Hi JTM.
that's a confusing statement. the GLoTX has plenty of GLs that it doesn't allow visitation to (and more especially - and it's the same thing - visitation/communication).
Oh? Actually I'm finding your statement rather confusing too ... evidently there's some mis-communication here somewhere. Let's try to clarify, because now I'm really confused about what GLoTX policy is. What I'm trying to find out is what is the normal policy, as opposed to what might happen in a few special cases.
Is it or is it not the case that the form of recognition practiced by GLoTX normally includes visiting and dual affiliation? My understanding hitherto has been that the answer is yes.
In other words, does GLoTX normally include visiting and dual affiliation as part of recognition except when the other GL doesn't want it? Or is it the case that even if the other GL is happy to have visiting and dual affiliation, GLoTX is usually likely to refuse it and insist on only nominal recognition?
all masonic grand lodges that i know allow and disallow certain grand lodges membership and visitation
As an example of a GL which doesn't do recognition treaties without visitation and membership, there's my own in UGLE. In our rulebook, these rights follow automatically from recognition. Sometimes we have temporary suspensions of visiting rights and so on, when there's some dispute going on, but only as a temporary measure by edict,
not as a permanent restriction built into the recognition agreement. If UGLE isn't happy to allow full-scale recognition with all the rights, then it simply doesn't recognise at all.
Our guiding principle in this is the equality of brotherhood: if we recognise him, then a Brother is a Brother and will be received as such, but if we can't receive him as a Brother, then he's not recognised as being a Brother at all. I suppose it's conceivable that sometime in history we may have signed a recognition treaty on some other basis than this, but I can't think of any example of us doing so.
it's part of the obligation. regularity in obligation is a requirement for recognition.
I'm not sure where the Obligation comes into this issue. Perhaps there's something in your Ob which isn't in mine? Of course I'm obligated to have masonic communication only with recognised Brothers, but there's nothing in my Obligation which subdivides recognition into different categories of partial recognition, it's pretty much an all-or-nothing issue for us: a guy is a Brother, or he's not. Is it different in your Ob?
T & F,
Huw