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!

Mutual Recognition in TX??

Jamarr/G\

Registered User
Question brothers!
Does Texas Recognize PHA?
And is Visitation allowed and mutual?
MM from TN just moved here to TX and being accepted in a Lodge here now
 

Bro. Stewart P.M.

Lead Moderator Emeritus
Staff Member
The Most Worshipful Grand Lodge of Texas A.F.&A.M. does recognize the Most Worshipful Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Texas P.H.A..

At this time it is mutual jurisdiction recognition, without visitation privileges.
 

Jamarr/G\

Registered User
Thanks for the info brother. Had to make sure of it. In TN there is no recognition between us at all.
 

MBC

Twice Registered User
Premium Member
I have a weird logic again brethren.
If your GL approve mutual GL memberships,
Can a brother in Texas(no matter "mainstream" or PHA) joins the Internet Lodge no.9659 in UGLE. When becoming a UGLE member, they have the rights to visit other one?
 

crono782

Premium Member
You are still required to submit to the laws of your jurisdiction. If you join a lodge under another grand one, that doesn't negate the former. Is that what you're asking?
 

MBC

Twice Registered User
Premium Member
No. I mean that they don't have visitation between both sides of jurisdictions. However, they have visitation granted to UGLE members.

If you are a PHA Mason, you cannot directly visit to the "mainstream" one.
And if you have another identity of UGLE Mason, as they granted the right of visit to UGLE masons, then I think you can have the right to visit.

However I'm not sure in practice. In theoretically it can works I think.

Sorry for poor grammar and wordings... My brain stop working in weekends.
 
Last edited:

Brother JC

Moderating Staff
Staff Member
First, a member of the MWPHGLTX is forbidden plural membership, so they can't join 9659. Second is the fore-mentioned jurisdictional issue. All three of my GLs recognize PHTX, but if I tried to visit one of their lodges, I would still risk backlash and possible trial.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MBC

MBC

Twice Registered User
Premium Member
First, a member of the MWPHGLTX is forbidden plural membership, so they can't join 9659. Second is the fore-mentioned jurisdictional issue. All three of my GLs recognize PHTX, but if I tried to visit one of their lodges, I would still risk backlash and possible trial.
Right then, how about GLoTX? Are they forbidden plural membership?
 

crono782

Premium Member
Yah that's what I thought you meant. Basically I was saying that if you hold member ship in two jurisdictions, one which allows visitation and one which does not, the allowed visitation in one does not shield you from the repercussions of breaking the same rule in the other.

That's the downside of different grand jurisdictions.
 

Jamarr/G\

Registered User
Yah that's what I thought you meant. Basically I was saying that if you hold member ship in two jurisdictions, one which allows visitation and one which does not, the allowed visitation in one does not shield you from the repercussions of breaking the same rule in the other.

That's the downside of different grand jurisdictions.


Well Put bro.
 

dfreybur

Premium Member
Right then, how about GLoTX? Are they forbidden plural membership?

We allow multiple memberships. I hold membership in California, Illinois and Texas. In MWPHGLofTX there may be options. They have "associate membership" which sounds like different terminology for the same thing. It would be necessary to read their book of constitutions carefully.

Here we see a mixture of two issues. Recognition among jurisdictions and multiple affiliation rules within a single jurisdiction.
 
Top