# Fraternal Relations



## Blake Bowden (Oct 5, 2013)

I would like to know who is on this committee.


----------



## tomasball (Oct 5, 2013)

*Re: Fraternal Relations Committee (Grand Lodge of *

Your lodge secretary should have a current directory of the members of all GL committees.


----------



## Blake Bowden (Oct 5, 2013)

*Re: Fraternal Relations Committee (Grand Lodge of *

It'd be nice to have it online for future reference.


My Freemasonry HD


----------



## Bill Lins (Oct 6, 2013)

*Re: Fraternal Relations Committee (Grand Lodge of *

Here you go:

Chairman: Pete Normand

Members: John A. Hughes, Donald H. Swango, Jack M. Harper II, Dan F. Davidson, Curtis J. Meador, & Roberto M. Sanchez


----------



## crono782 (Oct 14, 2013)

*Re: Fraternal Relations Committee (Grand Lodge of *

I've long withheld my thoughts on the issue, but here is a brief synopsis. I am all for recognition + visitation. This is the 21st century after all and the racial division needs to be put to rest. HOWEVER, my only qualm with visitation rights IN TEXAS is in regards to the PHA ritual work and the state of PHA clandestine lodges here. I cannot remember the specifics of the first point so that one may be a moot point, but basically, GLoTX lodges are rather proud of their mouth-to-ear work and IIRC, MWPHGLoTX lodges use ciphers given to members. I could see this potentially being a problem. The other part IS a major obstacle in my opinion and probably one of the greatest barriers to visitation. I know it's supposed to be as simple as a dues card and ID in texas, but it is conceivable that the GLoTX my not be willing to deal with the scenario of so many clandy masons that may try to visit (though how many actually would is anybody's guess). Now, having said all that, I don't think those things *should* disqualify visitation, but if I were in a position to cast a vote for visitation, I'd want some rules laid down in regards to the first and a definite plan of action in regards to dealing with the second.

Although, from word of mouth, it sounds like GLoTX is pushing for this more than MWPHGLoTX so the former is not entirely in the position of making provisos to the latter. I admit the aforementioned scenarios will probably be a rarity, so perhaps it is best to grant visitation first and deal with any possible fallout later (perhaps the joint visitation will even help to pressure clandy GLs to either phase out or heal, who knows)


----------



## BroBook (Oct 14, 2013)

*Re: Fraternal Relations Committee (Grand Lodge of*



crono782 said:


> I've long withheld my thoughts on the issue, but here is a brief synopsis. I am all for recognition + visitation. This is the 21st century after all and the racial division needs to be put to rest. HOWEVER, my only qualm with visitation rights IN TEXAS is in regards to the PHA ritual work and the state of PHA clandestine lodges here. I cannot remember the specifics of the first point so that one may be a moot point, but basically, GLoTX lodges are rather proud of their mouth-to-ear work and IIRC, MWPHGLoTX lodges use ciphers given to members. I could see this potentially being a problem. The other part IS a major obstacle in my opinion and probably one of the greatest barriers to visitation. I know it's supposed to be as simple as a dues card and ID in texas, but it is conceivable that the GLoTX my not be willing to deal with the scenario of so many clandy masons that may try to visit (though how many actually would is anybody's guess). Now, having said all that, I don't think those things *should* disqualify visitation, but if I were in a position to cast a vote for visitation, I'd want some rules laid down in regards to the first and a definite plan of action in regards to dealing with the second.
> 
> Although, from word of mouth, it sounds like GLoTX is pushing for this more than MWPHGLoTX so the former is not entirely in the position of making provisos to the latter. I admit the aforementioned scenarios will probably be a rarity, so perhaps it is best to grant visitation first and deal with any possible fallout later (perhaps the joint visitation will even help to pressure clandy GLs to either phase out or heal, who knows)



Question; has anyone ever ran into a man pretending to be a man and could  not tell that this man  was not a man? Oh I mean the heart thing.


My Freemasonry HD


----------



## crono782 (Oct 14, 2013)

*Re: Fraternal Relations Committee (Grand Lodge of*



BroBook said:


> Question; has anyone ever ran into a man pretending to be a man and could  not tell that this man  was not a man? Oh I mean the heart thing.


Your question confuses me. Is it meant to be sarcasm or is the meaning just escaping me?

Perhaps I should just clarify that I don't think anybody actually expects hordes of clandestine masons to flood their lodges, but some may take issue on principle. On the flip side, nothing wagered, nothing gained.


----------



## KyPastMaster (Oct 14, 2013)

*Re: Fraternal Relations Committee (Grand Lodge of*

If some are members of other forums there are threads on this very subject as per what you described in your previous post has and does happen . Clandestine Masons sitting in regular/recognized lodges because they were not vetted properly so I see your point . Or were vetted properly and turned away .

ETA * PHA Masons would be surprised at how little many "MS" Masons know about PHO and other clandestine lodges . Not all Masons spend their time on Masonic forums ( actually , I have visited to "keep up to date" but almost never posted to any of these forums ). I know  I have received looks of confusion when I have brought up this discussion of differences between regular PHA and all the clandies  numerous times in my lodges  . Some would see a dues card for PHO (or some other ) and take it for granted that it was PHA . If we were to suddenly have visitation , many would be confused by all this .


----------



## dfreybur (Oct 14, 2013)

*Re: Fraternal Relations Committee (Grand Lodge of*



crono782 said:


> HOWEVER, my only qualm with visitation rights IN TEXAS is in regards to ... the state of PHA clandestine lodges here.



This applies to all states so it's not unique to Texas.  I remember in California there was nearly a year of delay to get a list of recognized PHA lodges to us.  By that time we'd already checked out and offered a local PHA lodge to become a tenant in our building.  They'd asked a couple of years before about it knowing that recognition was on the way.

In theory we didn't even have to wait.  Our temple corporations can rent to anyone we wish including "other non-profits".  One of my lodges rents to a VFW lodge and an AA group.  There's a lodge near Los Angeles that rents to an assortment of "other non-profits" one of which is a female-only lodge.  I don't remember them being listed on the door, if I remember their landlord lodge building correctly.



> ... basically, GLoTX lodges are rather proud of their mouth-to-ear work...



Given that use of the cipher book is authorized the claim is exaggerated.  The book isn't authorized until raised and not in the building at any time.  The claim is really about insisting on proper ritual work.  It is required that all proficiencies are learned that way.  It is allowed to learn other ritual mouth to ear.  That's not the same as being a mouth to ear jurisdiction.



> and IIRC, MWPHGLoTX lodges use ciphers given to members. I could see this potentially being a problem.



Sounds like it being an excuse to me.  Plus a challenge to our PHA brethren to show off their best ritualists ...



> The other part IS a major obstacle in my opinion and probably one of the greatest barriers to visitation.



When I moved to Texas I had no problem looking up the local district in each jurisdiction on line.  I even used the local lodges to influence where we moved when we arrived.

Of course this makes going for a visit easy.  Not the same thing as knowing how to filter visitors.  That's what the list from GL would be for.


----------



## crono782 (Oct 14, 2013)

*Re: Fraternal Relations Committee (Grand Lodge of*



dfreybur said:


> Given that use of the cipher book is authorized the claim is exaggerated.  The book isn't authorized until raised and not in the building at any time.  The claim is really about insisting on proper ritual work.  It is required that all proficiencies are learned that way.  It is allowed to learn other ritual mouth to ear.  That's not the same as being a mouth to ear jurisdiction.



Just because a cipher is authorized does not mean that others aren't proud to have learned it by ear. NOR does that mean I am exaggerating. Given the sour taste the subject of ciphers have left in many members' mouths, it is not a far cry to think that this will somehow not be objectionable to some. It is something to be ready for at very least and have an answer should the topic arise.



> Sounds like it being an excuse to me.



Again, you can dismiss it, but texas is a large state and you are likely to find someone taking exception and also again, better to be prepared should the topic arises rather than dismiss it because you don't share it rather than be surprised by it on the floor.
Basically, what I'm trying to say is be prepared because these opinions are not a teeny weeny minority. I would think it is better to address the topics in theory now rather than later and have a lot of hard work dashed for lack of preparedness.

EDIT: What it boils down to is this: it is well and good to be the most open-minded mason in the room, but if you are really fighting for something, you have to see it through the opposition's eyes rather than pretend they don't exist.


----------



## crono782 (Oct 14, 2013)

*Re: Fraternal Relations Committee (Grand Lodge of *

Understand that I am not poo-pooing on visitation, but merely pointing out where some sticking points _might_ occur. I do have some reservations on the two areas that I pointed out, but it is nothing that can't be worked out I believe.


----------



## KyPastMaster (Oct 14, 2013)

*Re: Fraternal Relations Committee (Grand Lodge of*



crono782 said:


> Understand that I am not poo-pooing on visitation, but merely pointing out where some sticking points _might_ occur. I do have some reservations on the two areas that I pointed out, but it is nothing that can't be worked out I believe.




Actually , and do not take this the wrong way as I say this with  brotherly love , how one jurisdiction does things and conducts their  business  is their business and their business alone . I would hope that  when I walk into a lodge in another state , that I am not berated or belittled concerning  how we conduct our business in Ky .

This is one of the things that made me refrain from joining Masonic forums , one jurisdiction judging another over their differences . A few months back , when I first joined a forum I made the comment that we were allowed to have our Monitors in lodge during meetings  and some just blew up on me . At the end of the day , it is/was not their concern . But I also see your point on this one as well , some are judgmental and can not refrain from voicing their opinions and this could cause some derision among the Craft .


----------



## crono782 (Oct 14, 2013)

KyPastMaster said:


> Actually , and do not take this the wrong way as I say this with  brotherly love , how one jurisdiction does things and conducts their  business  is their business and their business alone . I would hope that  when I walk into a lodge in another state , that I am not berated or belittled concerning  how we conduct our business in Ky .


GLoTX is my jurisdiction, however your assertion is wise counsel indeed. I only wish the brethren to be prepared so that if/when this topic is brought up, all bases are covered.  

My Freemasonry HD


----------



## bupton52 (Oct 14, 2013)

*Re: Fraternal Relations Committee (Grand Lodge of *

The clandestine organizations that exist in Texas are a major problem. I honestly don't see what can be done to stop them. There are no laws in place to make it illegal for a non-mason to wear or identify themselves as masons. There are always men who want to be the head honcho and it will always be like that. The only thing I can think of is that if the opportunity exists for freemasonry in Texas to move as one, recognition and visitation has to be in effect to discourage men from joining the convenient, but clandestine, bodies.


----------



## crono782 (Oct 14, 2013)

*Re: Fraternal Relations Committee (Grand Lodge of *

Now that IS an idea isn't it? Turn the attention to dealing w/ clandestine masonry in TX and r+v equates the necessary force to do so. It's less idealogical that way, but any means to an end right?


My Freemasonry HD


----------



## BroBook (Oct 14, 2013)

*Re: Fraternal Relations Committee (Grand Lodge of*



KyPastMaster said:


> Actually , and do not take this the wrong way as I say this with  brotherly love , how one jurisdiction does things and conducts their  business  is their business and their business alone . I would hope that  when I walk into a lodge in another state , that I am not berated or belittled concerning  how we conduct our business in Ky .
> 
> This is one of the things that made me refrain from joining Masonic forums , one jurisdiction judging another over their differences . A few months back , when I first joined a forum I made the comment that we were allowed to have our Monitors in lodge during meetings  and some just blew up on me . At the end of the day , it is/was not their concern . But I also see your point on this one as well , some are judgmental and can not refrain from voicing their opinions and this could cause some derision among the Craft .



"When at practice , practice however when it's real it's real , to all brothers get ready and stay ready you won't have time to go to your room'


My Freemasonry HD


----------



## bupton52 (Oct 14, 2013)

*Re: Fraternal Relations Committee (Grand Lodge of*



crono782 said:


> Now that IS an idea isn't it? Turn the attention to dealing w/ clandestine masonry in TX and r+v equates the necessary force to do so. It's less idealogical that way, but any means to an end right?
> 
> 
> My Freemasonry HD



Pardon me if I completely misinterpreted your response. I don't think that r + v would help PHA combat clandestine groups because IMO the MWPHGLoTX is not actively trying to do that. I believe that the focus is not eradicating clandestine freemasonry, but practicing regular masonry. With that being said, from the POV of the clandestine mason who is being taught that "they" don't want to recognize you, "they" won't work with you, and "they" won't allow you to practice freemasonry with "them", both of our institutions with agreements to r + v takes the wind out of those sails. By truly exemplifying brotherly love the reduction of clandestine orgs is a byproduct.


----------



## crono782 (Oct 14, 2013)

bupton52 said:


> Pardon me if I completely misinterpreted your response. I don't think that r + v would help PHA combat clandestine groups because IMO the MWPHGLoTX is not actively trying to do that.



Your interpretation was correct. Hmm yes that was a bit of fanciful thinking wasn't it? It's a romantic idea, but not a logical one. 


My Freemasonry HD


----------



## dfreybur (Oct 14, 2013)

*Re: Fraternal Relations Committee (Grand Lodge of*



crono782 said:


> Just because a cipher is authorized does not mean that others aren't proud to have learned it by ear.



Proud, yes.  But read the monitor about the attributes of a EA Mason again.  Truth matters.  Having an authorized cipher necessarily means we are not a mouth to ear jurisdiction.  We are a cipher jurisdiction that happens to be proud of our high degree of mouth to ear instruction.  If the truth is not broadcast then it is not learned.  What is currently being broadcast is not accurate and thus not true.



> Again, you can dismiss it, but texas is a large state and you are likely to find someone taking exception and also again, better to be prepared should the topic arises rather than dismiss it because you don't share it rather than be surprised by it on the floor.
> Basically, what I'm trying to say is be prepared because these opinions are not a teeny weeny minority. I would think it is better to address the topics in theory now rather than later and have a lot of hard work dashed for lack of preparedness.
> 
> EDIT: What it boils down to is this: it is well and good to be the most open-minded mason in the room, but if you are really fighting for something, you have to see it through the opposition's eyes rather than pretend they don't exist.



Exactly.  To me the truth needs to be educated.  When taking a stance in the face of the truth it becomes easy to cross from pride in accomplishment to devaluing those without the same accomplishment to figuring those who didn't do it your way didn't make the same accomplishment.  The path to resolve that is education.


----------



## crono782 (Oct 14, 2013)

*Re: Fraternal Relations Committee (Grand Lodge of *

Perhaps that could change if there was a correct authorized cipher, but that's a whole other topic... 
Your words hold great depth. Wrongful pride is what got us here in the first place if you think about it. We did not remember the first principle tenet of our profession so many years ago that necessitated the birth of PHA. Remembering the rough Ashlar, misplaced pride will dog us every step of the way, agreed. I guess one thing to consider is how broad is our aim in this context? Course correcting a flaw in man fermenting thousands of years or healing an old wound but a few centuries old? Both one should say, but is the former out of scope here and now? Most hope to have visitation in a few short years. The other might take much longer, hah!


My Freemasonry HD


----------



## Brother JC (Oct 14, 2013)

*Re: Fraternal Relations Committee (Grand Lodge of *

I'm a little confused (not unusual) on your cipher issue, Daniel. I come to your Lodge, enjoy the Fellowship and bill-paying discussions, hopefully hear a presentation on an invigorating subject... how does the fact that my GL issues ciphers make that experience problematic for either the Lodge, or the visitor? And how does it translate to a problem in making visitation legal?


----------



## crono782 (Oct 15, 2013)

I dunno, maybe it has no bearing whatsoever. It's easy to forget that there is currently plenty of examples of r+v states that use cipher. I seem to recall at one point I had a better answer to that question, but somehow it now escapes me.

EDIT: I think it was along the lines of the current hot topic of cipher use in tx. Considering that it's a bit of a polarizing issue by itself, the very fact if tx PHA uses them might sway a vote. Some might say this doesn't make sense as we allow visitation w/ other jurisdictions that do, but this is a special context. 

I can answer that it has no real bearing on making visitation legal or not, but that it could be a potential issue for the "swing votes".

My Freemasonry HD


----------



## KyPastMaster (Oct 15, 2013)

*Re: Fraternal Relations Committee (Grand Lodge of*



BroBook said:


> "When at practice , practice however when it's real it's real , to all brothers get ready and stay ready you won't have time to go to your room'
> 
> 
> My Freemasonry HD



I may be a little dense this morning , a little slow due to the sleeping pill I took last has me all fuzzy headed so forgive me for asking but what are you trying to say here ?

Are you saying conduct your own business as you see fit and if it feels right , just keep on doing what you are doing ?


----------



## dfreybur (Oct 15, 2013)

*Re: Fraternal Relations Committee (Grand Lodge of*



crono782 said:


> I dunno, maybe it has no bearing whatsoever. It's easy to forget that there is currently plenty of examples of r+v states that use cipher. I seem to recall at one point I had a better answer to that question, but somehow it now escapes me.



The states I know are all either cipher or written out with a few important words removed.  I would be interested to know if any remain that are still mouth to ear (Texas already handled in previous posts).  I know that the cipher was popular before it was authorized - In California it was authorized in the 1980s and I have a collection of old ones from before that era.



> EDIT: I think it was along the lines of the current hot topic of cipher use in tx. Considering that it's a bit of a polarizing issue by itself, the very fact if tx PHA uses them might sway a vote. Some might say this doesn't make sense as we allow visitation w/ other jurisdictions that do, but this is a special context.
> 
> I can answer that it has no real bearing on making visitation legal or not, but that it could be a potential issue for the "swing votes".



Part of why I stress educating the truth on the topic.  There are those who assert that Texas is a mouth to ear state.  As there is an authorized cipher it's an objectively incorrect assertion.  If it gets included as a smoke screen to resist agreeing to visitation that smoke screen does need to be cleared away well before the question comes to a vote on the GL floor.

Object to PHA visitation because they have a ritual written out with the important words removed?  UGLE has that as well.  Who wants to pull visitation for UGLE members?  Right, there you go.  But as you point out the topic could be used quietly without being discussed.  It's why discussion like this needs to happen to push education on the topic.


----------



## crono782 (Oct 15, 2013)

*Re: Fraternal Relations Committee (Grand Lodge of *

True. Corrected if I'm wrong, but the "blue book" cipher is not authorized in any official sense so much as it is no longer a masonic offense to possess it. 


My Freemasonry HD


----------



## BroBook (Oct 15, 2013)

*Re: Fraternal Relations Committee (Grand Lodge of*



KyPastMaster said:


> I may be a little dense this morning , a little slow due to the sleeping pill I took last has me all fuzzy headed so forgive me for asking but what are you trying to say here ?
> 
> Are you saying conduct your own business as you see fit and if it feels right , just keep on doing what you are doing ?



No sir my brother I am saying learn the ritual 
Verbatim I really don't think false brothers do


My Freemasonry HD


----------



## KyPastMaster (Oct 15, 2013)

*Re: Fraternal Relations Committee (Grand Lodge of*



BroBook said:


> No sir my brother I am saying learn the ritual
> Verbatim I really don't think false brothers do
> 
> 
> My Freemasonry HD



I know MANY recognized Masons that DO NOT learn the ritual verbatim . Or at least the ones I know , those of us who can confer degrees by memory are growing in short supply around here .

ETA : I know a brother who is one darn good Mason , but due to a motorcycle accident he received a concussion and his memory is shot . are we to say he is not a true Mason and that this make him a false Mason because he can not answer some questions ? Being able to regurgitate ritual verbatim does not make a man a true Mason . Sorry , I am just trying to wrap my mind around this, that because a man can or can not commit to memory ritual is indicative of them being a true/false Mason .


----------



## BroBook (Oct 15, 2013)

*Re: Fraternal Relations Committee (Grand Lodge of*



KyPastMaster said:


> I know most recognized Masons that DO NOT learn the ritual verbatim . Or at least the ones I know , this of us who can confer degrees by memory are growing in short supply around here .



Agreed let me rephrase we should know it well enough to be able to make lalolum be their selves!


My Freemasonry HD


----------



## BroBook (Oct 15, 2013)

*Re: Fraternal Relations Committee (Grand Lodge of*



KyPastMaster said:


> I know most recognized Masons that DO NOT learn the ritual verbatim . Or at least the ones I know , those of us who can confer degrees by memory are growing in short supply around here .
> 
> ETA : I know a brother who is one darn good Mason , but due to a motorcycle accident he received a concussion and his memory is shot . are we to say he is not a true Mason and that this make him a false Mason because he can not answer some questions ? Being able to regurgitate ritual verbatim does not make a man a true Mason . Sorry , I am just trying to wrap my mind around this, that because a man can or can not commit to memory ritual is indicative of them being a false Mason .



No I said a false mason would not take the time to examine closely enough to be able to spot a man with no light displayed glowing in a crowd


My Freemasonry HD


----------



## KyPastMaster (Oct 15, 2013)

*Re: Fraternal Relations Committee (Grand Lodge of*



BroBook said:


> No I said a false mason would not take the time to examine closely enough to be able to spot a man with no light displayed glowing in a crowd
> 
> 
> My Freemasonry HD



Again , I am stumped as to what you are getting at so maybe I am dense  . If by "light" (sorry but that terminology of Masonic trinkets throws me off)  you mean some Masonic emblems , I do do not pay attention to other Masons in a crowd . As a Matter of fact , I personally do not care if there are other Masons (or false Masons) in a crowd as we are a dime a dozen here in area . Care expand on your statement ?


I mean no respect , just looking for clarity .


----------



## dfreybur (Oct 15, 2013)

*Re: Fraternal Relations Committee (Grand Lodge of*



KyPastMaster said:


> I know MANY recognized Masons that DO NOT learn the ritual verbatim . Or at least the ones I know , those of us who can confer degrees by memory are growing in short supply around here .



There need to be enough to form a degree team at least in the district.  Every lodge should have the goal of their line being able to pull off degrees and/or being regulars on the degree team.  I've been to degrees where several of the brothers read from their book.  Those degrees blew.  Of course the problem is not the book.  Books don't fail to practice and read themselves.  The problem is not spending enough time practicing.  Lack of social events after practice also cuts into the camaraderie of the line.



> ETA : I know a brother who is one darn good Mason , but due to a motorcycle accident he received a concussion and his memory is shot . are we to say he is not a true Mason and that this make him a false Mason because he can not answer some questions ? Being able to regurgitate ritual verbatim does not make a man a true Mason . Sorry , I am just trying to wrap my mind around this, that because a man can or can not commit to memory ritual is indicative of them being a true/false Mason .



On the one hand - We handle disabilities.  It's our modern way.  Anyone without a brain defect can memorize their proficiency.  It's part of the deal of a proficiency to break through any internal barrier of denial.  But the brother in your example is not the first I've heard about with this type of disability.

On the other hand - There was a time when we didn't take those with disabilities so it would have been a bar to entry.  Some of our eldest members remember that era or forget that we are no longer in that era.


----------



## BroBook (Oct 15, 2013)

*Re: Fraternal Relations Committee (Grand Lodge of*



KyPastMaster said:


> Again , I am stumped as to what you are getting at so maybe I am dense  . If by "light" (sorry but that terminology of Masonic trinkets throws me off)  you mean some Masonic emblems , I do do not pay attention to other Masons in a crowd . As a Matter of fact , I personally do not care if there are other Masons (or false Masons) in a crowd as we are a dime a dozen here in area . Care expand on your statement ?
> 
> 
> I mean no respect , just looking for clarity .



Simply put a person headed east would be easy to spot by how he walks and talks whether he is being watched or not , I never was one to care who was or was not a mason neither I was looking for truth and this science has helped me 



My Freemasonry HD


----------



## dfreybur (Oct 16, 2013)

*Re: Fraternal Relations Committee (Grand Lodge of*



KyPastMaster said:


> I know MANY recognized Masons that DO NOT learn the ritual verbatim . Or at least the ones I know , those of us who can confer degrees by memory are growing in short supply around here .



I suggest this has ALWAYS been true.  The only difference is the long decline in Masonic population has made it more visible.  When a lodge has 500+ members it only takes a few to get certified in the ritual.  When a lodge has 50+ members it still takes that same few to get certified in the ritual.  The numbers become more apparent because of the declining population.  That's my take.  And since the number of candidates has been going up for the last decade I'm not as worried about it as others.  A number of lodges will die before the reversal completes, but a number of new lodges will be chartered as well.

All brothers do what proficiencies are required.  How many move beyond that?  Brothers who go through the line and/or join the degree team.  I know a fair number of brothers who didn't have time to go through the line who did join the degree team and have been wonderful at it.  That's something I did not expect until I saw it happen.  At first I thought that going through the line was the primary way brothers learn ritual as that's the way I did it my first two versions of the ritual.


----------



## relapse98 (Oct 18, 2013)

*Re: Fraternal Relations Committee (Grand Lodge of*



KyPastMaster said:


> Some would see a dues card for PHO (or some other ) and take it for granted that it was PHA . If we were to suddenly have visitation , many would be confused by all this .



I think this is something we could work through, if visitation was allowed. Just take a simple note to the lodges to remind them what to look for and a reminder to use the List of Regular Lodges Masonic. I just don't really see how this would be any different than what we currently have. We may have more visitors, but if you are already doing your job, then you shouldn't have a problem.

Now if you aren't doing your job, well then we have a different problem.


----------



## relapse98 (Oct 18, 2013)

*Re: Fraternal Relations Committee (Grand Lodge of*



dfreybur said:


> The states I know are all either cipher or written out with a few important words removed.  I would be interested to know if any remain that are still mouth to ear (Texas already handled in previous posts).



The Texas one still has a few very significant parts not even in cipher.


----------



## KyPastMaster (Oct 18, 2013)

*Re: Fraternal Relations Committee (Grand Lodge of*



relapse98 said:


> I think this is something we could work through, if visitation was allowed. Just take a simple note to the lodges to remind them what to look for and a reminder to use the List of Regular Lodges Masonic. I just don't really see how this would be any different than what we currently have. We may have more visitors, but if you are already doing your job, then you shouldn't have a problem.
> 
> Now if you aren't doing your job, well then we have a different problem.



We do not have lists/books/ledgers of recognized lodges that we can compare dues card too in our lodges so this method would be of no use to us . It is up to the SW and Tyler to know who is recognized and who is not , well them and the three man committee who is called upon to try visitors . And As I stated , most are not up to speed on PHA , PHO and/or any other clandestine lodge .


----------



## dfreybur (Oct 18, 2013)

*Re: Fraternal Relations Committee (Grand Lodge of*



KyPastMaster said:


> We do not have lists/books/ledgers of recognized lodges that we can compare dues card too in our lodges so this method would be of no use to us .



Almost every lodge I've visited as had one, though often their copy was several years old.  Because of a consolidation and a name change my Illinois lodge appears as Arlington Heights 1162, Monitor Lounsbury 522 or Barrington 522 depending on the year the copy was printed.

http://pantagraphprinting.com/ESW/Files/2012_LoL_Sample_Pages.pdf

You don't have books like that?  I recommend them.


----------



## Brother JC (Oct 18, 2013)

*Re: Fraternal Relations Committee (Grand Lodge of *

They are updated annually, and available to your Lodge Secretary. Ours keeps the latest one within reach of his desk and puts past issues in the library.


----------



## Brother JC (Oct 20, 2013)

*Re: Fraternal Relations Committee (Grand Lodge of *

All eyes to the future, gentlemen. When I come to visit Texas, I want to Visit with my Brethren, and I would be greatly saddened to be told, "we don't do that here."


----------



## Cblack (Nov 22, 2013)

*Re: Fraternal Relations Committee (Grand Lodge of *

At Mid Winter Session. .the resolution to amend the compact agreement with the GLoTX passed without opposition...it has been turned over to the committee on fraternal relations 

Sent from my SPH-L710 using My Freemasonry HD mobile app


----------



## dfreybur (Nov 22, 2013)

*Re: Fraternal Relations Committee (Grand Lodge of*



Cblack said:


> At Mid Winter Session. .the resolution to amend the compact agreement with the GLoTX passed without opposition...it has been turned over to the committee on fraternal relations



Happy dance!  You Brothers rule.  Thanks!

Now it's two weeks to the GLofTX annual meeting.  Committees are supposed to make recommendations in their reports.  The report and and discussion should be on the agenda.  I say they should recommend accepting the amended compact and hold a vote on the floor immediately.  There is no need to wait 54 weeks at this point.


----------

