Traveling

MRichard · Aug 17, 2015

Levelhead said:
Tired of always hearing and every topic turn into a race thing.

Sent from Mossy Oak Swamp Bottom.

Every topic or this topic regarding recognition. I don't recall race being a factor in most.

MRichard · Aug 17, 2015

Levelhead said:
Just cause i cant sit in your lodge dont mean were not both widows sons and brothers.

Are you referring to me and my grand lodge or is that just a statement in general? The main issue is recognition. You can have a recognition agreement without visitation.

Levelhead · Aug 17, 2015

General statement.

Sent from Mossy Oak Swamp Bottom.

LAMason · Aug 17, 2015

MRichard said:
In the states with no recognition, the Prince Hall grand lodges are regular but unrecognized. It is really borderline unmasonic to call a regular grand lodge clandestine. Some people wouldn't use the borderline. Yet, some of these states do. But there is no racism at all. Yeah right!

Here is a scenario:

A Lodge that has a Charter from a recognized regular Grand Lodge, so it is a regular constituent Lodge of that Grand Lodge.

It decides that it wants to form it own Grand Lodge, so it breaks with its chartering Grand Lodge, forms two other lodges and issues them a charter and then joins with the two lodges it chartered to form a Grand Lodge.

So, would you consider that Grand Lodge, its lodges, and members to be regular?

Levelhead · Aug 17, 2015

The only lodge ill sit in is lodges recognized by my home lodge. I abide by all the laws, rules regulations of my grand lodge.

Sent from Mossy Oak Swamp Bottom.

MRichard · Aug 17, 2015

LAMason said:
Here is a scenario:

A Lodge that has a Charter from a recognized regular Grand Lodge, so it is a regular constituent Lodge of that Grand Lodge.

It decides that it wants to form it own Grand Lodge, so it breaks with its chartering Grand Lodge, forms two other lodges and issues them a charter and then joins with the two lodges it chartered to form a Grand Lodge.

So, would you consider that Grand Lodge, its lodges, and members to be regular?

That scenario has already played out. Prince Hall Origin. They are not regular anymore.

MRichard · Aug 17, 2015

Levelhead said:
The only lodge ill sit in is lodges recognized by my home lodge. I abide by all the laws, rules regulations of my grand lodge.

Sent from Mossy Oak Swamp Bottom.

Everybody has to do the same. Your Obligation.

Levelhead · Aug 17, 2015

You know what i would love to see.

They should make one week a year (to start) called intervisitation week.

During this week prince hall can visit mainstream and mainstream can visit prince hall.

I bet this would put a new view on brotherhood.

Sent from Mossy Oak Swamp Bottom.

MRichard · Aug 17, 2015

Levelhead said:
You know what i would love to see.

They should make one week a year (to start) called intervisitation week.

During this week prince hall can visit mainstream and mainstream can visit prince hall.

I bet this would put a new view on brotherhood.

Sent from Mossy Oak Swamp Bottom.

I don't see how that would be possible in the states without recognition agreements. In the vast majority of states, it is not an issue.

LAMason · Aug 17, 2015

MRichard said:
That scenario has already played out. Prince Hall Origin. They are not regular anymore.

So, you do not know that PHO and PHA share the same lineage to African Lodge #459 which did exactly what was outlined in the scenario I put forward:

"In 1797 African Lodge, contrary to the terms of its warrant and the English Book of Constitutions by which it was bound, gave authority to two groups of men to meet as Lodges: African Lodge No. 459B to meet at Philadelphia in Pennsylvania and Hiram Lodge (without a number) to meet at Providence, Rhode island. Authority may have been given to others after 1808." http://bessel.org/masrec/phaugle.htm

So why do you consider PHA to be regular but not PHO?

MRichard · Aug 17, 2015

LAMason said:
So, you do not know that PHO and PHA share the same lineage to African Lodge #459 which did exactly what was outlined in the scenario I put forward:

"In 1797 African Lodge, contrary to the terms of its warrant and the English Book of Constitutions by which it was bound, gave authority to two groups of men to meet as Lodges: African Lodge No. 459B to meet at Philadelphia in Pennsylvania and Hiram Lodge (without a number) to meet at Providence, Rhode island. Authority may have been given to others after 1808." http://bessel.org/masrec/phaugle.htm

So why do you consider PHA to be regular but not PHO?

I don't know how you came to that conclusion. Of course, I knew and maybe that is why I said that scenario has already played out when discussing the scenario you laid out. I don't determine the landmarks, they have already been established. PHA is also recognized by the UGLE except in 8 or 9 states whereas PHO is not. Please look at the UGLE website and show me one PHO grand lodge that has been recognized. http://www.ugle.org.uk/about/foreign-grand-lodges

MRichard · Aug 17, 2015

dfreybur · Aug 17, 2015

LAMason said:
A Lodge that has a Charter from a recognized regular Grand Lodge, so it is a regular constituent Lodge of that Grand Lodge.

It decides that it wants to form it own Grand Lodge, so it breaks with its chartering Grand Lodge, forms two other lodges and issues them a charter and then joins with the two lodges it chartered to form a Grand Lodge.

So, would you consider that Grand Lodge, its lodges, and members to be regular?

You understand that's not the history of PHA, right?

African 459 remained in touch with the Premier GL of England. They kept sending reports but were ignored. Lacking response they did what they could in the face of expanding and dispersing membership. They continued sending reports to the Premier GLoE but were ignored. By then they were also being ignored internal to the US. As they had a quorum they founded their own GL. The American Principle of Exclusive Jurisdiction is NOT a landmark and as such they remained regular from the beginning on.

So the example you offer is that of PHO which is not regular in origin. PHO went out of business and the name was resurrected, giving the organization a "sounds good but not valid" origin story. I would still love PHO brothers individually, PHO lodges collectively, even entire PHO jurisdictions to apply for healing.

MRichard · Aug 17, 2015

LAMason said:
So, you do not know that PHO and PHA share the same lineage to African Lodge #459 which did exactly what was outlined in the scenario I put forward:

"In 1797 African Lodge, contrary to the terms of its warrant and the English Book of Constitutions by which it was bound, gave authority to two groups of men to meet as Lodges: African Lodge No. 459B to meet at Philadelphia in Pennsylvania and Hiram Lodge (without a number) to meet at Providence, Rhode island. Authority may have been given to others after 1808." http://bessel.org/masrec/phaugle.htm

So why do you consider PHA to be regular but not PHO?

You did leave out some important details from that same site.

"1. On 29 September 1784 a warrant was granted by the premier Grand Lodge of England to 15 men in Boston, Massachusetts (including Bro Hall, whose first name was Prince) forming them into African Lodge, No. 459 on the English Register."

"RESOLUTION FOR GRAND LODGE

The Grand Registrar to move that, notwithstanding its unusual formation, the Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Massachusetts should now be accepted as regular, and be recognised.

[This resolution was adopted by the United Grand Lodge of England in December 1994.]"

LAMason · Aug 17, 2015

dfreybur said:
As they had a quorum they founded their own GL

By quorum do you mean African Lodge No. 459B and Hiram Lodge? They were never considered regular by the UGLE?

dfreybur said:
they remained regular from the beginning on

Then why did the UGLE deny recognition only six years before the 1994 ruling?

dfreybur said:
PHO went out of business and the name was resurrected

I do not claim to be an expert on the PHO/PHA origin controversy, but Alton Roundtree certainly is and the Forward to his book Out of the Shadows by Brent S. Morris says: "The book gives a detailed account of the history of the NGL, concluding that the NGL was never dissolved, and that its 27 State Grand Lodges, designated "Prince Hall Origin" (PHO), are therefore regular. They have 300 lodges with about 5000 members." http://www.freemasons-freemasonry.com/libro_bessel_Shadows.html

Just because the UGLE and other Grand Lodges decide to modify and ignore longstanding Standards of Recognition does not mean that other Grand Lodges have to do the same.

dfreybur · Aug 17, 2015

LAMason said:
So you want to create a recognition war between State Grand Lodges that have recognized each other for decades. And how could this be good for Freemasonry in the U S?

It's not a war when no one gets killed and one side laughs at the other. It is a scenario that already played out when GLofCT recognized MWPHGLofCT so there is already precedent for it turning out well.

An end to the American idea of racism is good for fraternity and society in general, even if in the form of official Masonic recognition by more states.

MRichard said:
Funny how you keep saying that but yet you couldn't answer any of the questions I asked you earlier or provide any examples.

The process should work for a lot of states -

Go to a GL library (might be on line) and find the list of offers of recognition. See if there are any missing states that have local recognition. See if there are separate lists of recognition offers returned and of recognition offers ignored. If there is a list of recognition offers ignored try to find some other reason; good luck with that. If there is not list of recognition offers ignored go to the libraries of each of those jurisdictions and find their list too cross reference. Any missing returned offers of recognition try to find some other reason; good luck with that.

My example of the list of ignored offers of recognition appears in every Proceedings from GLofCA in recent years. California misses the mark by failing to offer recognition to two states. I wrote to the Gr Sec last year to see if this is a listing oversight and I await the 2015 Proceedings to see if the list is corrected. Twelve PHA jurisdictions have returned the California offer covering 18 states. Seventeen PHA jurisdictions miss the mark by failing to return California's offer of recognition.

I am also a member in Illinois. Illinois uses the blanket recognition system so they recognize all states that have local recognition. I've looked but I never found in Illinois records any list of which states return the recognition and which do not. Because I know the list for California is not complete I have not attempted such a list for Illinois because that would entail research in the libraries of 27 PHA juridictions covering 35 states. And I already know the approximate result based on the California outcome.

When folks state the problem goes in both directions, numerical tabulation by direction confirm that is correct. Both branches of our family need to get our houses in order all over the country.

MRichard · Aug 17, 2015

LAMason said:
Just because the UGLE and other Grand Lodges decide to modify and ignore longstanding Standards of Recognition does not mean that other Grand Lodges have to do the same.

Excuses, excuses.

Let's look at this map and see where are these 9 states without recognition. http://bessel.org/masrec/phamap.htm
Oh my goodness. These are states in the deep south with the exception of WV. Most were Confederate states with the exception of WV.

LAMason · Aug 17, 2015

MRichard said:
You did leave out some important details from that same site.

"1. On 29 September 1784 a warrant was granted by the premier Grand Lodge of England to 15 men in Boston, Massachusetts (including Bro Hall, whose first name was Prince) forming them into African Lodge, No. 459 on the English Register."

"RESOLUTION FOR GRAND LODGE

The Grand Registrar to move that, notwithstanding its unusual formation, the Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Massachusetts should now be accepted as regular, and be recognised.

[This resolution was adopted by the United Grand Lodge of England in December 1994.]"

I never said that African Lodge No. 459 was not originally a regular lodge warranted/chartered by the Grand Lodge of England, but when they began chartering other lodges without authority their warrant/charter was no longer valid.

I also never said that the UGLE did not recognize them, but the UGLE hold no special authority in determining recognition. They like every other Grand Lodge can only decide what Grand Lodges they recognize.

LAMason · Aug 17, 2015

MRichard said:
Excuses, excuses.

No, just facts.

MRichard · Aug 17, 2015

LAMason said:
I never said that African Lodge No. 459 was not originally a regular lodge warranted/chartered by the Grand Lodge of England, but when they began chartering other lodges without authority their warrant/charter was no longer valid.

I also never said that the UGLE did not recognize them, but the UGLE hold no special authority in determining recognition. They like every other Grand Lodge can only decide what Grand Lodges they recognize.

Without acknowledging that they faced extenuating circumstances that no other grand lodge has probably ever faced is part of the problem.

Search

Search

Traveling

MRichard

Mark A. Ri'chard

MRichard

Mark A. Ri'chard

Levelhead

LAMason

Levelhead

MRichard

Mark A. Ri'chard

MRichard

Mark A. Ri'chard

Levelhead

MRichard

Mark A. Ri'chard

LAMason

MRichard

Mark A. Ri'chard

MRichard

Mark A. Ri'chard

dfreybur

MRichard

Mark A. Ri'chard

LAMason

dfreybur

MRichard

Mark A. Ri'chard

LAMason

LAMason

MRichard

Mark A. Ri'chard