# Why not visitation?



## Roach (May 12, 2013)

Gentlemen I ask this as a non mason looking to join. I have read many threads on recognition and visitation between Mainstream and PHA. I would think that if both GL's gives recognition to each other as regular then visitation would be a given.  I truly don't understand how it can be that two men can call each other brother but yet can not sit together. The answer may be deeper the what my status may allow but I look forward to your replies.


----------



## Michael Neumann (May 12, 2013)

http://www.masonsoftexas.com/showthread.php?17631-Petition-for-Joint-Recognition-and-Visitation

There are issues on both sides. When I was preparing the petition I read many many sites, quotes from GMs, and arguments both for and against visitation. In West Virginia recognition was granted then withdraw and then offered again (there was some nonsense going on), but when it was offered the second time PHA brethren declined. Rumor has it that in Texas when we granted recognition we also offer visitation and PHA declined. Also PHA seems to be concerned about sovereignty, it was mentioned on a FB post when I first started promoting the petition. 

Like I have said previously, BOTH sides have to get over themselves in order to move forward.

Here is a list of recognized lodges we should be able to freely walk between http://www.ugle.org.uk/about-ugle/recognised-foreign-grand-lodges/grand-lodges-in-north-america/


----------



## dfreybur (May 12, 2013)

Everywhere in the world except Texas, recognition comes with visitation.  Often there's a delay between the votes for recognition and the start of visitation but that's a paperwork matter everywhere I've encountered other than Texas.  I was in line in California when recognition was voted in.  It took a bit over  a year for the paperwork to settle and visitation to begin.  As soon as visitation began my lodge even took in a PHA lodge as a tenant in our building.  It sure made visitation easy walking down the hallway to the next door!

I am a California and Illinois Mason residing in Texas.  In the last couple of weeks I've attended lodge in both of the local jurisdictions.  If I affiliate I can no longer do that.  It makes me in no hurry so I'll delaying as long as I can.  On the other hand if I don't affiliate I can't go through the line, become a warden, master or past master, so I don't have a vote at Grand Lodge meetings.

Why Texas does not have visitation is not publicly known even among the membership.  Sigh.  What each side can do is present a motion to add visitation and offer it to the other jurisdiction.  Take the moral high ground.  My conundrum of delaying affiliation so I can still visit both is that it means I can not start earning my way to have a grand lodge vote on a grand lodge motion like that.


----------



## tomasball (May 12, 2013)

dfreybur said:


> Everywhere in the world except Texas, recognition comes with visitation.  Often there's a delay between the votes for recognition and the start of visitation but that's a paperwork matter everywhere I've encountered other than Texas.  I was in line in California when recognition was voted in.  It took a bit over  a year for the paperwork to settle and visitation to begin.  As soon as visitation began my lodge even took in a PHA lodge as a tenant in our building.  It sure made visitation easy walking down the hallway to the next door!
> 
> I am a California and Illinois Mason residing in Texas.  In the last couple of weeks I've attended lodge in both of the local jurisdictions.  If I affiliate I can no longer do that.  It makes me in no hurry so I'll delaying as long as I can.  On the other hand if I don't affiliate I can't go through the line, become a warden, master or past master, so I don't have a vote at Grand Lodge meetings.
> 
> Why Texas does not have visitation is not publicly known even among the membership.  Sigh.  What each side can do is present a motion to add visitation and offer it to the other jurisdiction.  Take the moral high ground.  My conundrum of delaying affiliation so I can still visit both is that it means I can not start earning my way to have a grand lodge vote on a grand lodge motion like that.



I'm not sure I understand.  Do you mean to say that you have visited lodges of the MWPHGL of Texas?


----------



## tomasball (May 12, 2013)

...because I have never heard that the MWPHGLoT recognizes the "mainstream" grand lodges of California or Illinois.  Or vice-versa.


----------



## dfreybur (May 13, 2013)

tomasball said:


> ...because I have never heard that the MWPHGLoT recognizes the "mainstream" grand lodges of California or Illinois.  Or vice-versa.



I know that as a California and Illinois Mason I can and have visited PHA lodges in those jurisdictions.  As far as the details of visitation goes there's the "when in Rome act like the Romans" rule in both of my jurisdictions so if they are locally recognized I'm okay.  The recognition between the two Texas GLs may be fake because of the visitation issue between them but it does have the word recognition.  So I presented myself for visitation at a local PHA lodge and joined a crowd of the brothers talking before the opening.  Now I'm just another regular when I show up to their meetings.

Recognition route one.  Illinois and California to Illinois and California PHA with real recognition (real meaning it includes visitation).  California and Illinois PHA to Texas PHA with real recognition.  Conclusion let me in.  Recognition route two.  Illinois and California to Texas with real recognition.  Texas to Texas with fake recognition (fake meaning it does not include visitation).  Conclusion don't let me in.  It's up to me to decide if I want to present myself given the situation.  The word recognition is there so I presented myself.  It's up to the lodge to decide if they will let me in.  They did.  I have no idea if they thought through the two routes or if they figured I'd considered the technicalities in advance.  The first question I'd gotten in the parking lot was "You know this is a Prince Hall lodge, right?"  My answer was "Absolutely.  I deliberately looked you brothers up on line so I could find your street address and when you open."


----------



## tomasball (May 13, 2013)

Unless you are also a member of a PHA lodge somewhere, I can't see how your reasoning works...

Perhaps one of our PH brothers can offer an opinion here.


----------



## Michael Hatley (May 13, 2013)

In truth, unless the MWPHGLoTX has specific recognition and visitation, specifically, with either your California or Illinois GL then, well.  Every PH jurisdiction is a different jurisdiction, just as every "mainstream" jurisdiction is different.  So its like saying France has a treaty with Denmark, Japan has a treaty with France, ergo Japan has a treaty with Denmark...if you follow me.  I'm loathe to point it out though since we need Brothers to cross over, and since I'm no lawyur I'm probably wrong anyway 

The reason we don't have visitation in Texas is known.  MWPHGLoT, when they petitioned for recognition from the GLoTX, specifically omitted visitation - and their reason for petitioning for recognition was so that they could gain recognition from the UGLE, and they needed GLoTX's recognition to do so.  

Thats anyway what has been relayed - but we're working third hand here.  I don't see that there is anything preventing GLoTX petitioning MWPHGLoTX for visitation or vice versa, but that will take an order from the sitting Grand Master of one jurisdiction or the other to their respective Fraternal Relations Committee,  as I understand it, and at least in GLoTX, I'm pretty sure it would require a majority floor vote at yearly communication - which would require a majority of sitting Masters, Wardens, and Past Masters to pass.

And so at least in GLoTX, again if I understand the procedure, it will require a Grand Master to make the executive order to this Committee and then, likely, to stand and convince the room.  And on that day, I'm pretty sure any Master Mason can speak in support (or against) the measure.

And all that sort of stuff would need to be mirrored at MWPHGLoTX according to their bylaws, rules, and regulations - which I expect is different than GLoTX (particularly in regard to the floor vote electorate being composed largely of Past Masters).

Perhaps Brother Lins or another versed person on the procedure could clarify the hows and whatfors.  Understanding how MWPHGLoTX is set up "legislatively" would probably be a help too...


----------



## AdQuadratum (May 13, 2013)

In my Jurisdiction we can as PHA can sit with AF&AM


----------



## AdQuadratum (May 13, 2013)

Are you from the south ?


----------



## dfreybur (May 13, 2013)

tomasball said:


> Unless you are also a member of a PHA lodge somewhere, I can't see how your reasoning works...



Put yourself in a parallel situation.  You just moved to Gotham City or Metropolis or whereever.  It's been months since you attended lodge and you're itching to hang out with the brethren.  You come from a state with recognition.  You live in a state with recognition.  There are lodges of both jurisdictions near you.  What do you do?  Are you looking for a reason to not visit or are you looking for a reason to visit?

I found multiple lodges nearby and started showing up dues cards in my hand, apron and gloves in my briefcase and Masonic Education talks ready to go.  Either they let me in or they don't.  We're a world wide fraternity.  What happens at the door is where the rubber meeting the road on how we each view our principles.  What happens in my head deciding whether I knock on that particular door is every bit as much about whether I live by our principles.


----------



## AdQuadratum (May 13, 2013)

dfreybur said:


> put yourself in a parallel situation.  You just moved to gotham city or metropolis or whereever.  It's been months since you attended lodge and you're itching to hang out with the brethren.  You come from a state with recognition.  You live in a state with recognition.  There are lodges of both jurisdictions near you.  What do you do?  Are you looking for a reason to not visit or are you looking for a reason to visit?
> 
> I found multiple lodges nearby and started showing up dues cards in my hand, apron and gloves in my briefcase and masonic education talks ready to go.  Either they let me in or they don't.  We're a world wide fraternity.  What happens at the door is where the rubber meeting the road on how we each view our principles.  What happens in my head deciding whether i knock on that particular door is every bit as much about whether i live by our principles.



smib


----------



## tomasball (May 13, 2013)

Umm.  As far as I can tell, you're a California and Illinois Mason sitting in lodges your Grand Lodges do not approve of visiting.  It sounds like the individual lodges might be violating their own laws in that case as well, but I have less insight into that.

If I was in a parallel situation, I would check with my Grand Lodges and make sure I wasn't violating my obligations to abide by their rules. I would never show up at any lodge and ask for admission without first assuring myself that I was operating within the constitution, resolutions and edicts of my own Grand Lodge.  You seem to define "state with recognition" as a carte blanche to visit any Prince Hall lodge in the world, and that is definitely not the case.


----------



## crono782 (May 13, 2013)

My understanding is that I, under the GLoTX, cannot visit PHA in any other state because MY GL does not permit it as well as a member of another state GLo* cannot visit PHA here (if they recognize GLoTX) because, by visiting here, you violate a GLoTX obl and you swore to abide by rules in any jurisdiction you may be in, thus violating the obl in your own jurisdiction. Right? (Geez what a mouthful!)


Freemason Connect Mobile


----------



## tomasball (May 13, 2013)

crono782 said:


> My understanding is that I, under the GLoTX, cannot visit PHA in any other state because MY GL does not permit it as well as a member of another state GLo* cannot visit PHA here (if they recognize GLoTX) because, by visiting here, you violate a GLoTX obl and you swore to abide by rules in any jurisdiction you may be in, thus violating the obl in your own jurisdiction. Right? (Geez what a mouthful!)
> 
> 
> Freemason Connect Mobile



Add to that that even if there was no Grand Lodge of Texas, a Mason from another Grand Lodge could not legally visit a lodge of the PH Grand Lodge of Texas unless their Grand Lodge was "in amity" with the MWPHGLOT.


----------



## dfreybur (May 14, 2013)

tomasball said:


> As far as I can tell, you're a California and Illinois Mason sitting in lodges your Grand Lodges do not approve of visiting.  It sounds like the individual lodges might be violating their own laws in that case as well, but I have less insight into that.



If I don't see a list of recognized GLs on the GLs' web sites I go with the list on UGLE.  I don't see a list of recognized GLs on any of the 6 recognized jurisdictions in CA, IL or TX.  That tells me I can go by the best world wide authoritative list, the one from the UGLE.  I do see all 6 in the UGLE's list.  I have no idea why you think there's supposed to be an issue.  Something I posted in already - Are you looking for a reason to visit or a reason to not visit?  Everywhere in the world except between the two Texas GLs recognition equals visitation.



> You seem to define "state with recognition" as a carte blanche to visit any Prince Hall lodge in the world, and that is definitely not the case.



Because everywhere in the world except between the two Texas GLs recognition equals visitation it is indeed a carte blanche to visit.  Do not let the local nonsense confuse you about that.


----------



## tomasball (May 14, 2013)

dfreybur said:


> If I don't see a list of recognized GLs on the GLs' web sites I go with the list on UGLE.



1st: That would be valid if you were a member of a UGLE lodge
2nd: The MWGLoT does not allow masons from the UGLE to visit their lodges.
3rd:  There's a very helpful book put out by Pantograph press that lists all the details of who recognizes who.  There's a copy in every mainstream lodge in Texas.  According to the one in my library, California recognizes only the PH Grand Lodges of California, Oregon, and Hawaii.  May be outdated...perhaps someone here has access to the latest one.


----------



## Michael Hatley (May 14, 2013)

There are several states that have recognition without visitation, Texas is not the only one.  Oklahoma, Kentucky and a couple of others that I can't recall offhand.  And a bunch of states have no recognition at all.

See the attached image for the ones that don't have recognition at all yet.




Illinois reportedly has a "blanket" recognition of Prince Hall Grand Lodges, insofar as they are recognized by the "mainstream" GL within their jurisdiction.  I can't find an official document, but see these links:

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

But this is not the case for the vast majority of states.  Most recognize the PH GL in their respective state and a couple of neighboring states.  Each one of those PH GL's are a different entity.  So they either have to create a resolution to blanket recognize them (which is _*not*_ reciprocated), or go through the negotiation between each and every one of the individual PH GL's to gain said recognition+visitation.  

*Note - this seems to be a big part of the hold up.*

The same goes for many, many foreign countries.  Check this link:

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

I have a very good friend and Brother from Victoria, Australia.  He goes out of his way to mention a fair bit how they recognize PH Masons, but in reality, they only recognize Connecticut and Indiana.   

Would an Australian man from Victoria be turned away from lets say a MWPHGL affiliated lodge in lets say California?  I doubt it.  And would a PH mason from Georgia be turned away from a lodge in Victoria, Australia?  I also doubt it.  

But would an Aboriginal from Victoria be black balled in a Melbourne lodge?  I'll just say, do some google searches and check out how white their photos are, and I'll leave it at that.  What I'm getting at with this is that this, when you get right down to it, is not just a southern US problem.

I'm not in any way saying that this means we don't have work to do or that we can't change things.  I just think the idea that we are the only unenlightened neanderthals in the US, let alone the world has a way of making it seem like the issue is only about race.  It isn't.  That is a part of it at the lodge level for some of the older folks, but as I've mentioned in other threads, gravity is going to work against that.

Rather, a big, big part of this issue is administrative and political.  Grand Lodge officers, who have budgets for expensive GL buildings and a legacy to build have a way of becoming insular, protective, and so forth.  In many states the respective GL's fear that through recognition or visitation they will bleed members to the other GL.  And now think on it - which GL in Texas would fear that most?  GLoTX, or MWPHGLoTX?  Consider it.

Keeping in mind that the GLoTX voted first to give recognition.  MWPHGLoTX  petitioned for recognition after, not before going to the UGLE for recognition - and because in order to gather that recognition they had to have recognition from the presently recognized GL within the same geographic area.

Now I'm not at all saying the burden lies with MWPHGLoTX.  But here is a straight truth - we need to know where their Grand Lodge officers stand on the matter.  We need to understand why they haven't petitioned for visitation in Texas, and why they omitted it from their petition for recognition back several years ago.  These are important things.  

Getting a resolution for visitation through GLoTX can get done.  That is just my opinion but I think I'm right about it.  If it was asked for by MWPHGLoTX, I think it would make it through without too much of a problem.  A blanket recognition of all PH Grand Lodges, no - I don't believe so.  Reason being this is a rule oriented sort of jurisdiction - people believe and follow the law in Texas.  We aren't going to grant recognition to Grand Lodges who don't return the favor, either because they can't be bothered or they are reticent to do so.  And that view of the way to do things is by no means rare, as you can see by the lack of blanket recognition in almost all other states.

Some of our MWPHGLoTX brethren need to do what folks in the GLoTX are doing - asking questions of their Grand Lodge officers.  And report it back here.  The most important is "What are we waiting for?"  

The answer on both sides, I reckon, is "The other side".  And it will be a whole heck of a lot easier I expect to move MWPHGLoTX to take the first step than it will be GLoTX, thats just the truth of the matter.  And so, knowing that, the path ought to be clearer to a way to get the ball moving in a real way.

/ramble


----------



## bupton52 (May 15, 2013)

Michael Hatley said:


> There are several states that have recognition without visitation, Texas is not the only one.  Oklahoma, Kentucky and a couple of others that I can't recall offhand.  And a bunch of states have no recognition at all.
> 
> See the attached image for the ones that don't have recognition at all yet.
> 
> ...



I actually agree with a lot of this. For the sake of argument would GLoTX consider making the first move? Why or why not?


----------



## tomasball (May 15, 2013)

I have heard there is a principle that the younger body makes a request to the older body to change the status of their relationship.  I am sure I could not produce any documentation to support that, but I am certain it has been said somewhere.  I would point out that the GLoT had agreed to a meeting with the MWPHGLoT to discuss visitation, but the latter body cancelled the meeting.  The GLoT stated position is that they're ready to talk about visitation whenever the PH Grand Lodge wants to.  So, essentially, the MWPHGLoT has already made the first move, the GLoT has already made the second move, and we're all waiting for the MWPHGLoT to make the next one.  

So, for the sake of argument, what next move would you like the GLoT to take?


----------



## bupton52 (May 15, 2013)

tomasball said:


> I have heard there is a principle that the younger body makes a request to the older body to change the status of their relationship.  I am sure I could not produce any documentation to support that, but I am certain it has been said somewhere.  I would point out that the GLoT had agreed to a meeting with the MWPHGLoT to discuss visitation, but the latter body cancelled the meeting.  The GLoT stated position is that they're ready to talk about visitation whenever the PH Grand Lodge wants to.  So, essentially, the MWPHGLoT has already made the first move, the GLoT has already made the second move, and we're all waiting for the MWPHGLoT to make the next one.
> 
> So, for the sake of argument, what next move would you like the GLoT to take?



I just want somebody to do something...........anything but nothing!


----------



## Star Mztyk (May 15, 2013)

I think about in the GLoT liturgy of why I was presented an apron....it seems we have lost the symbolic innocence of the lamb. What it stands for is a philosophy of conduct esscentially  important in being admitted into that Supreme Grand Lodge, not of this world, where the SAoftheU presides. That being said, what Masons will be allowed in?   Does this Ultimate GL supercede all this petty Earthy idiocy?

     The different religions of this earth ....the more conservative that they are....say they are the only ones allowed into Heaven and that all others are either profane, infidels, mis-informed or simply not saved. This parallel of thought reflects those attitudes of superiority and alienation.  Judge not least you be judged also suggests Tile not least you be Tiled.


----------



## dfreybur (May 15, 2013)

tomasball said:


> I have heard there is a principle that the younger body makes a request to the older body to change the status of their relationship.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## dfreybur (May 15, 2013)

Michael Hatley said:


> Illinois reportedly has a "blanket" recognition of Prince Hall Grand Lodges, insofar as they are recognized by the "mainstream" GL within their jurisdiction.



Lack of recognition was caused by a travesty and it needs to be resolved soonest.  Blanket is a simple solution.  Not doing recognition in blanket fashion (both directions as you point out) extends that travesty.  I prefer to be a part of the solution not a part of the preciptitate.

Exceptions to the UGLE list and the recommendations by the Conference on Grand Masters tend to be noted both in the GL proceedings and in the quarterly magazine.  When many GLs pulled recognition from France our Illinois GM asked us to give them another year to straighten out their GL so we didn't pull recognition.



> So they either have to create a resolution to blanket recognize them (which is _*not*_ reciprocated), or go through the negotiation between each and every one of the individual PH GL's to gain said recognition+visitation.



I attended California GL three times before I relocated out of state.  In the list each year were the PHA jurisdictions that had acheived recognition that year.  All were voted in.  Having been there during those votes I know the result was the same as blanket recognition.  I don't have any reason to believe California does not recognize the entire list as it appears at UGLE as that was the pattern that I eye witnessed.

On the other hand included in this discussion is the idea that MWPHGLofTX might not recognize California or Illinois and they might have let me in erroneously.  They let me in and I am now a regular.  I continue in the conundrum that I'd rather not chose but will have to at some point.  They have a 6 month limit so my clock is ticking.



> Rather, a big, big part of this issue is administrative and political.  Grand Lodge officers, who have budgets for expensive GL buildings and a legacy to build have a way of becoming insular, protective, and so forth.  In many states the respective GL's fear that through recognition or visitation they will bleed members to the other GL.  And now think on it - which GL in Texas would fear that most?  GLoTX, or MWPHGLoTX?  Consider it.



In Washington (WA not DC) the two GLs share office space.  They keep their heritages just fine.  To those to look towards fear I say look to the light in the Pacific Northwest.  An example worth emulating.


----------



## Michael Neumann (May 16, 2013)

tomasball said:


> I have heard there is a principle that the younger body makes a request to the older body to change the status of their relationship.  I am sure I could not produce any documentation to support that, but I am certain it has been said somewhere.  I would point out that the GLoT had agreed to a meeting with the MWPHGLoT to discuss visitation, but the latter body cancelled the meeting.  The GLoT stated position is that they're ready to talk about visitation whenever the PH Grand Lodge wants to.  So, essentially, the MWPHGLoT has already made the first move, the GLoT has already made the second move, and we're all waiting for the MWPHGLoT to make the next one.
> 
> So, for the sake of argument, what next move would you like the GLoT to take?



In both major and minor college fraternities the rules are the same, the younger line must make requests to the older line, but we are beyond the initial request. The GLoTX stands ready to conduct talks on visitation, the MWPHGLoTX cancelled the meeting and **as of now we have heard nothing of them requesting another meeting. In WV there was some issue where the mainstream lodge offered talks on recognition and visitation and the PHA GL declined.**

(** these are unconfirmed and have flowed through the grapevine, so feel free to correct me)


----------



## dfreybur (May 16, 2013)

Michael Neumann said:


> In WV there was some issue where the mainstream lodge offered talks on recognition and visitation and the PHA GL declined.**
> 
> (** these are unconfirmed and have flowed through the grapevine, so feel free to correct me)



The West Virginia situation is an embarrassment.  PGM Haas ended up expelled and there were court cases going back and forth.  How much of these events revolve around PHA recognition efforts is hard to tell.  Records of expulsion and court files are public.  We can speculate why PHA would decline an offer of recognition but without the documents we are guessing.

If you feel bad about the lack of visitation in Texas, look to West Virginia and be relieved some.  It can be a lot worse.  Then look to Washington (WA not DC) where the two GLs share office space to save money and work together better.  It can be a lot better.


----------



## Michael Hatley (May 16, 2013)

Bro. Freyburger - really I'm in your camp about finding excuses to visit vs excuses not to anyway, and so most of it is academic anyway as far as I'm concerned.  In your shoes, I'd like to think I'd do just what you are doing and glad you are, for what its worth.

Bro. Upton - In my opinion GLoTX will make the first move if MWPHGLoTX doesn't.  But it might take quite some time.  I've got a few ideas about how to move the ball on our end as I've met some of the GL folks that might be able to nudge things, but I'm a very, very new Mason relatively speaking, not yet a PM, and so forth.  I'm still the kid in the room, and will be for at least a couple more years.  

Speaking time now - in my opinion, it would be a whole, whole lot easier for GLoTX to accept a request for visitation than to move the very heavy body that is at rest into motion.  And I suspect, or hope, that it might not be quite as hard for good Brothers like you and others to move MWPHGLoTX to action.  

What I'd really like to do is to get about six to ten of us, half GLoTX, half MWPHGLoTX folks, around a table for a meeting on the subject and then take it from there.  Get some strategy going on both sides.  Talk about specific men to go talk to.  So on and so forth.  Take responsibility for the situation and take ownership and _*try*_.

So long as we don't tile the meeting I don't see that it would violate any of our respective obligations.

If we wait for other people to spearhead the effort we might be waiting a long time.


----------



## towerbuilder7 (May 16, 2013)

Sounds like nothing wrong with a good old fashioned Catfish Dinner, where Brethren come together to "dwell in Unity", and talk Sports, Family, and even Masonry.........It's become almost cliche at this point to say what we are NOT allowed to discuss; we all know this...........BUt, Bro Hatley, you are correct in your statement that it will take initiative from YOUNGER, MORE PROGRESSIVE BRETHREN to be the catalysts for a DISCUSSION..........Both sides need to get over themselves, and put egos aside, and GET 'ER DONE.............We had Brethren who had the tenacity to meet as six under a tree in Brazoria and form a Grand Lodge, and Brothers who came together from 3 different Cities across Texas all the way to Brenham to form our MWPHGLoTX......Then, why in the Hades CANT WE SIT DOWN, EAT SOME CATFISH, DRINK A BEER, AND COME UP WITH SOME IDEAS?!!     COUNT ME IN, ANYWHERES IN HOUSTON.............BRO JONES


----------



## dfreybur (May 17, 2013)

Michael Hatley said:


> What I'd really like to do is to get about six to ten of us, half GLoTX, half MWPHGLoTX folks, around a table for a meeting on the subject and then take it from there.  Get some strategy going on both sides.  Talk about specific men to go talk to.  So on and so forth.  Take responsibility for the situation and take ownership and _*try*_.



Submitting legislation at the annual communication outranks all other tactics.  Once the delegates vote there's no higher ranking authority.  Over the centuries plenty of issues have been submitted year in and year out until they finally passed.  Recognition happened that way.



> So long as we don't tile the meeting I don't see that it would violate any of our respective obligations.



That's the deal.  As long as the get together is not tiled it's not the type of meeting where rules about visitation apply.  This isn't a state where the GM has issued edicts forbidding social contact*.  Members can attend each others' social events with no more consequence than happening upon each other at the Mall and having a coffee together to share the fellowship while the wives shop together.

* When still in my job search a few months ago the status of Masonry in a state mattered.  I crossed a few states off the list because the GL there is doing nonsense over racial or religious issues.  Masonic reasons weren't my only criteria but I didn't even look at listings in AR, FL, WV.


----------



## BroBook (Oct 28, 2013)

tomasball said:


> Umm.  As far as I can tell, you're a California and Illinois Mason sitting in lodges your Grand Lodges do not approve of visiting.  It sounds like the individual lodges might be violating their own laws in that case as well, but I have less insight into that.
> 
> If I was in a parallel situation, I would check with my Grand Lodges and make sure I wasn't violating my obligations to abide by their rules. I would never show up at any lodge and ask for admission without first assuring myself that I was operating within the constitution, resolutions and edicts of my own Grand Lodge.  You seem to define "state with recognition" as a carte blanche to visit any Prince Hall lodge in the world, and that is definitely not the case.



That's really the point if a man wants to be around other men it really does not matter what the other man or body of men says  its his own choice every tub has to sit on it's on bottom!!!


My Freemasonry HD


----------



## BroBook (May 15, 2014)

tomasball said:


> 1st: That would be valid if you were a member of a UGLE lodge
> 2nd: The MWGLoT does not allow masons from the UGLE to visit their lodges.
> 3rd:  There's a very helpful book put out by Pantograph press that lists all the details of who recognizes who.  There's a copy in every mainstream lodge in Texas.  According to the one in my library, California recognizes only the PH Grand Lodges of California, Oregon, and Hawaii.  May be outdated...perhaps someone here has access to the latest one.


Does not visits from " The Grand lodge "?


Bro Book
M.W.U.G.L. Of Fl: P.H.A.
Excelsior # 43
At pensacola


----------



## BroBook (May 15, 2014)

I meant does not allow!


Bro Book
M.W.U.G.L. Of Fl: P.H.A.
Excelsior # 43
At pensacola


----------



## Mike Martin (May 29, 2014)

tomasball said:


> 2nd: The MWGLoT does not allow masons from the UGLE to visit their lodges.


I strongly suspect that you are wrong with the point above! The UGLE recognises both of the Texas Gradn Lodges which means they recognise us which means there is inter-visitation. If you have a document from your Grand Secretary that states this is not so please let me have a copy which I can give to our Grand Chancellor so that recognition may be withdrawn so as to prevent any possible embarrassment that could occur.


----------



## MRichard (May 29, 2014)

Mike Martin said:


> I strongly suspect that you are wrong with the point above! The UGLE recognises both of the Texas Gradn Lodges which means they recognise us which means there is inter-visitation. If you have a document from your Grand Secretary that states this is not so please let me have a copy which I can give to our Grand Chancellor so that recognition may be withdrawn so as to prevent any possible embarrassment that could occur.



The GLoT recognizes Prince Hall but there is no visitation. There are about 8 or 9 states in the US that don't recognize Prince Hall that are recognized by the UGLE.


----------



## tomasball (May 29, 2014)

Mike Martin said:


> I strongly suspect that you are wrong with the point above! The UGLE recognises both of the Texas Gradn Lodges which means they recognise us which means there is inter-visitation. If you have a document from your Grand Secretary that states this is not so please let me have a copy which I can give to our Grand Chancellor so that recognition may be withdrawn so as to prevent any possible embarrassment that could occur.


Actually, I am open to being corrected on this point.  It is indisputable that the MWPHGLoT will not allow a member of the GLoT to sit in one of their lodges...we have the compact to that effect, or a link to it, posted elsewhere on this site, I believe.  If they allow other "mainstream" masons this privilege they do not allow us, it would be a very interesting point for discussion.  

I know some have posted here that they were welcomed into Texas PH lodges when visiting from other "mainstream" jurisdictions.  I do not know whether that reflects official policy or not.  

Please.  There are many Texas PH masons on this board.  The policies of the GLoT are clearly stated, and being discussed and criticized all the time on this board.  Please tell us the official PH Texas policy on visitation from the UGLE, California, or other "mainstream" jurisdictions.


----------



## tomasball (May 29, 2014)

Let me append the observation that, obviously, the compact works (or doesn't work) both ways, and that the GLoT does not receive visitors in its lodges from he MWPHGLoT.  And, it's worth noting, that no PH GL has asked the GLoT for recognition subsequent to recognition being extended to the MWPHGLoT.  Perhaps they are waiting to see how things work out between the two Texas GLs.  Perhaps they do not want to have relations with us.  If there are PH members from other jurisdictions, maybe they could tell us the lay of the land out there.


----------



## bupton52 (May 29, 2014)

Speculating here: only members of jurisdictions with mutual recognition AND visitation with the MWPHGLoTX would be able to visit. I have been told that with proper correspondence, it may be possible for exceptions to be made. 

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


----------



## tomasball (May 29, 2014)

And, to further stirr the pot.  The PH Grand Lodge of Massachusetts, is older than the GLoT, and since the MWPHGLoT is recognized as regular by us by virtue of its descent from them, perhaps we shold petition THEM for recognition.


----------



## tomasball (May 29, 2014)

bupton52 said:


> Speculating here: only members of jurisdictions with mutual recognition AND visitation with the MWPHGLoTX would be able to visit. I have been told that with proper correspondence, it may be possible for exceptions to be made.
> 
> Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I317 using My Freemasonry HD mobile app


Bro. Upton, I don't want to press for fast answers, but are definite and official answers possible?  Aside from being published in the Pantograph Guide, I could call the GLoT office tomorrow and get instant information on whether a member of the UGLE could sit in my lodge.  I don't understand why things should be vague on this matter.


----------



## tomasball (May 29, 2014)

Mike Martin said:


> I strongly suspect that you are wrong with the point above! The UGLE recognises both of the Texas Gradn Lodges which means they recognise us which means there is inter-visitation. If you have a document from your Grand Secretary that states this is not so please let me have a copy which I can give to our Grand Chancellor so that recognition may be withdrawn so as to prevent any possible embarrassment that could occur.


By the way, Brother Martin...if a UGLE Brother arrived unannounced, without invitation, at any GLoT lodge, with only his dues card and the proper passwords, he would be welcomed and given entry.  Is that the case if I "just show up" at a UGLE lodge?


----------



## Mike Martin (May 30, 2014)

tomasball said:


> By the way, Brother Martin...if a UGLE Brother arrived unannounced, without invitation, at any GLoT lodge, with only his dues card and the proper passwords, he would be welcomed and given entry.  Is that the case if I "just show up" at a UGLE lodge?


No UGLE brother would ever show up unannounced at any Lodge (even our own) let alone one overseas as this would break the agreed Masonic protocol for visiting between Grand Lodges (check with your own Grand Secretary).

If he has not been invited to attend by a member of the Lodge he will have usually sought contact with the foreign Grand Lodge through the office of our Grand Chancellor and will usually have been put in contact through your own Grand Secretary. He will come bearing not only his regalia and Grand Lodge certificate (we do not have Dues Cards) but a letter from the Grand Secretary of the UGLE confirming his position within UGLE. 

The same is true of any regular Freemason visiting foreign countries.


----------



## bupton52 (May 30, 2014)

tomasball said:


> Bro. Upton, I don't want to press for fast answers, but are definite and official answers possible?  Aside from being published in the Pantograph Guide, I could call the GLoT office tomorrow and get instant information on whether a member of the UGLE could sit in my lodge.  I don't understand why things should be vague on this matter.




I'm sure that I could make that same call to our GL and get the same information. We do not have a book of lodges among the collective of PHGLs, unfortunately. My original comment was based on the very basic rules of recognition. If we recognize each other, they can visit. I will dig in a bit though. 

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


----------



## tomasball (May 30, 2014)

[QUOTE
The same is true of any regular Freemason visiting foreign countries.[/QUOTE]

No, it is not.  In Texas, and from my experience most US grand lodges, a mason from a foreign jurisdiction may arrive and be admitted simply by proving himself a member in good standing of a regular lodge.  My lodge has not, in my experience, had a visitor from the UGLE, but every winter many brethren from different Canadian jurisdictions visit.  There is no procedure for going through the Grand Secretary, or being invited.  I am aware in general terms of the procedure in the UGLE and in other countries, and I am aware of the ones over here.  I raised the question to illustrate to Brother Martin and others that visitation doesn't mean the same thing everywhere.


----------



## MRichard (May 30, 2014)

I really wonder if some of this confusion isn't based on an misunderstanding. When tomasball mentioned that GLoT doesn't allow UGLE members to visit Prince Hall, I am sure he was referring to the members of the GLoT. But then again, maybe I am misunderstanding as well. It brings up an interesting question of whether someone could visit a Texas PHA lodge that was from an jurisdiction that recognized Prince Hall.


----------



## tomasball (May 30, 2014)

Brother Richard, I think maybe I expressed myself poorly, and led to misunderstanding.  Let me start over, and forgive me for being lengthy in the interests of being clear.

Certainly, the GLoT can not tell any other Grand Lodge how to manage its fraternal relations.  

The UGLE and other non-PH grand lodges refrained from entering into relations with the MWPHGLoT until the GLoT and the MWPHGLoT established relations.  They didn't have to, but they did so out of "courtesy" to the grand lodge they were already in relations with.

The agreement between the GLoT and the MWPHGLoT was for limited relations.  We mutually recognized each other, but we did not establish the privilege of visitation, affiliation, or transfer of membership.  It has been pointed out repeatedly that this limitation was suggested by the MWPHGLoT.  That is contained in official reports of the interested committees to the GLoT membership, and I tend to believe it, because I know those men are very carful not to put anything in print that they can't back up.  HOWEVER...if the PH side got any unofficial advice from the non-PH side on this matter, it would have doubtless been that the limited proposition was more likely to get a majority vote from the GLoT membership.  

At any rate, that is the state of relations between the two Texas grand lodges. At the time, it was considered a given that our relations would eventually evolve to unrestricted affinity, and I am sure that will happen sooner or later.  

In the meantime, I assumed, and I think a lot of us assumed, that our sister grand lodges would not enter into any relationships with the MWPHGLoT that afforded their members privileges not enjoyed by our members.  That assumption may well be wrong.  If the MWPHGLoT welcomes visitors and allows transfer of membership between them and the UGLE, and other non-PH grand lodges, I think it would be a good idea for the members of the GLoT to understand that fact.  That is why I have asked more than once if it would be possible to know the official regulations of the MWPHGLoT on that matter.  


Tom Ball


----------



## dfreybur (May 30, 2014)

tomasball said:


> And, to further stirr the pot.  The PH Grand Lodge of Massachusetts, is older than the GLoT, and since the MWPHGLoT is recognized as regular by us by virtue of its descent from them, perhaps we shold petition THEM for recognition.



In my utter lack of authority on any GL level topic in Texas, I hereby ask you to submit legislation to have your jurisdiction do exactly that please.  Not just MWPHAGLofMA but any and all of them in the Conference of Grand Masters PHA list.  Regular plain recognition please not a copy of any custom compact.  I predict that mutual recognition would be accepted from any that has local recognition.  I would like to see a test case from one of the ones that does not.



tomasball said:


> In the meantime, I assumed, and I think a lot of us assumed, that our sister grand lodges would not enter into any relationships with the MWPHGLoT that afforded their members privileges not enjoyed by our members.  That assumption may well be wrong.  If the MWPHGLoT welcomes visitors and allows transfer of membership between them and the UGLE, and other non-PH grand lodges, I think it would be a good idea for the members of the GLoT to understand that fact ...



As long as "recognition" in place there is no tradition to look closely at detailed restrictions of two other jurisdictions.  Recognition is traditionally a yes/no matter without further details, even among jurisdictions that have some with detailed restrictions of their own.   When a member of an outside GL there's little expectation to know about local restrictions and no reason to be expected to follow them.  Can't visit internally?  Not a problem for a brother visiting from other recognizing jurisdictions.


----------



## Mike Martin (May 30, 2014)

tomasball said:


> [QUOTE
> The same is true of any regular Freemason visiting foreign countries.



No, it is not.  In Texas, and from my experience most US grand lodges, a mason from a foreign jurisdiction may arrive and be admitted simply by proving himself a member in good standing of a regular lodge.  My lodge has not, in my experience, had a visitor from the UGLE, but every winter many brethren from different Canadian jurisdictions visit.  There is no procedure for going through the Grand Secretary, or being invited.  I am aware in general terms of the procedure in the UGLE and in other countries, and I am aware of the ones over here.  I raised the question to illustrate to Brother Martin and others that visitation doesn't mean the same thing everywhere.[/QUOTE]

I think you should maybe check with your Grand Secretary. The fact that some Freemasons may ignore or be unaware of the protocol is not evidence that it doesn't exist.


----------



## Mike Martin (May 30, 2014)

tomasball said:


> The UGLE and other non-PH grand lodges refrained from entering into relations with the MWPHGLoT until the GLoT and the MWPHGLoT established relations.  *They didn't have to, but they did so out of "courtesy" to the grand lodge they were already in relations with.*


While this may be true of the other Grand Lodges it is not correct with regard to the UGLE or GLoI or GLoS as we all have a recognition restriction that states:

_5. That the Grand Lodge shall have sovereign jurisdiction over the Lodges under its control; i.e. that it shall be a responsible, independent, self-governing organization, with sole and undisputed authority over the Craft or Symbolic Degrees (Entered Apprentice, Fellow Craft, and Master Mason) within its Jurisdiction; and shall not in any way be subject to, or divide such authority with, a Supreme Council or other Power claiming any control or supervision over those degrees. _

This means that the UGLE (or GLoI or GLoS) may not recognise a Grand Lodge that shares territory with another unless they both recognise each other.


----------



## tomasball (May 30, 2014)

Mike Martin said:


> No, it is not.  In Texas, and from my experience most US grand lodges, a mason from a foreign jurisdiction may arrive and be admitted simply by proving himself a member in good standing of a regular lodge.  My lodge has not, in my experience, had a visitor from the UGLE, but every winter many brethren from different Canadian jurisdictions visit.  There is no procedure for going through the Grand Secretary, or being invited.  I am aware in general terms of the procedure in the UGLE and in other countries, and I am aware of the ones over here.  I raised the question to illustrate to Brother Martin and others that visitation doesn't mean the same thing everywhere.



I think you should maybe check with your Grand Secretary. The fact that some Freemasons may ignore or be unaware of the protocol is not evidence that it doesn't exist.[/QUOTE]

I think you maybe should maybe consider that the laws of the Grand Lodge of Texas are not the same as those of the UGLE, and that some of us are well-versed in them.  For instance:  "Art. 379, Masons of Other Grand Jurisdictions: A Master Mason, in good standing, a member of a lodge under the jurisdiction of any Grand Lodge or other Grand Body which is in fraternal relations with this Grand Lodge, may be admitted as a visitor, subject to the provision of Art. 383."  Art. 383 goes on to describe how a visitor may be excluded upon objection by a member or members of the lodge.


----------



## tomasball (May 30, 2014)

Mike Martin said:


> While this may be true of the other Grand Lodges it is not correct with regard to the UGLE or GLoI or GLoS as we all have a recognition restriction that states:
> 
> _5. That the Grand Lodge shall have sovereign jurisdiction over the Lodges under its control; i.e. that it shall be a responsible, independent, self-governing organization, with sole and undisputed authority over the Craft or Symbolic Degrees (Entered Apprentice, Fellow Craft, and Master Mason) within its Jurisdiction; and shall not in any way be subject to, or divide such authority with, a Supreme Council or other Power claiming any control or supervision over those degrees. _
> 
> This means that the UGLE (or GLoI or GLoS) may not recognise a Grand Lodge that shares territory with another unless they both recognise each other.


 I stand corrected on that point.


----------



## Mike Martin (May 31, 2014)

tomasball said:


> I think you should maybe check with your Grand Secretary. The fact that some Freemasons may ignore or be unaware of the protocol is not evidence that it doesn't exist.



I think you maybe should maybe consider that the laws of the Grand Lodge of Texas are not the same as those of the UGLE, and that some of us are well-versed in them.  For instance:  "Art. 379, Masons of Other Grand Jurisdictions: A Master Mason, in good standing, a member of a lodge under the jurisdiction of any Grand Lodge or other Grand Body which is in fraternal relations with this Grand Lodge, may be admitted as a visitor, subject to the provision of Art. 383."  Art. 383 goes on to describe how a visitor may be excluded upon objection by a member or members of the lodge.[/QUOTE]

I too stand corrected, however, a regulation like this ignores the international visiting protocol which could lead your Grand Lodge's brethren into a very embarrassing situation if they turned up unannounced to a Lodge in the British Isles, Europe, SE Asia or Africa.


----------



## dfreybur (May 31, 2014)

Mike Martin said:


> I think you should maybe check with your Grand Secretary. The fact that some Freemasons may ignore or be unaware of the protocol is not evidence that it doesn't exist.



In my jurisdictions the protocol exists for outgoing travelers in that it is available because it is needed to visit some other jurisdictions.  In my jurisdictions the protocol is not required for incoming travelers.  Different jurisdiction, different rules but since some jurisdictions use the more restrictive form it needs to be available as an option.


----------

