# There's no place for "Racism" in Freemasonry



## Dontrell Stroman (Sep 22, 2015)

It's sad that in 2015 we still have brothers that continue primitive thinking and ways of conducting business.


----------



## Glen Cook (Sep 22, 2015)

Who could disagree?  But what to do?


----------



## Dontrell Stroman (Sep 22, 2015)

Well If we applied what we learned through our degrees, maybe... Just maybe.. it could rid this negative attention to our order.


----------



## Glen Cook (Sep 22, 2015)

Travelling Man91 said:


> Well If we applied what we learned through our degrees, maybe... Just maybe.. it could rid this negative attention to our order.


Right.  Assuming you and I have applied the learning, what do we do now?


----------



## Dontrell Stroman (Sep 22, 2015)

Well there's one thing to know, and doing is another. Well leading by example is a start. I have stood up to many brothers and proclaimed that no matter the skin color, if they have been entered, passed, and raised in a regular lodge, they are a brother of mine.


----------



## Dontrell Stroman (Sep 22, 2015)

It bothers me when I have non freemasons come up to me and ask why would I want to be apart of an organization that is so segregated. You ever tried explaining to someone that not all brothers are not like that and that is not what freemasonry teaches. It can be difficult, especially when you can drive down the road to the nearest lodge and see an all white lodge or an all black lodge and you go talk with them and they say "well we have our own , and they have their own". If we truly have a world wide brotherhood, Does it include all regular freemasons or just those of particular GLS ? Or do we chose who is worthy to be called a brother ? I thought joining the freemasons would mean no matter where I go in this life, there is a brother near by. But to see how so many brothers think, I really don't know.


----------



## MRichard (Sep 22, 2015)

Travelling Man91 said:


> It's sad that in 2015 we still have brothers that continue primitive thinking and ways of conducting business.



Unfortunately, it is a way of life and it varies depending on where you live. This map speaks louder than words. http://bessel.org/masrec/phamap.htm


----------



## Dontrell Stroman (Sep 22, 2015)

Although I would like to visit other Grand Lodges, I understand and abide by bylaws and rules. My point is that regardless of what any man says "your a man before anything." Speaking in regards, if the mason is regular, no man will tell me who I can and can't call my brother.


----------



## Pscyclepath (Sep 22, 2015)

As Sergeant Friday ("Dragnet") would remind us, we draw our members from the human race, just like everyone else.


----------



## STETSON (Sep 23, 2015)

SMIB


----------



## Brother_Steve (Sep 23, 2015)

Racism is a part of humanity. Well to rephrase that naughty word ... we are programmed to compartmentalize.

Our brains subconsciously sort people into groups. It is an evolutionary trait to find cohesion for forming groups, finding food and and living space. You defend your immediate neighbors from outsiders and may be suspicious of outsiders.

Take that factor a step farther. You hold yourself in high regards compared to others around you. That is self esteem. You also hold a higher regard to those close to you and that "regard" drops down as you move outward from your center. Discrimination begins when you actually believe what you are thinking when it comes to people that are not only outside of your group, but of a different color or creed. This is where a point within a circle has a second meaning for me. The center represents the individual Brother and the circle represents those bounds. The saints represent the edge of a Lodge in what we consider a Lodge ritually.


Education from a young age is the key to ending racism. Overcoming the natural instinct to group people based on race or appearance is the responsibility of our parents. I am of the belief that once a racist, always a racist unless an extreme life event makes you realize the error of your ways. Someone saving your life for example.

My Father was a racist (strong words but there is no such thing as "semi-racist) and he used slang in front of me often when I was a child. Thankfully I had the support structure around me to negate that. It is the one thing that pissed me off about him as a man. My father-in-law is the same way.

Freemasonry is perfect. The bias of man perverts it. The problem is the moral compass we all use does not point true north and none of our compasses will every align with each other.


----------



## Warrior1256 (Sep 23, 2015)

I agree that ALL men are brothers. My state of Kentucky recognizes PH Masonry and they recognize us but we still do not have visitation rights with each other.


----------



## Erickson Ybarra (Sep 23, 2015)

Most racial things I hear are in jest. Because you really can't change a person who doesn't want to be changed, I either ignore the comment or change the subject and it becomes awkward. The point is taken.


----------



## Dontrell Stroman (Sep 23, 2015)

Warrior1256 said:


> I agree that ALL men are brothers. My state of Kentucky recognizes PH Masonry and they recognize us but we still do not have visitation rights with each other.


It's not just PHA brother, how do you know if a brother is PHA or mainstream if y'all never talk ?


----------



## MarkR (Sep 24, 2015)

Warrior1256 said:


> I agree that ALL men are brothers. My state of Kentucky recognizes PH Masonry and they recognize us but we still do not have visitation rights with each other.


I still don't understand the point of recognition without visitation.  What are they recognizing?  That each other exists?  The right of visitation is an ancient landmark.  If I can't visit your lodge and you can't visit mine, do we _really_ recognize each other?


----------



## Dontrell Stroman (Sep 24, 2015)

I guess just recognizing they are freemasons. To me it's just being politically correct, that's it. If you recognize someone why should you not be able to visit with them?


----------



## Brother_Steve (Sep 24, 2015)

MarkR said:


> I still don't understand the point of recognition without visitation.  What are they recognizing?  That each other exists?  The right of visitation is an ancient landmark.  If I can't visit your lodge and you can't visit mine, do we _really_ recognize each other?


Recognition grants the ability for foreign jurisdictions to recognize both lodges operating in the same territory. It also allows masons of both GL's to speak masonically without fear of being expelled (confirmation needed)

PHA masonry in states such as GA must be recognized by its GA counterpart before the UGLE will recognize GA PHA. I believe this is the case for any foreign jurisdiction.


----------



## MRichard (Sep 24, 2015)

Brother_Steve said:


> Recognition grants the ability for foreign jurisdictions to recognize both lodges operating in the same territory. It also allows masons of both GL's to speak masonically without fear of being expelled (confirmation needed)
> 
> PHA masonry in states such as GA must be recognized by its GA counterpart before the UGLE will recognize GA PHA. I believe this is the case for any foreign jurisdiction.



You can't engage in masonic conversation if it is recognition without visitation. You can't sit in lodge together.

This is generally the first step in the process and it is a way of getting UGLE recognition for the PHA lodges.


----------



## Ripcord22A (Sep 24, 2015)

Ok so im gonna say it....ITS NOT RACISM! Its the lineage that some GLs have a problem with.in some places yes its racisism as to why they wont recognize pha...however there are white mebers in PHA and black in mainstream.  One of my references for my petition was a WHITE princehall mason.  From the ft drum military lodge.  The Tiler of my lodge here in NM is black.  Here in NM officers from both GLs visit the others constituent lodges regulary.  My WM is in the process of setting up a visit of our lodge to visit a PHA lodge in Albuquerque and then for their lodge to vist ours.

If it was purely racism then they wouldnt allow blacks to join and vice versa.  Also they would recognize the white pha members...im jus sayin


----------



## Glen Cook (Sep 25, 2015)

MarkR said:


> I still don't understand the point of recognition without visitation.  What are they recognizing?  That each other exists?  The right of visitation is an ancient landmark.  If I can't visit your lodge and you can't visit mine, do we _really_ recognize each other?


Visutation is specifically not a right in Utah.


----------



## Dontrell Stroman (Sep 25, 2015)

Besides the brother that joined the lodge in Georgia, (that almost got disband) I don't know of many Regular GLs in the south that would accept blacks. I can name many lodges around where I live that won't even give petitions to non whites. But yet they have no problems accepting  Hispanics. Something else I never understood.


----------



## Dontrell Stroman (Sep 25, 2015)

jdmadsenCraterlake211 said:


> Ok so im gonna say it....ITS NOT RACISM! Its the lineage that some GLs have a problem with.in some places yes its racisism as to why they wont recognize pha...however there are white mebers in PHA and black in mainstream.  One of my references for my petition was a WHITE princehall mason.  From the ft drum military lodge.  The Tiler of my lodge here in NM is black.  Here in NM officers from both GLs visit the others constituent lodges regulary.  My WM is in the process of setting up a visit of our lodge to visit a PHA lodge in Albuquerque and then for their lodge to vist ours.
> 
> If it was purely racism then they wouldnt allow blacks to join and vice versa.  Also they would recognize the white pha members...im jus sayin


You might not agree brother, but just because something is lineage / tradition doesn't mean the history behind it wasn't somewhat racist / prejudice. There was a lot of things that happened years ago that was wrong then and it's still wrong now. The problem is, people have this mentality that "that's just the way it is, or we are trying to preserve our heritage." When you truly know better, you do better.


----------



## Dontrell Stroman (Sep 25, 2015)

I will say this, I dont won't to be recognized solely for the purpose of a GL trying to be politically correct. If a freemason doesn't truly see me as a brother then what's the point. I took the same obligation as they did. And I don't remember my ob, stating I will only help PHA masons, or I will only help mainstream masons. No, I will help any regular Freemason.


----------



## MRichard (Sep 25, 2015)

jdmadsenCraterlake211 said:


> Ok so im gonna say it....ITS NOT RACISM! Its the lineage that some GLs have a problem with.in some places yes its racisism as to why they wont recognize pha...however there are white mebers in PHA and black in mainstream.  One of my references for my petition was a WHITE princehall mason.  From the ft drum military lodge.  The Tiler of my lodge here in NM is black.  Here in NM officers from both GLs visit the others constituent lodges regulary.  My WM is in the process of setting up a visit of our lodge to visit a PHA lodge in Albuquerque and then for their lodge to vist ours.
> 
> If it was purely racism then they wouldnt allow blacks to join and vice versa.  Also they would recognize the white pha members...im jus sayin



Actually, it is racism. The lineage argument is BS. http://bessel.org/masrec/phaugle.htm
There were quite a few grand lodges that were formed irregularly and are recognized now with no issues at all but PHA is the only issue. And just because you have Blacks in mainstream lodges or even Whites in PHA, it doesn't mean there is no racism. Just means that not all lodges judge based on the external. But in some of these areas, it is very difficult for a Black person to join a mainstream lodge. It depends on where you are talking about of course. Might not be an issue at all in some places. But take a look at the Bessel map link I posted earlier. It speaks louder than words.


----------



## Warrior1256 (Sep 25, 2015)

MarkR said:


> I still don't understand the point of recognition without visitation.  What are they recognizing?  That each other exists?  The right of visitation is an ancient landmark.  If I can't visit your lodge and you can't visit mine, do we _really_ recognize each other?


Kind of confusing to me also.


----------



## Glen Cook (Sep 25, 2015)

jdmadsenCraterlake211 said:


> Ok so im gonna say it....ITS NOT RACISM! Its the lineage that some GLs have a problem with.in some places yes its racisism as to why they wont recognize pha...however there are white mebers in PHA and black in mainstream.  One of my references for my petition was a WHITE princehall mason.  From the ft drum military lodge.  The Tiler of my lodge here in NM is black.  Here in NM officers from both GLs visit the others constituent lodges regulary.  My WM is in the process of setting up a visit of our lodge to visit a PHA lodge in Albuquerque and then for their lodge to vist ours.
> 
> If it was purely racism then they wouldnt allow blacks to join and vice versa.  Also they would recognize the white pha members...im jus sayin


Both the Home GLs and CGMNA have found PHA to be regular.  That issue really has been put to bed.


----------



## MRichard (Sep 25, 2015)

You will not change a man once he reaches a certain age and he is not willing to change. Freemasonry is supposed to take good men and make them better. Sounds good in theory. Unfortunately, too many were not good men when they came in. West Gate.

This may sound harsh but I have heard it a few times. What is needed for change is masonic funerals and time. It does help to have a dialogue about it but that might sway a very few but it won't change anything. Patience.


----------



## Glen Cook (Sep 25, 2015)

MRichard said:


> You will not change a man once he reaches a certain age and he is not willing to change. Freemasonry is supposed to take good men and make them better. Sounds good in theory. Unfortunately, too many were not good men when they came in. West Gate.
> 
> This may sound harsh but I have heard it a few times. What is needed for change is masonic funerals and time. It does help to have a dialogue about it but that might sway a very few but it won't change anything. Patience.


This is not age related, in my experience


----------



## MRichard (Sep 25, 2015)

Glen Cook said:


> This is not age related, in my experience



I think it is a variable. The older a man gets, the less likely he is to change. There have been men who were racist at one time that came to realize that was the wrong way of thinking. So it is possible. I am talking about the likelihood of changing if you are that way. Just my opinion.


----------



## Glen Cook (Sep 25, 2015)

I'm confused. You were hoping for Masonic funerals.  That is usually an age related issue, unless you are going all bell tower on us


----------



## MRichard (Sep 25, 2015)

Glen Cook said:


> I'm confused. You were hoping for Masonic funerals.  That is usually an age related issue, unless you are going all bell tower on us



I didn't say I was hoping for masonic funerals. I said (and I have heard many others say the same), that will be the likely catalyst for change. That could be right or wrong. It's an opinion.


----------



## Bill Lins (Sep 25, 2015)

WARNING! If political incorrectness causes you to wet the bed, DO NOT READ THIS POST!

In my (rarely) humble opinion, any Grand Lodge which extends recognition based upon the regularity of another Grand Lodge but refuses to allow ALL the privileges attached thereto, including visitation, is guilty of unMasonic conduct and should be dealt with accordingly. 

You may now return to your normal programming.


----------



## MRichard (Sep 25, 2015)

Bill_Lins77488 said:


> WARNING! If political incorrectness causes you to wet the bed, DO NOT READ THIS POST!
> 
> In my (rarely) humble opinion, any Grand Lodge which extends recognition based upon the regularity of another Grand Lodge but refuses to allow ALL the privileges attached thereto, including visitation, is guilty of unMasonic conduct and should be dealt with accordingly.
> 
> You may now return to your normal programming.



Don't mess with the Bridge Builders! Are there any states that have recognition without visitation? Kentucky maybe?

I would say that any grand lodge that refers to another regular but unrecognized grand lodge as clandestine is engaging in unmasonic conduct. 

Recognition without visitation is not ideal but it is a starting point in the process.


----------



## Dontrell Stroman (Sep 26, 2015)

Well said brethren. All regular masons meet on the Level.


----------



## Glen Cook (Sep 26, 2015)

Bill_Lins77488 said:


> WARNING! If political incorrectness causes you to wet the bed, DO NOT READ THIS POST!
> 
> In my (rarely) humble opinion, any Grand Lodge which extends recognition based upon the regularity of another Grand Lodge but refuses to allow ALL the privileges attached thereto, including visitation, is guilty of unMasonic conduct and should be dealt with accordingly.
> 
> You may now return to your normal programming.


1.  In my even more rarely humble opinion, it is parlous for one Mason to decide what is unmasonic. Cook's corollary: the first one to use "unmasonic" in a debate loses.
2. Limited visitation appears to have become an accepted process in the recognition process. Remember also, visitation is not a right in all jurisdictions. 
3. And offending GLs will be dealt with by whom?


----------



## Warrior1256 (Sep 26, 2015)

MRichard said:


> Recognition without visitation is not ideal but it is a starting point in the process.


Agreed. Hopefully the visitation issue here in Kentucky will be worked out soon by both Grand Lodges.


----------



## Bill Lins (Sep 26, 2015)

Glen Cook said:


> 1.  In my even more rarely humble opinion, it is parlous for one Mason to decide what is unmasonic. Cook's corollary: the first one to use "unmasonic" in a debate loses.


You have yours, I have mine. Equal value to each.


Glen Cook said:


> 3. And offending GLs will be dealt with by whom?


In North America, COGMINA.


----------



## Bill Lins (Sep 26, 2015)

Glen Cook said:


> visitation is not a right in all jurisdictions.


Do I understand your statement correctly that there are regular & recognized GLs which do not permit their members to visit the constituent Lodges of other GLs with which they are in amity? If so, which GLs do not & by what reasoning do they prohibit such (excepting the curious situation of American GLs which have what I would call "partial recognition" with PHA GLs)?


----------



## Ripcord22A (Sep 26, 2015)

Bill_Lins77488 said:


> Do I understand your statement correctly that there are regular & recognized GLs which do not permit their members to visit the constituent Lodges of other GLs with which they are in amity? If so, which GLs do not & by what reasoning do they prohibit such (excepting the curious situation of American GLs which have what I would call "partial recognition" with PHA GLs)?


Yes.  UGLE is one.  You must get prior permission from them to visit.  Also from what i gather from WB Cooks previous posts, in Utah you dont have the right to visit even lodges within their own jurisdiction.


----------



## Glen Cook (Sep 26, 2015)

Bill_Lins77488 said:


> You have yours, I have mine. Equal value to each.
> 
> In North America, COGMINA.


CGMNA has no enforcement powers.


----------



## Glen Cook (Sep 26, 2015)

Bill_Lins77488 said:


> Do I understand your statement correctly that there are regular & recognized GLs which do not permit their members to visit the constituent Lodges of other GLs with which they are in amity? If so, which GLs do not & by what reasoning do they prohibit such (excepting the curious situation of American GLs which have what I would call "partial recognition" with PHA GLs)?


The other way around. Some GLs allow a lodge to prohibit a visitor.


----------



## Glen Cook (Sep 26, 2015)

jdmadsenCraterlake211 said:


> Yes.  UGLE is one.  You must get prior permission from them to visit.  Also from what i gather from WB Cooks previous posts, in Utah you dont have the right to visit even lodges within their own jurisdiction.


Well, you don't necessarily have to have prior permission, but it is a courtesy.  

UGLE BOC 126 allows the Master to refuse admission if he believes the visitor would be likely to disturb the harmony of s lodge.  

Utah section 3-9-1: Not a Right.  A Master Mason in good standing may be extended the privilege to visit any Lodge in this Jurisdiction, subject to the right of any member thereof to object to his admission as a member.


----------



## MarkR (Sep 27, 2015)

Glen Cook said:


> Well, you don't necessarily have to have prior permission, but it is a courtesy.
> 
> UGLE BOC 126 allows the Master to refuse admission if he believes the visitor would be likely to disturb the harmony of s lodge.
> 
> Utah section 3-9-1: Not a Right.  A Master Mason in good standing may be extended the privilege to visit any Lodge in this Jurisdiction, subject to the right of any member thereof to object to his admission as a member.


I see what you're saying.  In Minnesota, a member may object to a visitor as well (other than a Grand Lodge Officer.) That's different than the situation of recognition without visitation.  Those jurisdictions have a blanket prohibition on visitation between "mainstream" and PHA even though they have recognition, which I find strange and pointless.


----------



## Glen Cook (Sep 27, 2015)

MarkR said:


> I see what you're saying.  In Minnesota, a member may object to a visitor as well (other than a Grand Lodge Officer.) That's different than the situation of recognition without visitation.  Those jurisdictions have a blanket prohibition on visitation between "mainstream" and PHA even though they have recognition, which I find strange and pointless.


The underlying claim was that visitation is an ancient landmark. It clearly is not such


----------



## Brother JC (Sep 27, 2015)

As to visitation...
In California:
"A visitor shall not be admitted if, in the opinion of the Master, there is a valid objection to the admission by a member of the Lodge. The objection shall be made privately to the Master, stating the reason therefor. The Master’s decision shall be governed by his discretion and is final. He shall not disclose to the visitor, any member, or any other person the name of the member objecting, but he shall privately inform the visitor that a member objects."

In New Mexico:
"No visitor shall be admitted to a Lodge if a member thereof objects and such objection shall remain in force and effect for the communication only. Objection cannot be made to a Masonic official engaged in the discharge of his duties."


----------



## Bill Lins (Sep 27, 2015)

Glen Cook said:


> CGMNA has no enforcement powers.


No, but they do have the power of persuasion.


----------



## Bill Lins (Sep 27, 2015)

Glen Cook said:


> The other way around. Some GLs allow a lodge to prohibit a visitor.


OK- now I see to what you are referring- far afield from the original premise of this thread & my comment. GLoTX doesn't allow a Lodge to refuse admission from any proven Texas Mason in good standing, but the WM may exclude a visitor form another jurisdiction upon the objection of any member of the Lodge being visited. If three or more members object to the visitor, the WM must exclude him. (Art. 383)  This Article is currently being held in abeyance and, I suspect, will be either modified or repealed at our annual communication.


----------



## Glen Cook (Sep 27, 2015)

Bill_Lins77488 said:


> No, but they do have the power of persuasion.


Not in my experience.


----------



## Glen Cook (Sep 27, 2015)

Glen Cook said:


> Not in my experience.



I was responding to the claim that visitation is an ancient landmark. It clearly is not such


----------



## MarkR (Sep 28, 2015)

Glen Cook said:


> I was responding to the claim that visitation is an ancient landmark. It clearly is not such


I think you're splitting hairs.  An occasional denial of visitation under Grand Lodge rules, while still having a GENERAL right of visitation, is not at all the same thing as "recognition without visitation," where no visitation is permitted under any circumstances.  If I were to show up at your lodge, the presumption would be that I'd be permitted to visit, subject to any valid objection.  If a "mainstream" Kentucky Mason showed up at a Kentucky PHA lodge, or vice versa, the presumption is that they'd NOT be permitted to visit.

Visitation IS one of the Ancient Landmarks spelled out by Mackey (#14).  

*LANDMARK FOURTEENTH*

_
THE RIGHT OF EVERY MASON TO VISIT and sit in every regular Lodge is an unquestionable Landmark of the Order." This is called "the right of visitation." This right of visitation has always been recognized as an inherent right, which inures to every Mason as he travels through the world. And this is because Lodges are justly considered as only divisions for convenience of the universal Masonic family. It is right may, of course be impaired or forfeited on special occasions by various circumstances; but when admission is refused to a Mason in good standing, who knocks at the door of a Lodge as a visitor, it is to be expected that some good and sufficient reason shall be furnished for this violation, of what is in general a Masonic right, founded on the Landmarks of the Order._

The main page of the Grand Lodge of Utah says they promote the Ancient Landmarks.  I know that not every Grand Lodge has adopted all, or even any, of Mackey's list.  What Ancient Landmarks does Utah follow, since they say they promote them?


----------



## Dontrell Stroman (Sep 28, 2015)

MarkR said:


> I think you're splitting hairs.  An occasional denial of visitation under Grand Lodge rules, while still having a GENERAL right of visitation, is not at all the same thing as "recognition without visitation," where no visitation is permitted under any circumstances.  If I were to show up at your lodge, the presumption would be that I'd be permitted to visit, subject to any valid objection.  If a "mainstream" Kentucky Mason showed up at a Kentucky PHA lodge, or vice versa, the presumption is that they'd NOT be permitted to visit.
> 
> Visitation IS one of the Ancient Landmarks spelled out by Mackey (#14).
> 
> ...


Question : So if Prince Hall Affiliated masons are considered regular, why doesn't the ancient landmarks on  Mackey list extend to them ?


----------



## Glen Cook (Sep 28, 2015)

MarkR said:


> I think you're splitting hairs.  An occasional denial of visitation under Grand Lodge rules, while still having a GENERAL right of visitation, is not at all the same thing as "recognition without visitation," where no visitation is permitted under any circumstances.  If I were to show up at your lodge, the presumption would be that I'd be permitted to visit, subject to any valid objection.  If a "mainstream" Kentucky Mason showed up at a Kentucky PHA lodge, or vice versa, the presumption is that they'd NOT be permitted to visit.
> 
> Visitation IS one of the Ancient Landmarks spelled out by Mackey (#14).
> 
> ...


Utah does not have an approved list of landmarks.  Note the verb used: promote vice follow. As we specifically declare visitation is not a right, we don't seem to accept that as a Landmark. 

Just because Mackey wrote it doesn't make it right. This is demonstrated by your  note that if we  look at the various lists of Landmarks, we see divergence from Mackey's declaration as to Landmarks. I think the better analysis would be to review the various GL lists and determine which declare visitation to be a right. 

In Utah, no reason, let alone valid reason,  needs to be given to object to a member. UGLE simply requires a determination that admission would disturb the harmony of the lodge 

We may look to current practice to determine whether an item is, indeed, a landmark. As I recollect, OK, TX, KY and to a lesser extent, Utah, all began PHA recognition with limited recognition.  

I do agree we have an expectation of visitation.


----------



## Glen Cook (Sep 28, 2015)

Travelling Man91 said:


> Question : So if Prince Hall Affiliated masons are considered regular, why doesn't the ancient landmarks on  Mackey list extend to them ?


Not all GLs deem PHA regular. Not all GLs accept Mackey's landmarks.


----------



## Brother JC (Sep 28, 2015)

Mackey was merely an editor and author, not the ultimate source of knowledge. The NM Monitor has "The Landmarks," "The Ancient Charges," and "The Old Regulations," none of which are "law" in that Jurisdiction.


----------



## Glen Cook (Sep 28, 2015)

And, to be fair to Mackey, he was writing of rules in a small group of jurisdictions.  As GLs have multiplied, they have diverged in their jurisprudence.


----------



## MarkR (Sep 29, 2015)

Brother JC said:


> Mackey was merely an editor and author, not the ultimate source of knowledge.


While I'll agree that he's not "the ultimate source of knowledge," (Pike even disagreed with him on a lot of topics) he was considerably more influential than "merely an editor and author."


----------



## Warrior1256 (Sep 29, 2015)

Glen Cook said:


> A Master Mason in good standing may be extended the privilege to visit any Lodge in this Jurisdiction, subject to the right of any member thereof to object to his admission as a member.


I believe it is the same here in Kentucky.


----------



## dfreybur (Sep 30, 2015)

Bill_Lins77488 said:


> OK- now I see to what you are referring- far afield from the original premise of this thread & my comment. GLoTX doesn't allow a Lodge to refuse admission from any proven Texas Mason in good standing, but the WM may exclude a visitor form another jurisdiction upon the objection of any member of the Lodge being visited. If three or more members object to the visitor, the WM must exclude him. (Art. 383)  This Article is currently being held in abeyance and, I suspect, will be either modified or repealed at our annual communication.



Interesting.  I read that in the Texas rule book and got confused.  It read like Texas treated its entire jurisdiction as one lodge.  Visitation is a privilege not a right in my other jurisdictions, though it is extremely rare for a brother to disapprove.  Attendance in one's own lodge is a right, which is part of why the ballot is supposed to be unanimous.  Since brothers do not have the chance to exclude candidates in other lodges attendance can't be a right when visiting.

So it wasn't me who was confused (compared to other jurisdictions) it was the Texas rule book.  Just one of the many interesting variations jurisdiction to jurisdiction.


----------



## Bill Lins (Sep 30, 2015)

dfreybur said:


> Attendance in one's own lodge is a right, which is part of why the ballot is supposed to be unanimous.  Since brothers do not have the chance to exclude candidates in other lodges attendance can't be a right when visiting.


Now I am confused. There is nothing in GLoTX law that either requires or suggests that ballots be unanimous. A ballot can have any combination of blackballs and protests, not exceeding 2, and the vote will be held to be favorable. In addition, Brothers in other GLoTX Lodges *DO *have the opportunity to exclude candidates, either for the Degrees or for advancement, in other GLoTX Lodges.


----------



## Glen Cook (Sep 30, 2015)

Bill_Lins77488 said:


> .... There is nothing in GLoTX law that either requires or suggests that ballots be unanimous. A ballot can have any combination of blackballs and protests, .....


What is a protest in your jurisdiction?


----------



## dfreybur (Oct 1, 2015)

Bill_Lins77488 said:


> There is nothing in GLoTX law that either requires or suggests that ballots be unanimous.



I did use the word "supposed to" for this reason.  I figure a number of GLs have moved away from unanimous ballot to address the bug that with unanimous ballot one errant brother can reject a worthy candidate.  Different jurisdictions handle the problem differently, some choosing to let an occasional lodge fail from abuse, others dodging the landmark.  Having seen a lodge in one of my other jurisdictions struggle with this issue I don't object to requiring more than one cube.



> In addition, Brothers in other GLoTX Lodges *DO *have the opportunity to exclude candidates, either for the Degrees or for advancement, in other GLoTX Lodges.



Neither of us can travel to a Stated meeting in El Paso many hours away and be back in time to attend a Stated meeting across the state.  So our opportunity is limited.  Yet a brother from across the state can insist on attending.  This is a different bug, in this case one created by this rule in Texas.  Just another variation jurisdiction to jurisdiction to me.


----------



## Bill Lins (Oct 1, 2015)

Glen Cook said:


> What is a protest in your jurisdiction?


Had to go there, didn't you?  

*CHAPTER 3— TITLE IV  PROTESTS
Art. 421. (458).* *Against Whom Effective. *
The election of a candidate to receive the degrees or any of them, can be prevented or set aside by protests made to the Worshipful Master or any officer acting as Worshipful Master of a Lodge. A protest against the reinstatement to good standing in the Lodge of a former member or restoration to the status of a nonaffiliated Mason of a former member of another Lodge, convicted in said Lodge, who is laboring under a sentence of indefinite suspension or expulsion, for a Masonic disciplinary violation, other than for nonpayment of dues, shall be given effect by the Worshipful Master, or the officer acting as such, as a rejection of such petition as provided in Art. 627. Such protests cannot be withdrawn after they have been announced. (Revised 1992)
*Art. 422. (458a).* *Against Whom Not Effective.* 
A protest is not effective on a petition for affiliation; or on applications for a dimit; waiver of jurisdiction, certificate of dismissal; or for a certificate
of good standing.
*Art. 423. (462). When and By Whom Made.* 
Any member of a Lodge in this jurisdiction may protest, either orally or in writing, a candidate for any degree, either before or after his election. In each case the protestor must give clearly his name and the name, number and location of his Lodge. Protest may be made by telephone if the person called is satisfied as to the identity and qualification of the Protestor; in each such case the person called must in the same telephone conversation advise the caller whether or not the protest is accepted. The Worshipful Master or officer acting as Worshipful Master, shall not disclose the identity of the Brother who made the protest, but shall immediately upon receipt of the protest notify the Wardens and Secretary that it has been made. To be effective as to any petitioner for a degree, protests must be made after the petition is received by the Lodge and before conferring the degree has begun. (Revised 1992)
An outgoing Master is under duty to transmit to his successor all unannounced protests made to him. Only members in good standing of the acting Lodge may protest against reinstatement or restoration as authorized in Art. 627.
*Art. 423a. Separate and Joint Protests: Defined.* 
A separate protest is that made by an individual Brother to the Worshipful Master. A joint protest is that made by two or more Brethren who
simultaneously appear before the Worshipful Master and lodge a protest. Separate and joint protests shall have the same value or effect.
*Art. 424. (459). Withdrawn: When.* 
A protest may be withdrawn by a Brother who made it, at any time before it is announced, but not thereafter.
*Art. 425. (460). Effect of Protests.* 
A protest shall have the same effect and value and be counted as a blackball under Art. 418. Three protests, or a combination of protests and blackballs with a combined total of three shall reject for one year. Four protests, or a combination of protests and blackballs totaling four shall reject the petitioner for two years; five or more protests, or a combination of protests and blackballs having a collective total of five or more, shall reject the Petitioner for three years. (Revised 1992)
*Art. 426. (460a). Advancement After Protests.* 
When a candidate is protested after receiving the Entered Apprentice or Fellowcraft Degrees and wishes to advance after expiration of the time for which he was protested, he shall be required to present a new petition in writing for advancement and be reelected before he shall be permitted to advance. A committee on investigation and report shall be appointed and the petition shall lie over not less than one lunar month before the ballot is taken thereon. (Revised 1992)
*Art. 427. (461). Rejection Must Not Be Published.* 
The identity of rejected candidates shall not be published to the world.
*Art. 428. (463). Announcement of Protests.* 
When three or more protests are lodged against a petitioner for the degrees or a degree or for advancement, before his election thereto, no announcement thereof shall be made by the Worshipful Master, or officer acting as such, until after the ballot on said petition has been taken and the result announced. The Worshipful Master shall then announce that three or more protests have been lodged against the petitioner, stating the number of such protests, which shall be recorded in the minutes of said Lodge; provided that the Brethren making such protests were not present during the taking of the ballot on such petition. In case they are present during the balloting, the protests of such are as present shall be disregarded,
not counted, nor announced. (Revised 1992)
When three or more protests are lodged against a petitioner after his election to receive the degrees or a degree, it shall be the duty of the Worshipful Master, or officer acting as such, to announce said protests at the first meeting of the Lodge, whether it be a stated or called meeting and it shall be recorded in the minutes. (Revised 1992)
No degree shall be conferred on a protested candidate during the term of his rejection, after three or more protests have been lodged against him. (Revised 1992)
*Art. 429. Duty of Worshipful Master.* It shall be the imperative duty of the Worshipful Master, or officer acting as Worshipful Master, to recognize and announce three or more protests as provided in Art. 428 and a failure to do so shall constitute a Masonic Disciplinary violation for which he may be suspended from office by the Grand Master upon the filing of an allegation of Masonic disciplinary violation for such failure to act, if the Grand Master accepts the allegation. (Revised 2012)


----------



## Bill Lins (Oct 1, 2015)

dfreybur said:


> Neither of us can travel to a Stated meeting in El Paso many hours away and be back in time to attend a Stated meeting across the state.


That's why we have the right to protest.


----------



## dfreybur (Oct 2, 2015)

Bill_Lins77488 said:


> That's why we have the right to protest.



I noticed the quoted rules on protests do not extend to visitation nor do they describe a mechanism for knowing who are candidates across the state.  Strange that a jurisdictional difference of this sort ever came about as it's a minor bug in the system.


----------



## Bill Lins (Oct 2, 2015)

dfreybur said:


> I noticed the quoted rules on protests do not extend to visitation


That's in a different section:
*383. (419). Visitors Excluded: When.*
A visitor, who is not a member in good standing of a Lodge working under the jurisdiction of the Grand Lodge of Texas, may be excluded on the objection of a member of the Lodge at the discretion of the Worshipful Master. When three members make the objection, such visitor must be excluded.
Like objection may be made to a member of a Lodge working under the jurisdiction of the Grand Lodge of Texas only if such member is under charges preferred against him.

As I mentioned in an earlier post to this thread, this Article is currently held under abeyance and, I suspect, will be either repealed or drastically modified at the Grand Annual Communication in December.


----------



## MRichard (Oct 2, 2015)

Bill_Lins77488 said:


> That's in a different section:
> *383. (419). Visitors Excluded: When.*
> A visitor, who is not a member in good standing of a Lodge working under the jurisdiction of the Grand Lodge of Texas, may be excluded on the objection of a member of the Lodge at the discretion of the Worshipful Master. When three members make the objection, such visitor must be excluded.
> Like objection may be made to a member of a Lodge working under the jurisdiction of the Grand Lodge of Texas only if such member is under charges preferred against him.
> ...



Am I interpreting this right, if you are a member of a Lodge under the GLOT; you have a right to visit another lodge. Or can an objection be made to exclude you?


----------



## dfreybur (Oct 3, 2015)

MRichard said:


> Am I interpreting this right, if you are a member of a Lodge under the GLOT; you have a right to visit another lodge. Or can an objection be made to exclude you?



Which makes visitation a privilege in Texas as elsewhere if the rule were in effect.  Interesting that the section is currently excluded from enforcement.


----------



## Bill Lins (Oct 4, 2015)

MRichard said:


> Am I interpreting this right, if you are a member of a Lodge under the GLOT; you have a right to visit another lodge. Or can an objection be made to exclude you?


You are correct. Any member of a GLoTX Lodge who is not suspended or laboring under charges may visit any GLoTX Lodge and may NOT be prevented from entering, as long as he can successfully stand an examination or otherwise prove his status (normally by presenting a valid GLoTX dues card & a photo ID). Now, once he is in Lodge, he may be expelled if he disrupts the peace & harmony of the Lodge, just like a member of that Lodge could be.


----------



## Bill Lins (Oct 4, 2015)

dfreybur said:


> Which makes visitation a privilege in Texas as elsewhere if the rule were in effect.


No, visitation in GLoTX Lodges by other GLoTX Brethren is a RIGHT, not a privilege.


dfreybur said:


> Interesting that the section is currently excluded from enforcement.


The Grand Master was concerned that some of our less enlightened Brethren would use that Article to deny visitation to already-approved Texas PHA Brethren, so he ordered enforcement of the Article be suspended.
_
from the Grand Master of GLoTX in his letter of April 24, 2015, advising GLoTX Masons of the procedure to be followed when requesting visitation from or to TXPHA Lodges:_
"Consequently, once a Lodge agrees to accept a visitor from another Grand Jurisdiction through the prescribed visitation process, the provisions of Art. 383 of The Laws of the Grand Lodge of Texas and any other article dealing with inter-jurisdictional visitation do not apply and the visitor cannot be prohibited from visiting the Lodge."


----------



## Warrior1256 (Dec 21, 2015)

C


jdmadsenCraterlake211 said:


> If it was purely racism then they wouldnt allow blacks to join and vice versa. Also they would recognize the white pha members...im jus sayin


Certainly something to ponder.


----------



## MRichard (Dec 21, 2015)

Warrior1256 said:


> C
> 
> Certainly something to ponder.



Not really. The premise is flawed. It assumes that every lodge would be racist. That is certainly not the case. It only takes one ball in most states and maybe three in others. Talk about opening yourself up to lawsuits if you only recognized the white PHA members, that makes little sense.


----------



## ChicagolandMason (Dec 22, 2015)

I just joined in regards somewhat to this issue. I am NOT a racist but there were protesters with cameras outside the WCRMGL conference in SF last month trying to make us look like that. 





 (FYI--this is not me)

I refused to answer the questions and now I found a video of myself on the internet being made to look like a racist. Someone needs to do something. I own a business in Chicago and I can't afford the allegation of racism attached to me--these 'Black Lives Matter' guys or whatever will be at my doorstep asking for a boycott. What should we do?


----------



## coachn (Dec 22, 2015)

ChicagolandMason said:


> I just joined in regards somewhat to this issue. I am NOT a racist but there were protesters with cameras outside the WCRMGL conference in SF last month trying to make us look like that.
> 
> (FYI--this is not me)
> 
> I refused to answer the questions and now I found a video of myself on the internet being made to look like a racist. Someone needs to do something. I own a business in Chicago and I can't afford the allegation of racism attached to me--these 'Black Lives Matter' guys or whatever will be at my doorstep asking for a boycott. What should we do?


As I responded to your identical post elsewhere, forgive me for being suspicious, but this is your first post, your wording sounds contradictory and you should already know that anyone can accuse anyone else of just about anything.

Perhaps sharing who you are might be a good start.


----------



## MRichard (Dec 22, 2015)

ChicagolandMason said:


> I just joined in regards somewhat to this issue. I am NOT a racist but there were protesters with cameras outside the WCRMGL conference in SF last month trying to make us look like that.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



So where is the video of you since you said that wasn't you in the video posted? Not sure why Black Lives Matter would concern themselves with you since it seems they are only focused on a particular or specific issue.


----------



## Dontrell Stroman (Dec 22, 2015)

MRichard said:


> So where is the video of you since you said that wasn't you in the video posted? Not sure why Black Lives Matter would concern themselves with you since it seems they are only focused on a particular or specific issue.


I believe if you quit talking about it, it should die down like most things. The more it is brought up, the more this subject will be in the spot light.


----------



## Warrior1256 (Dec 22, 2015)

Travelling Man91 said:


> I believe if you quit talking about it, it should die down like most things. The more it is brought up, the more this subject will be in the spot light.


Absolutely!


----------



## MRichard (Dec 23, 2015)

Travelling Man91 said:


> I believe if you quit talking about it, it should die down like most things. The more it is brought up, the more this subject will be in the spot light.



Actually, he hasn't told us anything. No video of him that we are aware of. And unless, you were on video and gave them your real name; how would they know who you are? Something is off here. Coachn nailed it.


----------



## acjohnson53 (Apr 6, 2017)

Me myself I try not to think along those lines, and I blink a blind eye, but I teach my grandchildren, that all people are created equally, and my grandchildren are not better than the next person, the schools they belong to are very diverse, and I know that Master Masons been there because they have a monument on the campus, and I volunteer there every work. The reason I reference my grandchildren is because they my future. I don't want them to struggle with all that drama...and what made me proud to be a Master Mason is my Lodge don't discriminate...and we are PHA. No Lodge I ever been to goes thru stuff like that....So let's keep this conversation at a minimum I hate reliving the past...


----------



## MRichard (Apr 6, 2017)

acjohnson53 said:


> So let's keep this conversation at a minimum I hate reliving the past...



Might not be an issue where you live but that doesn't mean it's not a problem somewhere else. I could name you 9 states where it might be.


----------



## Bill Lins (Apr 8, 2017)

acjohnson53 said:


> the schools they belong to are very diverse, and I know that Master Masons been there because they have a monument on the campus


Can you tell us more about the monument, & maybe post some pictures, please?


----------

