# Visitation Between Prince Hall and Regular Lodges



## catsale (Oct 30, 2013)

I just saw the very powerful film, 12 years a slave.   I think it is time that the Grand Lodge of Texas had a legislative vote in 2014 session to allow visitation between regular lodges and prince hall lodges. If the masons truly believe that the inner characteristics make the man, then why do we not have this visitation and recognition? To allow the Texas grand lodge to continue with this pre-Civil War mentality is a little awkward.   And don't tell me peace and harmony is the reason - I think we must be called to the higher calling of social fairness and putting our idea of that we are all brothers under the same Supreme Architect of the Universe into real action. At least the Scottish Rite is recognizing the prince halls. Now we have to get Grand lodge of Texas on board. Anyone here fell the same way as me?


----------



## bupton52 (Oct 31, 2013)

*Re: Visitation Between Prince Hall and Regular Lod*



catsale said:


> I just saw the very powerful film, 12 years a slave.   I think it is time that the Grand Lodge of Texas had a legislative vote in 2014 session to allow visitation between regular lodges and prince hall lodges. If the masons truly believe that the inner characteristics make the man, then why do we not have this visitation and recognition? To allow the Texas grand lodge to continue with this pre-Civil War mentality is a little awkward.   And don't tell me peace and harmony is the reason - I think we must be called to the higher calling of social fairness and putting our idea of that we are all brothers under the same Supreme Architect of the Universe into real action. At least the Scottish Rite is recognizing the prince halls. Now we have to get Grand lodge of Texas on board. Anyone here fell the same way as me?



I feel the same way, but it is unfair to place all of the "blame" on the GLoTX. Both parties have an opportunity to move things forward.


----------



## masonicdove (Oct 31, 2013)

*Re: Visitation Between Prince Hall and Regular Lod*

I believe if we look north to Oklahoma we can see that you can move towards visitation. I will let you read the link. It might have been posted before but it is new to me and probably some others. There is visitation between both lodges: http://gloklahoma.com/documents/PrinceHall-rev1.pdf.


----------



## Brother JC (Oct 31, 2013)

*Re: Visitation Between Prince Hall and Regular Lod*

Look west to NM, as well. Intervisitation is alive and well there.


----------



## masonicdove (Oct 31, 2013)

*Re: Visitation Between Prince Hall and Regular Lod*



trysquare said:


> Look west to NM, as well. Intervisitation is alive and well there
> 
> I didn't know that. Thanks for the heads up on that.


----------



## catsale (Nov 17, 2013)

*Re: Visitation Between Prince Hall and Regular Lod*

Wow, this is good to know. I am proud to of my brothers in Oklahoma's grand lodges for setting up visitation between PH lodges and "regular" lodges. I think that is the right spirit of masonry.  I grew up in Oklahoma and still go up there to visit family (live in Texas now).  The most proud I have ever been to wear my dougle eagle 32nd degree hat was on the recent visit to Guthrie, Oklahoma to watch their recent re-union and the facility, degrees, and people were great.


----------



## brother josh (Nov 20, 2013)

*Re: Visitation Between Prince Hall and Regular Lod*

I so wish ky would have visitation between the two 


Sent From My Freemasonry Mobile App


----------



## towerbuilder7 (Dec 6, 2013)

*Re: Visitation Between Prince Hall and Regular Lod*

My District Brother Upton is correct-----can't place the entire blame on the *GLoTX*-----the *MWPHGLTX* has failed to come to the table and hold up their end of the bargain at least twice, and has failed to give the CRAFT AT LARGE a reason.    I don't care about the antiquated argument about racism existing on both sides----NOT NEW NEWS.    Those of us who TRULY revere the SUPERSTRUCTURE of Masonry, and also truly accept the Brother for the INTERNAL qualities, not the EXTERNAL, will eventually move to follow the lead of other States in the Country.    It's simple----those who wish to participate in Intervisitation------DO SO, AND ENJOY THE REAL FELLOWSHIP THE GAOTU SET FORTH WHEN HE CREATED OUR BROTHERHOOD...............those who are resistant to progression or change------DON'T PARTICIPATE.............JUST MY .02


----------



## Bro. David F. Hill (Dec 6, 2013)

*Re: Visitation Between Prince Hall and Regular Lod*

At the just completed Mid-Winter session of the MWPHGLTX a resolution was introduced, passed and send to the Fraternal Relations Committee to allow for visitation.  One resolution down, one to go.


----------



## dfreybur (Dec 6, 2013)

*Re: Visitation Between Prince Hall and Regular Lod*



PH021211 said:


> At the just completed Mid-Winter session of the MWPHGLTX a resolution was introduced, passed and send to the Fraternal Relations Committee to allow for visitation.  One resolution down, one to go.



GLofTX has its annual communication this week.  I say the Fraternal Relations Committee can and should put forward on the floor to accept the offer.


----------



## calvint357 (Dec 6, 2013)

*Re: Visitation Between Prince Hall and Regular Lod*

If the bothers from the MW Grand Lodge of Texas put the idea to move forward on the floor then I'm sure we (MWPHGLOTX) would do the same.

Bro Thomas
MWPHGLOTX


----------



## RedTemplar (Dec 7, 2013)

*Re: Visitation Between Prince Hall and Regular Lod*

As some around here keep saying, "Just a few more masonic burials".


----------



## Bill Lins (Dec 7, 2013)

*Re: Visitation Between Prince Hall and Regular Lod*



dfreybur said:


> GLofTX has its annual communication this week.  I say the Fraternal Relations Committee can and should put forward on the floor to accept the offer.


In his address. Bro. Normand alluded to the written report of the Committee, to be filed with the Grand Secretary, which allegedly contains "something" to do with the MWPHAGLoTX. No word on what it is or when it might become available.


----------



## Blake Bowden (Dec 7, 2013)

*Re: Visitation Between Prince Hall and Regular Lod*

Have to make sure that communication doesn't get forgotten.

Sent From My Freemasonry Mobile App


----------



## dfreybur (Dec 9, 2013)

*Re: Visitation Between Prince Hall and Regular Lod*



Bill_Lins77488 said:


> In his address. Bro. Normand alluded to the written report of the Committee, to be filed with the Grand Secretary, which allegedly contains "something" to do with the MWPHAGLoTX. No word on what it is or when it might become available.



Members of both our our Texas jurisdictions have been waiting for our grand lines to move forward on the topic.  In both cases we have not seen progress.  That is not the only way to approach the issue.  There is the direct legislation approach.  Legislation presented through the process outranks the grand line including the sitting Grand Master.

Our brothers in PHA did exactly that a few weeks ago.  Visitation was submitted on the floor, voted upon and passed.  The ball is now in our court.  By the word "our" here I do not mean our grand line's.  By the word "our" here I mean our representatives.

We didn't make the deadline for this year's annual communication.  We need to make the deadline for next year's annual communication.  Submit the paperwork for a vote directly on the floor.   Let's start now gathering verbiage and lining up signatures.

I take it as a PM in other jurisdictions not in Texas I am not authorized to sign legislation submissions here.  With a copy of the verbiage I can talk at Stated meetings and gather signatures of the WM/SW/JW of the lodges in my district.


----------



## tomasball (Dec 9, 2013)

*Re: Visitation Between Prince Hall and Regular Lod*



PH021211 said:


> At the just completed Mid-Winter session of the MWPHGLTX a resolution was introduced, passed and send to the Fraternal Relations Committee to allow for visitation.  One resolution down, one to go.


If that is true, then nobody has informed the GLoT.  Please provide documentation.  The GLoT website usually posts the results of their communication within a couple of weeks.  The GLoT can't take action based on what somebody posts on a forum.


----------



## bupton52 (Dec 9, 2013)

*Re: Visitation Between Prince Hall and Regular Lod*



tomasball said:


> If that is true, then nobody has informed the GLoT.  Please provide documentation.  The GLoT website usually posts the results of their communication within a couple of weeks.  The GLoT can't take action based on what somebody posts on a forum.




It is very possible that the GLoTX hasn't been informed yet. I don't believe that anyone expected them to make a move off of an internet post either. I'd hope that they would be following masonic protocol just like in any other matter. 

Sincerely and Fraternally


----------



## Blake Bowden (Dec 10, 2013)

*Re: Visitation Between Prince Hall and Regular Lod*



bupton52 said:


> It is very possible that the GLoTX hasn't been informed yet. I don't believe that anyone expected them to make a move off of an internet post either. I'd hope that they would be following masonic protocol just like in any other matter.
> 
> Sincerely and Fraternally



Agreed.


----------



## tomasball (Dec 10, 2013)

*Re: Visitation Between Prince Hall and Regular Lod*



bupton52 said:


> It is very possible that the GLoTX hasn't been informed yet. I don't believe that anyone expected them to make a move off of an internet post either. I'd hope that they would be following masonic protocol just like in any other matter.
> 
> Sincerely and Fraternally


I'll agree with that.  But I am hearing other members of this forum opining that since the GLoT got through their communication without voting for visitation, it's a conspiracy.  

At this Mid-Winter session, did anyone tell the MWPHGLoT membership why their leadership cancelled the last meeting with our Committee on Fraternal Relations?  Other than adopting a resolution, what information was offered to the members about the progress on this front?  We seem to have a lot of comment on this forum about what was said and done at the GLoT communications, but we get very little insight on how the business goes and what is said about recognition and visitation at the MWGLoT meetings.


----------



## bupton52 (Dec 10, 2013)

*Re: Visitation Between Prince Hall and Regular Lod*



tomasball said:


> I'll agree with that.  But I am hearing other members of this forum opining that since the GLoT got through their communication without voting for visitation, it's a conspiracy.
> 
> At this Mid-Winter session, did anyone tell the MWPHGLoT membership why their leadership cancelled the last meeting with our Committee on Fraternal Relations?  Other than adopting a resolution, what information was offered to the members about the progress on this front?  We seem to have a lot of comment on this forum about what was said and done at the GLoT communications, but we get very little insight on how the business goes and what is said about recognition and visitation at the MWGLoT meetings.



All I will say is that there is a side to this story that we are not hearing, apparently. It is becoming clearer that there are multiple versions of the event that never took place being told.


----------



## dfreybur (Dec 10, 2013)

*Re: Visitation Between Prince Hall and Regular Lod*



tomasball said:


> I'll agree with that.  But I am hearing other members of this forum opining that since the GLoT got through their communication without voting for visitation, it's a conspiracy.



My take is that it shows that it is up to the membership not to the leadership.  Waiting on the leadership has taken years without result.  Now it is time to author, sign and submit legislation directly to bring the matter to vote on the floor at the annual communication.  Here is what I see as the steps -

1) Find the exact wording of what was passed on the floor at MWPHGLofTX a few weeks ago.

2) Find the exact wording of the committee report that was not read on the floor at GLofTX last week.

3) Write legislation to go through the proposal process.

4) Get the legislation signed by many and presented through the proposal process.

5) Vote on it on the floor one year from now.

6) If the leadership wants to get it done earlier than that, let them do so but keep the vote on the floor no matter what.  The time for the leadership to accomplish this task has come and gone.


----------



## tomasball (Dec 10, 2013)

*Re: Visitation Between Prince Hall and Regular Lod*

What do you want to legislate?  We've already formally empowered our Committee on Fraternal Relations to negotiate an amendment to the Compact to allow visitation.  Short of writing the amendment yourself, what do you want?


----------



## tomasball (Dec 10, 2013)

*Re: Visitation Between Prince Hall and Regular Lod*

Couldn't somebody please post the text of the resolution that passed MWPHGLoT? Is there a reason that's not possible?


----------



## crono782 (Dec 10, 2013)

*Re: Visitation Between Prince Hall and Regular Lod*



tomasball said:


> What do you want to legislate?  We've already formally empowered our Committee on Fraternal Relations to negotiate an amendment to the Compact to allow visitation.  Short of writing the amendment yourself, what do you want?



Is it possible for what happened this year to happen again and again in the future? That is, a formal committee's report and thus empowerment can be diminished by not being able to speak at Grand Lodge?


----------



## tomasball (Dec 10, 2013)

*Re: Visitation Between Prince Hall and Regular Lod*

The business about abbreviating the Committe on Fraternal Relations report isn't as sinister as people are making it.  They were making most of the Grand Lodge Committees just submit their report in writing without giving them floor time.  The only thing CoFR had that required action was recognition for Tahiti.  It is my understanding that as far as PH recognition is concerned, all they had to report was that there wasn't anything to report.  I would be happy if those who have actually read the report contradicted me.


----------



## dfreybur (Dec 10, 2013)

*Re: Visitation Between Prince Hall and Regular Lod*



tomasball said:


> What do you want to legislate?  We've already formally empowered our Committee on Fraternal Relations to negotiate an amendment to the Compact to allow visitation.  Short of writing the amendment yourself, what do you want?



Waiting for leadership to move forward has resulted in frustration - That empowerment happened years ago and there has been no movement.  They are in reactive mode and they accept that the ball is not in their court at the moment.

Doing it ourselves does not depend on the leadership - As they have not already taken the proactive approach I want legislation written to offer visitation.  That legislation can be written by me, by any other Texas brother or group of brothers in this forum, or by any other Texas brother or group of brothers in contact with this forum.

I suggest the time is past to wait for the leadership to make progress on their time scale.  Write, sign, submit, vote.


----------



## tomasball (Dec 10, 2013)

*Re: Visitation Between Prince Hall and Regular Lod*

Well, no.  It can't be written by "me, or any other Texas brother."  Legislation can only be submitted by a member of Grand Lodge, or by a Lodge.


----------



## crono782 (Dec 10, 2013)

*Re: Visitation Between Prince Hall and Regular Lod*



tomasball said:


> The business about abbreviating the Committe on Fraternal Relations report isn't as sinister as people are making it.  They were making most of the Grand Lodge Committees just submit their report in writing without giving them floor time.  The only thing CoFR had that required action was recognition for Tahiti.  It is my understanding that as far as PH recognition is concerned, all they had to report was that there wasn't anything to report.  I would be happy if those who have actually read the report contradicted me.



Hmm I see. I wasn't there, only getting second-hand reports. Perhaps the visitation issue isn't as hot of a topic across the state as we think it might be? I know in my lodge, I'm pretty sure I'm the only one who ever discusses it at any length.


----------



## dfreybur (Dec 10, 2013)

*Re: Visitation Between Prince Hall and Regular Lod*



tomasball said:


> Well, no.  It can't be written by "me, or any other Texas brother."  Legislation can only be submitted by a member of Grand Lodge, or by a Lodge.



Notice that you used two different verbs.  "Written" for the process of assembling words for an intended meaning.  "Submitted" for the sequence of gathering the correct signatures, submitting through the GL legislation process, being ready to speak for it on the floor.  Knowing my status in the jurisdiction I did chose my verb carefully as did you.  Thanks for the additional clarification on who is needed for each of the verbs.

I don't care who writes and who submits as long as it is done in time well before next year's annual communication.  Signatures from willing brothers who are members of the Grand Lodge to be found and gathered as a part of that sequence.


----------



## Mac (Dec 13, 2013)

*Re: Visitation Between Prince Hall and Regular Lod*

I'm more than happy to submit that legislation, as I'm sure any number of brothers would be.  Let's get this ball rolling.


----------



## dfreybur (Dec 15, 2013)

*Re: Visitation Between Prince Hall and Regular Lod*



Mac said:


> I'm more than happy to submit that legislation, as I'm sure any number of brothers would be.  Let's get this ball rolling.



I would like to know the exact wording passed by MWPHGLofTX several weeks ago, but it will look somewhat like this -

Whereas the Most Worshipful Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Texas has been recognized for several years by the Grand Lodge of Texas, the United Grand Lodge of England and many other regular and recognized jurisdictions, and

Whereas there has previously been in place a custom recognition compact in place between the Most Worshipful Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Texas and the Grand Lodge of Texas, which compact did not include visitation, and

Whereas standard recognition compact between regular and recognized jurisdictions includes visitation, dual affiliation with jurisdictions that support dual affiliation and all of the traditional amenities between regular and recognized jurisdictions, therefore

Be it resolved that the Grand Lodge of Texas offer the Most Worshipful Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Texas the full standard and traditional compact of recognition to bring our jurisdictions from partial amity to full amity.

Respectfully submitted,

Lots of signatures of WMs, SWs, JWs, PMs, DDGMs and various other enthusiasts

Cc: Committee on Fraternal Relations, Committee on Legislation, Grand Secretary's office, elected grand line officers, (MWPHGLofTX Grand Secretary?)


----------



## tomasball (Dec 15, 2013)

*Re: Visitation Between Prince Hall and Regular Lod*

I'm beginning to wonder why we can't see the text of what was supposedly passed at the PH MidWinter concerning visitation.  We've been posting the details of everything that happened at Waco...is there some reason we're not aware of that this can't be made available?


----------



## bupton52 (Dec 15, 2013)

*Re: Visitation Between Prince Hall and Regular Lod*



tomasball said:


> I'm beginning to wonder why we can't see the text of what was supposedly passed at the PH MidWinter concerning visitation.  We've been posting the details of everything that happened at Waco...is there some reason we're not aware of that this can't be made available?



Keep in mind that things are done differently between our jurisdictions. Our resolutions are not published like yours are. What dfreybur posted was pretty spot on. I do hope you understand. 

Sincerely and Fraternally


----------



## tomasball (Dec 15, 2013)

*Re: Visitation Between Prince Hall and Regular Lod*

You all vote on resolutions without seeing them in writing?  Perhaps you could describe what it said?  Did it instruct your committee on Fraternal Relations to take particular actions, or did it offer a specific textual amendment to the compact?


----------



## tomasball (Dec 15, 2013)

*Re: Visitation Between Prince Hall and Regular Lod*

Did the PH resolution include affiliation and transfer of memberships?


----------



## bupton52 (Dec 15, 2013)

*Re: Visitation Between Prince Hall and Regular Lod*

It did not. 

Sincerely and Fraternally


----------



## tomasball (Dec 15, 2013)

*Re: Visitation Between Prince Hall and Regular Lod*

Okay...I assume you were answering my last question about affiliation and transfer of membership.  Was that stuff discussed and rejected, or was it not brought up at all?

Tom Ball 33*
PM 1173, 1010


----------



## bupton52 (Dec 15, 2013)

*Re: Visitation Between Prince Hall and Regular Lod*

It wasnt even brought up. 

Sincerely and Fraternally


----------



## Txmason32 (May 10, 2014)

Well it's may now . Have we any news on this ?


Sent From My Freemasonry Pro App


----------



## dfreybur (May 12, 2014)

Txmason32 said:


> Well it's may now . Have we any news on this ?



May is the deadline to submit legislation or the Dec annual communication.  I posted in another thread the exact wording I will submit at my own lodge this week.  If more lodges copy, sign and submit I would like that.


----------



## bupton52 (May 21, 2014)

Our Annual Session is in June. Had to work out some kinks. We shall see. 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I317 using My Freemasonry HD mobile app


----------



## Bro. David F. Hill (May 21, 2014)

It was brought up and passed.  Brother Thomas from out of Dallas was assigned to be the liaison since he brought it up.


----------



## bupton52 (May 21, 2014)

Bro. David F. Hill said:


> It was brought up and passed.  Brother Thomas from out of Dallas was assigned to be the liaison since he brought it up.



There was some verbiage that needed to be changed. 

Sent From My Freemasonry Pro App


----------



## dfreybur (May 22, 2014)

dfreybur said:


> May is the deadline to submit legislation or the Dec annual communication.  I posted in another thread the exact wording I will submit at my own lodge this week.  If more lodges copy, sign and submit I would like that.



I was unable to convince sufficient PMs at my lodge to sign so I failed this year to submit with the wording I list above.  Sigh.  If at first you don't succeed, start stumping early next year and try again.  I'm not going to stop until all states have recognition and all of my own jurisdiction have offered full recognition everywhere.


----------



## tomasball (May 22, 2014)

How many PMs do you imagine you need to submit a resolution?


----------



## dfreybur (May 23, 2014)

tomasball said:


> How many PMs do you imagine you need to submit a resolution?



The standard number of voting representatives for submitted legislation is 3 in all 3 of my jurisdictions.  Voting representatives include WM, SW and JW as well as PMs.  I was unable to convince enough of the entire set.  I've had easier times convincing managers at work to make very large computer server purchases than I had at lodge.

I'll start stumping the issue earlier next year and incorporate any changes based on whatever passes at the December 2014 annual meeting.

In the long run I'll keep at the issue until all of my jurisdiction have offered full mutual recognition to all regular PHA jurisdictions on the list.  Step by step it's a long term project with that as my final goal.


----------



## tomasball (May 28, 2014)

It would be helpful to you to acquire and study the Constitution and Laws of the GL of Texas.  Any single Past Master may propose a resolution.  (Art. 172) I'm surprised someone didn't explain this to you while you were trying to recruit support.


----------



## pointwithinacircle2 (Jun 17, 2014)

RedTemplar said:


> *Re: Visitation Between Prince Hall and Regular Lod*
> 
> As some around here keep saying, "Just a few more masonic burials".


Excuse me Brother, but this answer implies that the problem is people.  I believe that the problem is Ideas.  Like weeds in a garden, some Ideas must be removed.  Perhaps we still have to few gardeners.


----------



## RedTemplar (Jul 2, 2014)

pointwithinacircle2 said:


> Excuse me Brother, but this answer implies that the problem is people.  I believe that the problem is Ideas.  Like weeds in a garden, some Ideas must be removed.  Perhaps we still have to few gardeners.



We know the tree by the fruit it bears.


----------



## Warrior1256 (Aug 17, 2014)

brother josh said:


> *Re: Visitation Between Prince Hall and Regular Lod*
> 
> I so wish ky would have visitation between the two
> 
> ...


Same here.


----------



## Levelhead (Aug 17, 2014)

Sometimes it makes you think. I mean ok "supposedly " as the PH say   Whats the big deal were all the same. But are we? Do we take the same obligations? Do we have the same degree ritual? 

Its funny because the answer to this question can never be answered because prince hall don't know the exact answers about us and we will never know the exact answers about them.
Why? Because we took obligations to not have masonic communication with clandestine masons.

They are considered clandestine to us and we are clandestine clandestine to them.

So who evers trying to keep us separate made it so we couldn't even talk about ritual and compare and thus always have that thought that the other might be doing something bad or wrong due to no communication.


Sent From Bro Carl's Freemasonry Pro App


----------



## Brother JC (Aug 17, 2014)

Perhaps in your jurisdiction, but not in the majority if US. In both NM and CA (for example), members of the two Grand Lodges may intervisit. I have sat in lodge with the Grand Master of MWPHGLNM on several occasions. Neither of us considered the other to be clandestine.


----------



## Levelhead (Aug 17, 2014)

I would love to sit in a prince hall lodge and see the differences. But in florida thats not allowed at all. 


Sent From Bro Carl's Freemasonry Pro App


----------



## Brother JC (Aug 17, 2014)

Hopefully that will change one day soon. There are so few states left like yours, so much Brotherhood to be shared.


----------



## dfreybur (Aug 18, 2014)

Levelhead said:


> Sometimes it makes you think. I mean ok "supposedly " as the PH say   Whats the big deal were all the same. But are we? Do we take the same obligations? Do we have the same degree ritual



Yes.  Anyone who has visited lodges in both branches will report that the differences between the branches are no larger than the differences state to state within branches.  I am one of many brothers who reports that about more than one PHA jurisdiction.  Vast numbers of brothers report the same about the many states that have long had visitation.



> Its funny because the answer to this question can never be answered because prince hall don't know the exact answers about us and we will never know the exact answers about them.
> Why? Because we took obligations to not have masonic communication with clandestine masons.



Remember what these words mean.  They mean something specific.  They mean passing a tiler and attending a tiled meeting.  It is trivial to check what is necessary for regularity without passing a tiler - No jurisdiction holds its landmarks secret.  No jurisdiction holds the questions on its petition secret.  I also notice you incorrectly added the word "exact" in there.  Try visiting the next state over and see how that works for you.



> They are considered clandestine to us and we are clandestine clandestine to them.



The word clandestine means something specific and this isn't it.  Clandestine means founded without valid authority.  As the PHA branch still keeps the original charter from the Premier Grand Lodge of England they are not.  Starting the day that UGLE recognized MW PHA GL of CT no stance has been able to justify calling PHA clandestine, no matter how biased the stance.

PHA is regular and there has been no way out of admitting that since the day UGLE declared PHA regular.  Any  statement by any grand lodge to the contrary is some mixture of ignorant and/or dishonest.  Our leaders are humans and as such capable of ignorance and error so read and learn for yourself.

What remains is recognition and housekeeping details.  For example when I read the California recognition offer list Delaware and New Hampshire were missing.  This year I have been in correspondence with the California Gr Sec office to correct that.  If needed I will submit legislation in 2015 to force that issue, completing the set that California has offered to..


----------



## bupton52 (Aug 18, 2014)

Levelhead said:


> Sometimes it makes you think. I mean ok "supposedly " as the PH say   Whats the big deal were all the same. But are we? Do we take the same obligations? Do we have the same degree ritual?
> 
> Its funny because the answer to this question can never be answered because prince hall don't know the exact answers about us and we will never know the exact answers about them.
> Why? Because we took obligations to not have masonic communication with clandestine masons.
> ...



I believe that if you took the time to ask the other 40 or so states that share mutual recognition with the PHGLs in their states, you'd find the answer to what differences, if any, there are. ALL PHGLs are regularly formed and practice freemasonry just like the GL of State does. By any chance, did the PHGL in Florida become the only one that is clandestine?


----------



## Levelhead (Aug 18, 2014)

Maybe i used the wrong word. Maybe instead of clandestine i should use the words "not recognized" . 

My whole point is IT SUCKS that another man took the same obligations as me (as im told are the same) and got raised the same way as me (as im told was the same) and we cant live in masonic brotherhood and share the love. 

I personally believe , no matter who, what color, what religion, what race.... If you are a brother you are a brother.




Sent From Bro Carl's Freemasonry Pro App


----------



## dfreybur (Aug 18, 2014)

Levelhead said:


> Maybe i used the wrong word. Maybe instead of clandestine i should use the words "not recognized" .



The words have specific meaning so it is important to use the correct one.


----------



## bupton52 (Aug 18, 2014)

I wish that there was a universal masonic definition for clandestine that all of us used. 

Sent from my SM-T210R using My Freemasonry HD mobile app


----------



## Squire Bentley (Dec 12, 2016)

There is a univerrsal Masonic definition for clandestine. Clandestine means not chartered by a duly recognized authority or Grand Lodge. Most of these truly clandestine Grand Lodges have corporation charters from their state. These are civil charters not Masonic charters. A duly recognized charter would be one issued from a Grand Lodge that is recognized by the Confeence of Grand Masters of both Mainstream Masonry and PHA Masoney and/or the UGLE. If you don't have the proper papers of foundation you are not duly chartered. If you claim to have a pure bred dog but the dog is not AKC registered or recognized, then it is not pure bred, it does not have proper papers.


----------



## Dontrell Stroman (Dec 14, 2016)

Squire Bentley said:


> There is a univerrsal Masonic definition for clandestine. Clandestine means not chartered by a duly recognized authority or Grand Lodge. Most of these truly clandestine Grand Lodges have corporation charters from their state. These are civil charters not Masonic charters. A duly recognized charter would be one issued from a Grand Lodge that is recognized by the Confeence of Grand Masters of both Mainstream Masonry and PHA Masoney and/or the UGLE. If you don't have the proper papers of foundation you are not duly chartered. If you claim to have a pure bred dog but the dog is not AKC registered or recognized, then it is not pure bred, it does not have proper papers.


Very well said brother


----------



## Ripcord22A (Dec 14, 2016)

Squire Bentley said:


> There is a univerrsal Masonic definition for clandestine. Clandestine means not chartered by a duly recognized authority or Grand Lodge. Most of these truly clandestine Grand Lodges have corporation charters from their state. These are civil charters not Masonic charters. A duly recognized charter would be one issued from a Grand Lodge that is recognized by the Confeence of Grand Masters of both Mainstream Masonry and PHA Masoney and/or the UGLE. If you don't have the proper papers of foundation you are not duly chartered. If you claim to have a pure bred dog but the dog is not AKC registered or recognized, then it is not pure bred, it does not have proper papers.


While I agree with you brother here is the problem with your definition......not all "Mainstream" or as @dfreybur says "George Washington" affiliated GLs  (which are sovereign entities and may be members of the CoGMNA but are not beholden to their recommendations) recognize the African lodge #1s charter as legitimate.  and there are PHA lodges that don't recognize their mainstream counterpart.  Lets take PHA outta the question....the GL in Italy that the UGLE recognizes is different then the one th CGMNA does......


----------



## Dontrell Stroman (Dec 14, 2016)

Ripcord22A said:


> While I agree with you brother here is the problem with your definition......not all "Mainstream" or as @dfreybur says "George Washington" affiliated GLs  (which are sovereign entities and may be members of the CoGMNA but are not beholden to their recommendations) recognize the African lodge #1s charter as legitimate.  and there are PHA lodges that don't recognize their mainstream counterpart.  Lets take PHA outta the question....the GL in Italy that the UGLE recognizes is different then the one th CGMNA does......


What GL are you speaking of that doesnt recognize African Lodge #1 charter ? And what would be the reason for not recognizing it ?


----------



## Ripcord22A (Dec 14, 2016)

The 9 southern GLs.....

Sent from my LG-H811 using My Freemasonry mobile app


----------



## Dontrell Stroman (Dec 14, 2016)

Ripcord22A said:


> The 9 southern GLs.....
> 
> Sent from my LG-H811 using My Freemasonry mobile app


In your own opinion, what would be a reason to not recognize the charter ?

Sent from my LG-LS997 using My Freemasonry mobile app


----------



## Glen Cook (Dec 14, 2016)

Squire Bentley said:


> There is a univerrsal Masonic definition for clandestine. Clandestine means not chartered by a duly recognized authority or Grand Lodge. Most of these truly clandestine Grand Lodges have corporation charters from their state. These are civil charters not Masonic charters. A duly recognized charter would be one issued from a Grand Lodge that is recognized by the Confeence of Grand Masters of both Mainstream Masonry and PHA Masoney and/or the UGLE. If you don't have the proper papers of foundation you are not duly chartered. If you claim to have a pure bred dog but the dog is not AKC registered or recognized, then it is not pure bred, it does not have proper papers.


 No, there is not  a universal  definition of clandestine. I don't disagree with this definition, but some grand lodges don't even use the term. As one who actually works in the recognition area, it really is not a universal term. For some grand lodges, any body not in Amity with them is clandestine.

 Many  grand regular lodges are incorporated, so that is not  a determining factor  either.

 Many, if not most, US regular grand lodges are not chartered by another grand Lodge.  Don't  forget Scotland as a "source" of regularity for US GLs.  Note,  none of the Home GLs "chartered" US "grand lodges."


----------



## Ripcord22A (Dec 15, 2016)

Travelling Man91 said:


> In your own opinion, what would be a reason to not recognize the charter ?
> 
> Sent from my LG-LS997 using My Freemasonry mobile app


Currently?...rascism....historically...the comsidered the way in which PH got the charter to be irregular...

Sent from my LG-H811 using My Freemasonry mobile app


----------



## Glen Cook (Dec 15, 2016)

Ripcord22A said:


> Currently?...rascism....historically...the comsidered the way in which PH got the charter to be irregular...
> 
> Sent from my LG-H811 using My Freemasonry mobile app


Pretty much, except for those PHA GLs in amity with GLdF


----------



## MRichard (Dec 29, 2016)

It's interesting that some continue to bring up the irregular beginnings of PHA, yet, there were several grand lodges that were formed irregularly during those times. I seldom hear anyone question their legitimacy.


----------



## SimonM (Dec 29, 2016)

MRichard said:


> It's interesting that some continue to bring up the irregular beginnings of PHA, yet, there were several grand lodges that were formed irregularly during those times. I seldom hear anyone question their legitimacy.



Can you name some of the GL that had irregular starts?


----------



## MRichard (Dec 29, 2016)

SimonM said:


> Can you name some of the GL that had irregular starts?



"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."

It was on the Bessel's website but it doesn't appear to be working now but you can still see a cached version of it on google. Maybe this will work instead. http://webcache.googleusercontent.c.../masrec/phaugle.htm+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us


----------



## MRichard (Dec 29, 2016)

SimonM said:


> Can you name some of the GL that had irregular starts?



Grand Lodge of North Dakota may have been one. 

edit*They were formed in 19th century*


----------



## SimonM (Dec 29, 2016)

MRichard said:


> "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."


Interesting, I had no idea they were formed that way!


----------



## Glen Cook (Dec 29, 2016)

MRichard said:


> "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."
> 
> It was on the Bessel's website but it doesn't appear to be working now but you can still see a cached version of it on google. Maybe this will work instead. http://webcache.googleusercontent.c.../masrec/phaugle.htm+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us


Edit: TN received a charter from NC. See http://www.grandlodge-tn.org/main/GLTN-page.asp?p=24


----------



## Companion Joe (Dec 30, 2016)

The Grand Lodge of Tennessee was formed when the lodges already chartered west of the Appalachians petitioned the GL of North Carolina to relinquish authority and form our own Grand Lodge. My lodge was originally chartered in 1801 as as No. 3 of Tennessee and No. 43 of North Carolina. My fourth great grandfather, Rev. Stephen Brooks, was chairman of the committee assigned to petition the GLNC to form the GLoT. That happened in December of 1813 at an official ceremony in Knoxville.


----------



## Glen Cook (Dec 30, 2016)

Companion Joe said:


> The Grand Lodge of Tennessee was formed when the lodges already chartered west of the Appalachians petitioned the GL of North Carolina to relinquish authority and form our own Grand Lodge. My lodge was originally chartered in 1801 as as No. 3 of Tennessee and No. 43 of North Carolina. My fourth great grandfather, Rev. Stephen Brooks, was chairman of the committee assigned to petition the GLNC to form the GLoT. That happened in December of 1813 at an official ceremony in Knoxville.


Right, but was the GL formed by convention or by the lodges?


----------



## Companion Joe (Dec 30, 2016)

There were nine of North Carolina-chartered lodges in Tennessee by 1812. They appointed delegates to petition the GLof NC to break off and form the GLoT. North Carolina agreed to relinquish control, and in 1813 officially chartered the Grand Lodge of Tennessee at a ceremony with reps from both states.
I guess the answer to your question is sort of both. It's not like the lodges went rogue and just said, "We're doing this." The lodges started the process to form a new GL, and a year later at NC's annual communication, it was agreed.


----------



## Dontrell Stroman (Dec 30, 2016)

If some state GLS were formed irregular, why dont other state GLS consider them clandestine like they do PH masons ?

Sent from my LG-LS997 using My Freemasonry mobile app


----------



## Glen Cook (Dec 30, 2016)

Companion Joe said:


> There were nine of North Carolina-chartered lodges in Tennessee by 1812. They appointed delegates to petition the GLof NC to break off and form the GLoT. North Carolina agreed to relinquish control, and in 1813 officially chartered the Grand Lodge of Tennessee at a ceremony with reps from both states.
> I guess the answer to your question is sort of both. It's not like the lodges went rogue and just said, "We're doing this." The lodges started the process to form a new GL, and a year later at NC's annual communication, it was agreed.


Edit: TN received a charter from NC. See http://www.grandlodge-tn.org/main/GLTN-page.asp?p=24


----------



## Glen Cook (Dec 30, 2016)

Travelling Man91 said:


> If some state GLS were formed irregular, why dont other state GLS consider them clandestine like they do PH masons ?
> 
> Sent from my LG-LS997 using My Freemasonry mobile app


They were not formed in an irregular manner under the rules at the time. Much as the common law of nation states has evolved, so has the Masonic common law.


----------



## Dontrell Stroman (Dec 30, 2016)

Okay, so if they were not formed irregular and PH was formed the same way, how can one say PH was formed irregular and clandestine ?

Sent from my LG-LS997 using My Freemasonry mobile app


----------



## Glen Cook (Dec 30, 2016)

To quote from the 2006 Commission report

*                                 PRINCE HALL CONFERENCE OF GRAND MASTERS*

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.


----------



## MRichard (Dec 30, 2016)

Travelling Man91 said:


> Okay, so if they were not formed irregular and PH was formed the same way, how can one say PH was formed irregular and clandestine ?
> 
> Sent from my LG-LS997 using My Freemasonry mobile app



I wouldn't say they were formed the same way but they (Prince Hall) did what they had to do.


----------



## Dontrell Stroman (Dec 30, 2016)

MRichard said:


> I wouldn't say they were formed the same way but they (Prince Hall) did what they had to do.


Bro Richard, im lost. If they werent formed the same way, what was the difference in their forming ?

Sent from my LG-LS997 using My Freemasonry mobile app


----------



## MRichard (Dec 30, 2016)

Travelling Man91 said:


> Bro Richard, im lost. If they werent formed the same way, what was the difference in their forming ?
> 
> Sent from my LG-LS997 using My Freemasonry mobile app



Please look at the link I posted earlier regarding the UGLE report on Prince Hall Masonry on Bessels. Might also want to read Landmarks of our Fathers. 

One thing I noticed is that the start of PHA was considered 1775 or 1778 (can't remember) by PHA but the UGLE report only referenced the charter issued in 1784 to African #459.


----------



## Companion Joe (Dec 30, 2016)

Glen Cook said:


> Edit: TN received a charter from NC. See http://www.grandlodge-tn.org/main/GLTN-page.asp?p=24



In December 1811 (I accidentally said 1812 earlier), the lodges in Tennessee had a convention in Knoxville and decided to ask the Grand Lodge of North Carolina and Tennessee for permission to form the Grand Lodge of Tennessee. A letter/petition was drawn up and submitted to the Grand Lodge at its communication in November 1812. A committee was appointed to look into it. At the annual communication in Raleigh in 1813, the GM authorized it. 
(Quotes are direct from the proceedings but shortened in the interest of getting to the point.)
"...the number of Lodges and the interest of the Craft require the establishment of a Grand Lodge in the State." "...we confidently hope that our proceedings will meet the cordial approbation of our Mother Lodge." "We solicit also in the genuine spirit of fraternal affection the friendly assistance and advice ... aid to the organization of our Grand Lodge."
What Tennessee received wasn't technically a "charter" as much as just an official relinquishing of authority of the lodges west of the mountains. 
"...they are hereby authorized and empowered ... to constitute a Grand Lodge for the State of Tennessee." "...the Grand Lodge of Tennessee, thus constituted, shall be vested with all the powers and authorities which any other Grand Lodge, known among our Craft, has a right to use and exercise; and they they may make and constitute new Lodges at their discretion within their jurisdiction..."
Then, on Dec. 27, 1813, dignitaries from both states met in Knoxville, had a ceremony, and symbolically laid the cornerstone of the GLoT.


----------



## Dontrell Stroman (Dec 30, 2016)

Companion Joe said:


> In December 1811 (I accidentally said 1812 earlier), the lodges in Tennessee had a convention in Knoxville and decided to ask the Grand Lodge of North Carolina and Tennessee for permission to form the Grand Lodge of Tennessee. A letter/petition was drawn up and submitted to the Grand Lodge at its communication in November 1812. A committee was appointed to look into it. At the annual communication in Raleigh in 1813, the GM authorized it.
> (Quotes are direct from the proceedings but shortened in the interest of getting to the point.)
> "...the number of Lodges and the interest of the Craft require the establishment of a Grand Lodge in the State." "...we confidently hope that our proceedings will meet the cordial approbation of our Mother Lodge." "We solicit also in the genuine spirit of fraternal affection the friendly assistance and advice ... aid to the organization of our Grand Lodge."
> What Tennessee received wasn't technically a "charter" as much as just an official relinquishing of authority of the lodges west of the mountains.
> ...


Is there talk about TN GL recognizing TN PHA ?


----------



## Companion Joe (Dec 30, 2016)

Has PH in Tennessee sought recognition? I don't know the answer to that, and I don't know the answer to your question.
I can honestly say that I don't recollect ever participating in a conversation about recognition one way or the other in my local lodge. I have also never been in a lodge conversation about global warming, the Suez Canal, Kim Kardashian, or 10 million other topics.
Sorry, but I simply don't know.


----------



## Dontrell Stroman (Dec 30, 2016)

Companion Joe said:


> Has PH in Tennessee sought recognition? I don't know the answer to that, and I don't know the answer to your question.
> I can honestly say that I don't recollect ever participating in a conversation about recognition one way or the other in my local lodge. I have also never been in a lodge conversation about global warming, the Suez Canal, Kim Kardashian, or 10 million other topics.
> Sorry, but I simply don't know.


Would you like to see PHA recongized in TN ?

Sent from my LG-LS997 using My Freemasonry mobile app


----------



## Companion Joe (Dec 30, 2016)

I've never given it much, if any, thought.


----------



## MRichard (Dec 30, 2016)

Edit *Nevermind


----------



## Dontrell Stroman (Dec 30, 2016)

Companion Joe said:


> I've never given it much, if any, thought.


Would you be opposed to the Grand Lodge of Tennessee recognizing the Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Tennessee ? Do you see PH masons as your masonic brother ?

Sent from my LG-LS997 using My Freemasonry mobile app


----------



## Companion Joe (Dec 30, 2016)

All you ever do is ask open-ended, gotcha questions. Similar to a series of private messages you engaged me with several months ago, it was one after the other with very little to offer in return. You claimed to be from Tennessee but repeatedly declined to say where from. I eschew the political arena and debate simply because that isn't my thing. 

I wish everybody would get along and go fishing. I don't have anything else to add to this thread. I apologize for participating in it in the first place. My intent was to add to the historical record because one particular topic I am versed in was broached. I am a historian, not a philosopher; I will therefore exit stage right.


----------



## Glen Cook (Dec 30, 2016)

Companion Joe said:


> In December 1811 (I accidentally said 1812 earlier), the lodges in Tennessee had a convention in Knoxville and decided to ask the Grand Lodge of North Carolina and Tennessee for permission to form the Grand Lodge of Tennessee. A letter/petition was drawn up and submitted to the Grand Lodge at its communication in November 1812. A committee was appointed to look into it. At the annual communication in Raleigh in 1813, the GM authorized it.
> (Quotes are direct from the proceedings but shortened in the interest of getting to the point.)
> "...the number of Lodges and the interest of the Craft require the establishment of a Grand Lodge in the State." "...we confidently hope that our proceedings will meet the cordial approbation of our Mother Lodge." "We solicit also in the genuine spirit of fraternal affection the friendly assistance and advice ... aid to the organization of our Grand Lodge."
> What Tennessee received wasn't technically a "charter" as much as just an official relinquishing of authority of the lodges west of the mountains.
> ...


So, back to the question: was GL TN established by a convention?


----------



## Dontrell Stroman (Dec 30, 2016)

Companion Joe said:


> All you ever do is ask open-ended, gotcha questions. Similar to a series of private messages you engaged me with several months ago, it was one after the other with very little to offer in return. You claimed to be from Tennessee but repeatedly declined to say where from. I eschew the political arena and debate simply because that isn't my thing.
> 
> I wish everybody would get along and go fishing. I don't have anything else to add to this thread. I apologize for participating in it in the first place. My intent was to add to the historical record because one particular topic I am versed in was broached. I am a historian, not a philosopher; I will therefore exit stage right.


I have told you where Im from. Its not an open ended question, I asked you a question to see if my assumption about you was accurate. I believe its men like you that call yourself a mason the reason why some southern jurisdiction GLS refuse to recognize PH. You couldnt answer the question if you would oppose or if you consider them to be your brother. Pretty simple to answer. If i were asked that question, my answer would be no I wouldnt oppose it and yes I see most GL masons as my brother. If you oppose so be it, your not at the ballot box were its a secret unless you want your personal beliefs about it to remain a secret, and if so I understand. Thank you for your time.


----------



## MRichard (Dec 30, 2016)

Edit. Delete


----------



## Dontrell Stroman (Dec 30, 2016)

Ive come to the conclusion about something as a Freemason. It burdens my heart for issues such as race to be a barrier in our ancient craft. I understand that their will alway be masons that believe only whites should be masons, but i would like to see all PH and GL masons recongize each other. For the ones that want to fellowship awesome, for the ones that want to continue their bigotry to heck with them. 

Sent from my LG-LS997 using My Freemasonry mobile app


----------



## The Traveling Man (Dec 31, 2016)

I consider all Prince Hall Masons my Brothers. In my state, we fully recognize PHA and visit each other Lodges. Even southern Prince Hall Masons, who may not be recognized by the Grand Lodge of that State, are still my Brothers.


----------



## Dontrell Stroman (Jan 1, 2017)

The Traveling Man said:


> I consider all Prince Hall Masons my Brothers. In my state, we fully recognize PHA and visit each other Lodges. Even southern Prince Hall Masons, who may not be recognized by the Grand Lodge of that State, are still my Brothers.


Thats what im talkimg about brother.


----------



## Bloke (Jan 10, 2017)

Glen Cook said:


> Right, but was the GL formed by convention or by the lodges?



May I ask for some assistance/clarification Bro Glen on the word "convention" ?

Are you (and I assume it's a standard term which needs to be defined for me) using "convention" in the sense a body stylized as GL had been operating for years and then sort recognition by virtue of it having operated, or in the sense that a group of Freemasons meeting under regular warrants had a meeting (a convention) and resolved to form Grand Lodge without requesting a charter for the same, but to seek recognition for that new GL from established Regular Grand Lodge(s) which had issued their lodge warrants and then from other GLs? The later was the case with UGLV which combined lodges with EC, SC & IC warrants and also from "Grand Lodge Victoria" (est 1883 of lodges mainly from the IC) who met and declared themselves United Grand Lodge Victoria (1889) and sort and received recognition from the Grand Lodges of Ireland, Scotland and England soon thereafter. (Grand Lodge Victoria was dissolved into United Grand Lodge Victoria).

To put it another way, are you using "convention"  as in *by *convention (by virtue of operating) or* in a* convention (through a meeting of Freemasons)  ?

In anticipation; thanks !


----------



## Glen Cook (Jan 10, 2017)

Bloke said:


> May I ask for some assistance/clarification Bro Glen on the word "convention" ?
> 
> Are you (and I assume it's a standard term which needs to be defined for me) using "convention" in the sense a body stylized as GL had been operating for years and then sort recognition by virtue of it having operated, or in the sense that a group of Freemasons meeting under regular warrants had a meeting (a convention) and resolved to form Grand Lodge without requesting a charter for the same, but to seek recognition for that new GL from established Regular Grand Lodge(s) which had issued their lodge warrants and then from other GLs? The later was the case with UGLV which combined lodges with EC, SC & IC warrants and also from "Grand Lodge Victoria" (est 1883 of lodges mainly from the IC) who met and declared themselves United Grand Lodge Victoria (1889) and sort and received recognition from the Grand Lodges of Ireland, Scotland and England soon thereafter. (Grand Lodge Victoria was dissolved into United Grand Lodge Victoria).
> 
> ...


In a convention


----------



## Bloke (Jan 11, 2017)

Glen Cook said:


> In a convention



Thanks Glen !


----------



## relapse98 (Jan 23, 2017)

Companion Joe said:


> Has PH in Tennessee sought recognition? I don't know the answer to that, and I don't know the answer to your question.
> I can honestly say that I don't recollect ever participating in a conversation about recognition one way or the other in my local lodge. I have also never been in a lodge conversation about global warming, the Suez Canal, Kim Kardashian, or 10 million other topics.



(I know you aren't following the thread anymore, but I'm going to reply anyways).

Frankly, I find the comparing of recognition between the 2 Grand Lodges in your state to Global Warming, Suez Canal, Kim Kardashian, etc. a little disheartning. You're talking about a discussion in your local lodge. I would think recognition between the 2 Grand Lodges is a little more germaine than keeping up with the kardashians. I will say that in my lodge, in Texas, we have discussions pretty regulary about visitation. Usually its about how we do have the right to visit, but the process is so f'ed up its almost unusable (My lodge has visited a local PH lodge and they have done the same with us - but the process sucks so bad, its amazing that the Grand Lodge of Texas put it in place. Its almost like they would really rather you not visit but threw us a bone). I'm not sure how the grand lodges will ever recognize each other if there isn't a movement from the local lodges...


----------



## dfreybur (Jan 23, 2017)

relapse98 said:


> (I know you aren't following the thread anymore, but I'm going to reply anyways).
> 
> Frankly, I find the comparing of recognition between the 2 Grand Lodges in your state to Global Warming, Suez Canal, Kim Kardashian, etc. a little disheartning. You're talking about a discussion in your local lodge. I would think recognition between the 2 Grand Lodges is a little more germaine than keeping up with the kardashians. I will say that in my lodge, in Texas, we have discussions pretty regulary about visitation. Usually its about how we do have the right to visit, but the process is so f'ed up its almost unusable (My lodge has visited a local PH lodge and they have done the same with us - but the process sucks so bad, its amazing that the Grand Lodge of Texas put it in place. Its almost like they would really rather you not visit but threw us a bone). I'm not sure how the grand lodges will ever recognize each other if there isn't a movement from the local lodges...



I try to get legislation on the topic of recognition to GL in my other jurisdictions but without being physically present to explain what's up it is frustrating.  The general reaction is "We already have recognition".  Sure, but there's more to it than that.  There are more states than our own.

Any Brother with a vote in either GL can submit legislation to do away with the local requirement for that ridiculous process.  We can't say we can go visit without the process, but we can sure say you can come visit without the process.  "Change recognition of all currently recognized PHA jurisdictions to full and traditional recognition without any extra paperwork or restrictions".  It takes both sides doing that to complete the sequence.

I am going through the line in Texas.  At some point I will be able to submit local legislation like that.

To the other Texas PMs that are members here, if you beat me to it, that's an action worthy of all emulation.


----------



## MRichard (Jan 23, 2017)

relapse98 said:


> (I know you aren't following the thread anymore, but I'm going to reply anyways).
> 
> Frankly, I find the comparing of recognition between the 2 Grand Lodges in your state to Global Warming, Suez Canal, Kim Kardashian, etc. a little disheartning. You're talking about a discussion in your local lodge. I would think recognition between the 2 Grand Lodges is a little more germaine than keeping up with the kardashians. I will say that in my lodge, in Texas, we have discussions pretty regulary about visitation. Usually its about how we do have the right to visit, but the process is so f'ed up its almost unusable (My lodge has visited a local PH lodge and they have done the same with us - but the process sucks so bad, its amazing that the Grand Lodge of Texas put it in place. Its almost like they would really rather you not visit but threw us a bone). I'm not sure how the grand lodges will ever recognize each other if there isn't a movement from the local lodges...



From what I heard, both grand lodges wanted the process to be this way initially. Hopefully, it will evolve soon.


----------



## Bill Lins (Jan 23, 2017)

relapse98 said:


> Its almost like they would really rather you not visit but threw us a bone).


You have no idea how close to the truth you are.


----------



## relapse98 (Jan 26, 2017)

MRichard said:


> From what I heard, both grand lodges wanted the process to be this way initially. Hopefully, it will evolve soon.



Then both grand lodges suck.


----------



## relapse98 (May 9, 2017)

Submitted a request on April 21st to Grand lodge for a visit on May 23. Hadn't heard anything back, so I called today and apparently its just been sitting around in the Grand Secretary's office.. hasn't been signed by the GS, hasn't been forwarded to Prince Hall, nothing. 

Once again, this process sucks so much its almost completely useless.


----------



## MRichard (May 9, 2017)

relapse98 said:


> Submitted a request on April 21st to Grand lodge for a visit on May 23. Hadn't heard anything back, so I called today and apparently its just been sitting around in the Grand Secretary's office.. hasn't been signed by the GS, hasn't been forwarded to Prince Hall, nothing.
> 
> Once again, this process sucks so much its almost completely useless.



Get his secretary's email and send future requests straight to her. Same thing happened to me but I followed up a few weeks later.


----------



## relapse98 (May 9, 2017)

Oh boy, I set them off last time when they found out I communicated directly with the PHA lodge.

Well how else am I supposed to find out dates that are good for us to attend? Start emailing through the respective GS' a couple of years in advance? Sheesh.


----------



## MRichard (May 9, 2017)

Lol


----------



## oldjumpmaster (May 18, 2017)

It’s amazing what a visit to the GL will do along with a face to face discussion in regards to your request. Determine when the GS will be in and “stop by” to receive an update on the status of your visitation request.


----------



## MarkR (May 19, 2017)

Several years ago, I was told by the PHA Grand Master in Minnesota "you don't need my permission.  You want to visit one of our lodges?  Just go! They'll be happy to see you."


----------



## Warrior1256 (May 19, 2017)

MarkR said:


> Several years ago, I was told by the PHA Grand Master in Minnesota "you don't need my permission. You want to visit one of our lodges? Just go! They'll be happy to see you."


Great!


----------



## Bill Lins (May 20, 2017)

MarkR said:


> Several years ago, I was told by the PHA Grand Master in Minnesota "you don't need my permission.  You want to visit one of our lodges?  Just go! They'll be happy to see you."


That is how it SHOULD be!


----------



## MarkR (May 21, 2017)

And then there's this:

On Saturday June 10th Anchor-Hilyard Lodge #2 F. & A.M. PHA and Cass Lodge #243 A.F. & A. M. are jointly presenting the Second Annual Masonic Unity Festive Board at the Minnesota Masonic Heritage Center, Bloomington MN. 

~Seven Toasts (Wine, Beer and Non-Alcohol choices provided)

~Best of the High End Barbeque World with WB Jerry Oliver Catering Appetizers, Salad, Entree, and Desert

~Only Festive Board featuring both Grand Masters of the same state in the United States.

~Open event and Appendent Bodies are encouraged to wear their bling and bring a calendar to share. 

~Photo Booth

~Formal Dress ( Evening attire)

+Both Grand Masters of Masons in Minnesota will be the guests of honor for the evening. Most Worshipful Grand Master John Studell of the Grand Lodge of Minnesota A.F. & A. M. and Most Worshipful Grand Master Japhus Dent Jr. of the Grand Lodge of Minnesota Prince Hall Affiliated F. & A. M. 

In the ever growing climate of improving Unity and Fellowship between our Masonic Bodies we celebrate together practice of Our Gentle Craft. Both Grand Masters will respond to the Toast to Our Grand Masters.


----------



## Warrior1256 (May 21, 2017)

Bill Lins said:


> That is how it SHOULD be!


Agreed!


----------



## oldjumpmaster (May 22, 2017)

Sounds like an awesome event. Clearly setting the stage for others to follow. 


Sent from my iPhone using My Freemasonry


----------



## Keith C (May 25, 2017)

I hope the idea of this type event spreads across the country!


----------



## Glen Cook (May 25, 2017)

UT and PHA COL have done a Masonic family picnic for about 18 years.  PHA COL lodges meet in UT buildings.


----------



## Warrior1256 (May 26, 2017)

Glen Cook said:


> UT and PHA COL have done a Masonic family picnic for about 18 years. PHA COL lodges meet in UT buildings.


Great!!!


----------

