My Freemasonry | Freemason Information and Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Grand Lodge of Ky and Most Worshipful Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Ky now have visitation

MRichard

Mark A. Ri'chard
Premium Member
That wasn't the point of my post. I was addressing the contention that the idea of jurisdictional sovereignty is somehow primarily an American idea. It most certainly isn't. And of course, Grand Lodges can agree to share a jurisdiction, it happens all over the world.

Well the point of my post is that it is primarily an American doctrine (exclusive jurisdiction) when used to deny another grand lodge recognition when the primary reason they exist is due to the past actions of said grand lodge.
 

Glen Cook

G A Cook
Site Benefactor
Well the point of my post is that it is primarily an American doctrine (exclusive jurisdiction) when used to deny another grand lodge recognition when the primary reason they exist is due to the past actions of said grand lodge.
But it is not primarily an American doctrine. Yes, it is used as an ostensible reason to deny recognition.
 

MRichard

Mark A. Ri'chard
Premium Member
But it is not primarily an American doctrine. Yes, it is used as an ostensible reason to deny recognition.

I did mention when used. I haven't heard of grand lodges denying entry to certain races to the point where the men are forced to form a grand lodge and then the grand lodges in question use exclusive jurisdiction. Where else has that happened?
 

Glen Cook

G A Cook
Site Benefactor
I did mention when used. I haven't heard of grand lodges denying entry to certain races to the point where the men are forced to form a grand lodge and then the grand lodges in question use exclusive jurisdiction. Where else has that happened?
I think your question may be, Have GLs outside the US used ETJ to deny recognition based on race?

Not to my recollection.
 

MRichard

Mark A. Ri'chard
Premium Member
I think your question may be, Have GLs outside the US used ETJ to deny recognition based on race?

Not to my recollection.

Not exactly my question. I will not claim that the use of exclusive jurisdiction is solely based on race because you can't really prove it. But it is clear why there was a need for the PHA grand lodges? My point was that the PHA grand lodges were created because of race. It seems somewhat disingenuous to use exclusive jurisdiction when you or your predecessors created the problem in the first place.

If PHA was created for other reasons, I wouldn't really have a problem with the exclusive jurisdiction doctrine.
 

Glen Cook

G A Cook
Site Benefactor
Not exactly my question. I will not claim that the use of exclusive jurisdiction is solely based on race because you can't really prove it. But it is clear why there was a need for the PHA grand lodges? My point was that the PHA grand lodges were created because of race. It seems somewhat disingenuous to use exclusive jurisdiction when you or your predecessors created the problem in the first place.

If PHA was created for other reasons, I wouldn't really have a problem with the exclusive jurisdiction doctrine.
I have seen ETJ used in cases other than race. The NY DC issue over Lebanon comes to mind.

For the GLs who are withholding recognition of PHA GLs who are not in Amity with their state grand Lodge counterpart, ETJ is in operation, but is not racially motivated for those grand lodges, as seen by their recognition of other PHA GLs.
 

MRichard

Mark A. Ri'chard
Premium Member
For the GLs who are withholding recognition of PHA GLs who are not in Amity with their state grand Lodge counterpart, ETJ is in operation, but is not racially motivated for those grand lodges, as seen by their recognition of other PHA GLs.

I wasn't even referring to those grand lodges. My point of reference is the 9 grand lodges that won't recognize the PHA grand lodge in their state.
 

Glen Cook

G A Cook
Site Benefactor
I wasn't even referring to those grand lodges. My point of reference is the 9 grand lodges that won't recognize the PHA grand lodge in their state.
That has nothing to do with ETJ. They can recognise 18 other GLs in their state.
 

MRichard

Mark A. Ri'chard
Premium Member
That has nothing to do with ETJ. They can recognise 18 other GLs in their state.

Not understanding your logic when most of those grand lodges are using exclusive jurisdiction as the reason they won't recognize the PHA grand lodge in their state.
 

Glen Cook

G A Cook
Site Benefactor
Not understanding your logic when most of those grand lodges are using exclusive jurisdiction as the reason they won't recognize the PHA grand lodge in their state.
I do not understand that to be the ostensible reason they use. ETJ does not prevent recognition within a jurisdiction. If it did, other SGLs could not recognise their PHA counterparts. UGLE could not share South Africa and Argentina.
 

MRichard

Mark A. Ri'chard
Premium Member
I do not understand that to be the ostensible reason they use. ETJ does not prevent recognition within a jurisdiction. If it did, other SGLs could not recognise their PHA counterparts. UGLE could not share South Africa and Argentina.

Then why won't the 9 grand lodges recognize the PHA grand lodge in their state? What is their justification?
 

Glen Cook

G A Cook
Site Benefactor
Then why won't the 9 grand lodges recognize the PHA grand lodge in their state? What is their justification?
In the main, it is because of bigotry

There are three PHA GLs apparently in Amity with GLdF. That is problematic.
 

MRichard

Mark A. Ri'chard
Premium Member
In the main, it is because of bigotry

There are three PHA GLs apparently in Amity with GLdF. That is problematic.

I knew that was the reason. I have seen a lot of members from those grand lodges cite exclusive jurisdiction as the reason.

So there are 3 in amity with GLdF, what about the other 6? Those 3 should just withdraw recognition. Problem solved.
 

Glen Cook

G A Cook
Site Benefactor
I knew that was the reason. I have seen a lot of members from those grand lodges cite exclusive jurisdiction as the reason.

So there are 3 in amity with GLdF, what about the other 6? Those 3 should just withdraw recognition. Problem solved.
Can't disagree.

When they try the ETJ, ask why they haven't withdrawn recognition of UGLE which shares jurisdictions, California, Utah.. If you want, bring me in on the conversation.
 

MRichard

Mark A. Ri'chard
Premium Member
Can't disagree.

When they try the ETJ, ask why they haven't withdrawn recognition of UGLE which shares jurisdictions, California, Utah.. If you want, bring me in on the conversation.

Thanks Brother Cooks. Will do.
 

Dontrell Stroman

Premium Member
I believe PHA was created due to segregation and racial inequality. I recently heard a gentleman state there was no longer a need for PHA. I beg to differ. As long as there are GLS and subordinate lodges that refuse to admit a man based on the color of his skin there will be a need for PHA masons.

Sent from my 831C using My Freemasonry mobile app
 
Top