the 3 Grand Lodges that were formed with just two lodges and the Grand Lodge of New Jersey as well. Does your grand lodge recognize them? Checking for consistency.
> 
> ...



There is no precedent where a Constituent Lodge Chartered Lodges in two other American Colonies/States and then joined with them to form a Grand Lodge.  If a Lodge charters other lodges without authority it becomes an irregular Lodge and the Lodges it charters are irregular, so you had three irregular Lodges forming a Grand Lodge so the formation was irregular.  If a Grand Lodge wants to consider that "as merely eccentric" that is is there prerogative, but their decision does not obligate other Grand Lodges to do so.  Just because something "could have" does not mean that it would have or should have.

It is obvious that you take this issue personally and are angry about it.  I do not take it personally and I am not angry about it.  It was not my intention to upset you by stating the conclusion I have drawn from the facts based on my research since 2009.  You are certainly entitled to come to whatever conclusion you wish but that does not mean that I have to agree with you.


----------



## MRichard (Sep 20, 2015)

LAMason said:


> There is no precedent where a Constituent Lodge Chartered Lodges in two other American Colonies/States and then joined with them to form a Grand Lodge.  If a Lodge charters other lodges without authority it becomes an irregular Lodge and the Lodges it charters are irregular, so you had three irregular Lodges forming a Grand Lodge so the formation was irregular.  If a Grand Lodge wants to consider that "as merely eccentric" that is is there prerogative, but their decision does not obligate other Grand Lodges to do so.  Just because something "could have" does not mean that it would have or should have.
> 
> It is obvious that you take this issue personally and are angry about it.  I do not take it personally and I am not angry about it.  It was not my intention to upset you by stating the conclusion I have drawn from the facts based on my research since 2009.  You are certainly entitled to come to whatever conclusion you wish but that does not mean that I have to agree with you.



Angry? Lol. You used that same link to support your arguments but you want to pick and choose what quotes to use. So I did what you did and your arguments are looking weaker and weaker. You cite precedence and yet ignore it when  convenient. 

I could venture to speculate why you have chosen to  make such a big deal out of this but I really don't need to.


----------



## LAMason (Sep 20, 2015)

MRichard said:


> Angry? Lol. You used that same link to support your arguments but you want to pick and choose what quotes to use. So I did what you did and your arguments are looking weaker and weaker. You cite precedence and yet ignore it when  convenient.
> 
> I could venture to speculate why you have chosen to  make such a big deal out of this but I really don't need to.



Give me another example where three irregular lodges formed a Grand Lodge.


----------



## MRichard (Sep 20, 2015)

LAMason said:


> Give me another example where three irregular lodges formed a Grand Lodge.



Don't need to. I just gave you examples of grand lodges being formed without three regular lodges which you apparently have no problem with. Grand Lodge of New Jersey was formed by convention. Again no problem with that. Talk about an irregular formation but I bet the Grand Lodge of Louisiana recognizes them.


----------



## MRichard (Sep 20, 2015)

Let me ask you a simple question. Does your grand lodge have a particular stance on the PHA grand lodge in your state? Clandestine, irregular, or regular but not recognized. If not what is your position?


----------



## pointwithinacircle2 (Sep 20, 2015)

It seems to me that issues of regularity are sometimes based on who we decide to approve of and the reasons that we use to justify our position. Oops, no one was talking to me were they? I'll shut up now.


----------



## LAMason (Sep 20, 2015)

MRichard said:


> Don't need to. I just gave you examples of grand lodges being formed without three regular lodges which you apparently have no problem with. Grand Lodge of New Jersey was formed by convention. Again no problem with that. Talk about an irregular formation but I bet the Grand Lodge of Louisiana recognizes them.



The Grand Lodges formed by 2 lodges were formed by 2 regular lodges.  There were more than 3 regular lodges represented at the New Jersey convention.

If you want to consider those to be similar to a Grand Lodge being formed by 3 irregular lodges that is up to you but I do not have come to the same conclusion.


----------



## MRichard (Sep 20, 2015)

http://freemasonsfordummies.blogspot.com/2010/02/grand-lodge-of-louisiana-fails-to.html

Just out of curiosity. In the comments section, there is poster named Bobby that uses the same arguments you do. Is that you?


----------



## MRichard (Sep 20, 2015)

LAMason said:


> The Grand Lodges formed by 2 lodges were formed by 2 regular lodges.  There were more than 3 regular lodges represented at the New Jersey convention.
> 
> If you want to consider those to be similar to a Grand Lodge being formed by 3 irregular lodges that is up to you but I do not have come to the same conclusion.



So does the Grand Lodge of Louisiana recognize any of the aforementioned grand lodges I mentioned above. Yes or no.


----------



## LAMason (Sep 20, 2015)

MRichard said:


> Let me ask you a simple question. Does your grand lodge have a particular stance on the PHA grand lodge in your state? Clandestine, irregular, or regular but not recognized. If not what is your position?



Our Constitution says:  “No Lodge attempting to exist in this state without a Charter from this Grand Lodge shall be acknowledged as regular.” Louisiana Handbook of Masonic Law, Page 2.


----------



## LAMason (Sep 20, 2015)

MRichard said:


> So does the Grand Lodge of Louisiana recognize any of the aforementioned grand lodges I mentioned above. Yes or no.



Yes.  However, as I have pointed out I see a difference between a Grand Lodge being formed by "regular" lodges as opposed to being formed by "irregular" lodges, which is the same position that the UGLE took as late as 1988, and yes I know that they reversed their position in 1994 and decided to choose to ignore the irregular formation of Prince Hall Grand Lodge.


----------



## MRichard (Sep 20, 2015)

LAMason said:


> Yes.  However, as I have pointed out I see a difference between a Grand Lodge being formed by "regular" lodges as opposed to being formed by "irregular" lodges, which is the same position that the UGLE took as late as 1988, and yes I know that they reversed their position in 1994 and decided to choose to ignore the irregular formation of Prince Hall Grand Lodge.



Lol. This is beautiful. The Grand Lodge of Louisiana recognizes more than one grand lodge that was not formed by three regular lodges in an irregular formation. You just made my day, Brother. Your honesty is greatly appreciated.


----------



## LAMason (Sep 20, 2015)

MRichard said:


> Lol. This is beautiful. The Grand Lodge of Louisiana recognizes more than one grand lodge that was not formed by three regular lodges in an irregular formation. You just made my day, Brother. Your honesty is greatly appreciated.



You may not see a distinction between "regular" and "irregular" lodges but I do.


----------



## MRichard (Sep 20, 2015)

LAMason said:


> You may not see a distinction between "regular" and "irregular" lodges but I do.



The standard that you so often quote is THREE regular lodges. You just admitted that the Grand Lodge of Louisiana has recognized at least three maybe four grand lodges that were formed in an irregular formation. Hmmm. No comment. Lol


----------



## LAMason (Sep 20, 2015)

MRichard said:


> The standard that you so often quote is THREE regular lodges. You just admitted that the Grand Lodge of Louisiana has recognized at least three maybe four grand lodges that were formed in an irregular formation. Hmmm. No comment. Lol



Actually, for me the regularity of the lodges involved in the formation of the Grand Lodge is far more important than the number.  How many regular lodges were involved in the formation of African Grand Lodge?


----------



## Dontrell Stroman (Sep 20, 2015)

LAMason said:


> Actually, for me the regularity of the lodges involved in the formation of the Grand Lodge is far more important than the number.  How many regular lodges were involved in the formation of African Grand Lodge?



It doesn't matter brother LA Mason, that's irrelevant. Let's be thankful that some brothers in that time period seen a man for who he was and not the color of his skin.


----------



## Glen Cook (Sep 20, 2015)

LAMason said:


> There is no precedent where a Constituent Lodge Chartered Lodges in two other American Colonies/States and then joined with them to form a Grand Lodge.  If a Lodge charters other lodges without authority it becomes an irregular Lodge and the Lodges it charters are irregular, so you had three irregular Lodges forming a Grand Lodge so the formation was irregular.  If a Grand Lodge wants to consider that "as merely eccentric" that is is there prerogative, but their decision does not obligate other Grand Lodges to do so.  Just because something "could have" does not mean that it would have or should have.
> 
> It is obvious that you take this issue personally and are angry about it.  I do not take it personally and I am not angry about it.  It was not my intention to upset you by stating the conclusion I have drawn from the facts based on my research since 2009.  You are certainly entitled to come to whatever conclusion you wish but that does not mean that I have to agree with you.


I will accept that no American lodge has chartered lodges in other colonies and then joined with them to form a GL.  Yet, you appear aware that Mother Kilwinning chartered other lodges and only later joined GLoS, formed in part by some of its daughter lodges.  Thus, there is precedent for lodges to charter other lodges. 

What is your citation for chartering a lodge without authority causing the chartering  Lodge to become irregular?


----------



## MRichard (Sep 20, 2015)

MRichard said:


> http://freemasonsfordummies.blogspot.com/2010/02/grand-lodge-of-louisiana-fails-to.html
> 
> Just out of curiosity. In the comments section, there is poster named Bobby that uses the same arguments you do. Is that you?



@LAMason 

Never answered if you were Bobby or not.


----------



## LAMason (Sep 21, 2015)

Glen Cook said:


> Yet, you appear aware that Mother Kilwinning chartered other lodges and only later joined GLoS, formed in part by some of its daughter lodges. Thus, there is precedent for lodges to charter other lodges.



It is interesting that the only precedent that you can find is Mother Kilwinning.  This Lodge was operating and chartering lodges prior to 1717, which is the beginning of our current Grand Lodge system and as such was a time immemorial lodge.


----------



## MRichard (Sep 21, 2015)

MRichard said:


> http://freemasonsfordummies.blogspot.com/2010/02/grand-lodge-of-louisiana-fails-to.html
> 
> Just out of curiosity. In the comments section, there is poster named Bobby that uses the same arguments you do. Is that you?



Hmmm. Starting to wonder why you won't answer the question. This guy Bobby made some very interesting comments. I'm sure that wasn't you though.


----------



## MRichard (Sep 21, 2015)

Since you refuse to confirm or deny whether you are indeed "Bobby", I would like to get your thoughts on one of his posts:

"The misguided attempts to rewrite history and impose political correctness on the Grand Lodge of Louisiana will fail.

It will require an amendment to our constitution for PH Lodges to be recognized as regular in our State, which requires a 2/3 vote of Constituent Lodges. This will never happen.

LAFREEMASON and proud of it."


----------



## MRichard (Sep 21, 2015)

Here is another of Bobby's posts:

"Now to address the issue of Recognition of PH by UGLE:

1. I will quote various portions of the “Report From The United Grand Lodge of England Prince Hall Masonry and the Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Massachusetts” and acknowlege that the UGLE did grant recognition. My arguments and excerpts from the report are to show that in doing so they departed from historical precedents and application of their own guidelines.

I also wish to point out that the only reason they did so was out of a desire to be politically correct and fear of being called racist. I hold no ill will to PH Masons, but do not believe that long held principles should be thrown aside just to conform to contemorary standards of right and wrong, to do so imperils our existence. 

2. That being said I will now present my argument:
a. The report states :
i. “By the standards of today, the formation of the Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Massachusetts was irregular.”
ii. “All Prince Hall Grand Lodges are descended from what is now the Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Massachusetts”
iii. “To be eligible for recognition, a Grand Lodge must” “be regular in its origin”
b. Therefore by the UGLE’s own definition, PH Masonry is irregular, however they chose to ignore their own definition and chose to grant recognition.

3. They did however acknowledge that their action could not require other Grand Lodges to afford them recognition and stated “Recognition is a series of bi-lateral relationships between Grand Lodges. If a Grand Lodge seeks recognition from England, and in due course is recognised, the mutual recognition between it and England cannot bind a third Grand Lodge.”

I love masonry and have been a member of the Fraternity since 1973. I served as WM of my Lodge in 1976, and have served a Secretary for many years. My home Lodge was chartered in 1893, my Grandfather was a member of this Lodge in 1893 and most of the males including my Father, and all of his brothers, my brother, and many cousins have been members of this Lodge. I can trace my family’s membership in masorny back to 1870. I have been DDGM, have served as HP in the Chapter and IM in the Council as well as DDGHP. I say all of this to let you know that I take my Masonry seriously, and am deeply offended when Masons from other states call the good and honorable masons in my state racist and attemp to interject themselves into the affairs of our Grand Lodge. 

Do what you wish in your own Grand Lodges and stay out of the affairs of our Grand Lodge."


----------



## MRichard (Sep 21, 2015)

Now let's compare his last statement to a post you made here. Hmm.

http://www.myfreemasonry.com/threads/are-you-from-a-masonic-family.25280/

I can trace direct lineage back to my Paternal Grandfather, he was Raised in 1891, his Father in Law my Great Grandfather was also a Mason, but joined the Lodge after him. The furthest I can trace my Masonic lineage is my Paternal Grandfather’s Maternal Grandfather, my Great Great Grandfather, he was raised in 1874.

My Father and all 4 of his brothers were Masons, as well as several of my Paternal Grandfather’s brothers. My Brother and many of my cousins are/were Masons.


----------



## MRichard (Sep 21, 2015)

Another post from "Bobby":

"The following was also in the report.

"In 1988 the Board was unable to support an application from the Grand Master of the Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Massachusetts, seeking recognition for his Grand Lodge (and in ultimate effect on behalf of some 300,000 Prince Hall Masons in jurisdictions descended from his)."

So what transpired in the period from 1988 to 1994 that would have transformed PH Masonry from irregular to regular?"


----------



## Glen Cook (Sep 21, 2015)

LAMason said:


> It is interesting that the only precedent that you can find is Mother Kilwinning.  This Lodge was operating and chartering lodges prior to 1717, which is the beginning of our current Grand Lodge system and as such was a time immemorial lodge.


Umm. Ok. Thus, there is precedent.

What is your citation to support your position that a lodge becomes irregular if  it charters an irregular lodge?


----------



## JJones (Sep 21, 2015)

MRichard said:


> Since you refuse to confirm or deny whether you are indeed "Bobby"



If the brother in question wishes for anyone to know his identify he would make it known.  Let's leave it at that please.


----------



## MRichard (Sep 21, 2015)

JJones said:


> If the brother in question wishes for anyone to know his identify he would make it known.  Let's leave it at that please.



It was posted on the internet if you look at the link I provided earlier. For all we know, it could be a handle. If someone has a problem with their identity being disclosed, then they shouldn't use their real name when posting. Not to mention that it is just one name and not a full name.


----------



## MRichard (Sep 22, 2015)

I must say I am somewhat disappointed now. You going to the moderators complaining about your identity? Exactly, how has your identity been compromised? If you were X (let's call that poster X), then X posted on the comments section of a blog presumably using his real name.

Now @LAMason has no lodge identity info or any specific location as well. All he has is Grand Lodge of Louisiana. Exactly how has your identity been compromised other than the fact that you might be X and freely chose to post on a public  blog using your real name if that is true.

I would further speculate that this has nothing to do with identity. It is the posts that were made. It is interesting to note that X left the debate in the comments section after the tide had swung and it was getting harder and harder to defend his position. Maybe this is one of those deja vu things?


----------



## MRichard (Sep 22, 2015)

Can't believe I missed one of X's posts. 

"The action by the GL of LA was the correct one. Our constitution provides that there can be only one legitimate GL in the State.

Prince Hall masonry can only be recognized as regular by an amendment to the Constitution of the GL of LA.

I do not understand why people in other states are interested in the actions that we take in LA concerning PH. Despite all of the effort made to revise history they are now and alway have been clandestine regardless of the actions that other states may take.

LAFREEMASONabsoade"


----------



## Warrior1256 (Nov 21, 2015)

Glen Cook said:


> I will tell you, that if someone tells me they need to see my dues card outside of lodge, I don't know that I would be cooperative.


I agree. I would be uncomfortable if someone that I had just met asked to see my dues card. For what reason? I'm not going to converse Masonically with someone that I don't know from Adam. If someone would notice my Square and Compass ring and bring up the fact that they, too, are a Freemason I would stick out my paw, tell them which lodge(s) I belong to and ask which lodge they are from. Just general conversation.


----------



## Levelhead (Nov 22, 2015)

Funny story. Last night at the supermarket this guy had a shirt on.
It had a giant Square and compass and it had the all seeing eye and a skull in the middle giant artwork on a T-shirt. I walked up to him and asked  "are your a Freemason". He replied "No" i said "well your shirt has masonic symbols on it just so you know" he said only "a couple" and I said "no every single aspect of your shirt is Masonic." Lol he looked confused as i packed my groceries. Lol


Sent from Mossy Oak Swamp Bottom


----------



## Warrior1256 (Nov 22, 2015)

Levelhead said:


> Funny story. Last night at the supermarket this guy had a shirt on.
> It had a giant Square and compass and it had the all seeing eye and a skull in the middle giant artwork on a T-shirt. I walked up to him and asked  "are your a Freemason". He replied "No" i said "well your shirt has masonic symbols on it just so you know" he said only "a couple" and I said "no every single aspect of your shirt is Masonic." Lol he looked confused as i packed my groceries. Lol
> 
> 
> Sent from Mossy Oak Swamp Bottom


Yeah, our symbols look "cool" on t-shirts. As a matter of fact I saw one for sale in Wal-Mart and bought one myself, lol!


----------



## Brother JC (Nov 22, 2015)

I've seen a couple in Kohls that would definitely be considered "masonically inspired," but the only one I own was printed by a Brother and has a plethora of symbols on it.


----------



## Levelhead (Nov 22, 2015)

Really? Lol i need to check if they have them. What shirt?


Sent from Mossy Oak Swamp Bottom


----------



## Brother JC (Nov 22, 2015)

This is the one I have, done by Brother JP Gomez of Fraternal Ties.


----------



## BullDozer Harrell (Jul 1, 2016)

Glen Cook said:


> So, the purpose really isn't to  determine if he is a Mason, just to embarrass him?
> 
> Just to toss in: I didn't know challenge questions by the name of the popular book title. Is this a PHA custom?


Definitely not taught in my Grand Lodge. the MWPHGLIL.
Judging from what i know of other PHA jurisdictions, it's not a part of their education system either.

Sent from my SM-N910P using My Freemasonry Pro mobile app


----------



## BullDozer Harrell (Jul 1, 2016)

Travelling Man91 said:


> Being from a military back ground, I've had the opportunity to see how both sides conversate. In my own opinion I don't believe in speaking for a organization as a whole. I believe it depends on the brother. Some brothers choose to do it, and some do not.


Brother, i think you were looking for the word, 'converse' rather than 'conversate'.
Also, why didn't you simply inform the forum that the booklet was bought from a bookstore, and does not carry the official stamp of approval from any Regular North American GL?



Sent from my SM-N910P using My Freemasonry Pro mobile app


----------



## Dontrell Stroman (Jul 2, 2016)

BullDozer Harrell said:


> Brother, i think you were looking for the word, 'converse' rather than 'conversate'.
> Also, why didn't you simply inform the forum that the booklet was bought from a bookstore, and does not carry the official stamp of approval from any Regular North American GL?
> 
> 
> ...


Because I don't know what every GL does. I can only speak on what I've observed.


----------



## king82 (Jul 3, 2016)

Travelling Man91 said:


> For instance, one of the questions is how old is your grandmother ? That question has been used by masons for years. Growing up around both Prince Hall and mainstream I have heard both use almost the same questions. There is no difference in mainstream masonry and Prince hall masonry. The rituals may be a little different but it's no different than Prince hall or mainstream having different rituals depending on your jurisdictions. I see mainstream masons just as a i see a Prince hall masons, a brother mason. I would run to the aid of a mainstream mason in distress just as fast as I would run to aid of a Prince Hall mason.


I am mainstream mason form a us gl. I've wore my hat out and was asked this very question 2days after being raised. So not only pH uses them and I think its unfair to label them with it. It was a guy in his 70s prolly that asked me also. I didn't take it as a challenge and had a good convo with him. I understand the question u was asking. Ive never used them cause they always use them on me lol. Let's not be so sensitive about it. And I'll be glad when pH is recognized ww. Its coming. Slowly. Old mindsets has costs a few lodges to die of sadly. Diversity is the key and makes u a better mason


----------



## Dontrell Stroman (Jul 3, 2016)

king82 said:


> I am mainstream mason form a us gl. I've wore my hat out and was asked this very question 2days after being raised. So not only pH uses them and I think its unfair to label them with it. It was a guy in his 70s prolly that asked me also. I didn't take it as a challenge and had a good convo with him. I understand the question u was asking. Ive never used them cause they always use them on me lol. Let's not be so sensitive about it. And I'll be glad when pH is recognized ww. Its coming. Slowly. Old mindsets has costs a few lodges to die of sadly. Diversity is the key and makes u a better mason


SMIB brother


----------



## BullDozer Harrell (Jul 4, 2016)

Why do Freemasons end their prayers with the phrase “So mote it be ...

Sent from my SM-N910P using My Freemasonry Pro mobile app


----------



## BullDozer Harrell (Jul 4, 2016)

https://scottishrite.org/scottish-rite-myths-and-facts/qa-so-mote-it-be/

Sent from my SM-N910P using My Freemasonry Pro mobile app


----------



## MRichard (Jul 5, 2016)

BullDozer Harrell said:


> Why do Freemasons end their prayers with the phrase “So mote it be ...
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910P using My Freemasonry Pro mobile app



The operative word being prayers. Unfortunately, many use it as a catchphrase on social media now.


----------



## dfreybur (Jul 5, 2016)

BullDozer Harrell said:


> Why do Freemasons end their prayers with the phrase “So mote it be ...



Middle English "So mote it be" translates to Modern English "Amen".

English tends to import and adopt words.  Ships are sent out on expeditions of exploration, trade, conquest.  They come back with cargo holds filled with physical entries like tea, black pepper, vanilla and oral entries like barbecue, Amen.  The ships that went to the Slavs came back filled with words that have no vowels so be glad we don't use them much!

In the case of Amen it was adopted from Hebrew into Modern English as a replacement for the older four word expression.


----------



## Warrior1256 (Jul 17, 2016)

dfreybur said:


> Middle English "So mote it be" translates to Modern English "Amen".
> 
> English tends to import and adopt words.  Ships are sent out on expeditions of exploration, trade, conquest.  They come back with cargo holds filled with physical entries like tea, black pepper, vanilla and oral entries like barbecue, Amen.  The ships that went to the Slavs came back filled with words that have no vowels so be glad we don't use them much!
> 
> In the case of Amen it was adopted from Hebrew into Modern English as a replacement for the older four word expression.


Excellent info for me as an infant Mason. Thank you Brother.


----------

