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

Discussion in 'General Freemasonry Discussion' started by RedTemplar, Oct 18, 2016.

  1. MRichard

    MRichard Mark A. Ri'chard Premium Member

    846
    608
    113
    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.
     
  2. Glen Cook

    Glen Cook G A Cook Site Benefactor

    2,910
    3,345
    183
    But it is not primarily an American doctrine. Yes, it is used as an ostensible reason to deny recognition.
     
  3. MRichard

    MRichard Mark A. Ri'chard Premium Member

    846
    608
    113
    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?
     
    Travelling Man91 likes this.
  4. Travelling Man91

    Travelling Man91 Registered User

    983
    393
    63
    I don't understand why brothers can't face the fact and admit it boils down to racism plain and simple.

    Sent from my 831C using My Freemasonry mobile app
     
  5. Glen Cook

    Glen Cook G A Cook Site Benefactor

    2,910
    3,345
    183
    I think your question may be, Have GLs outside the US used ETJ to deny recognition based on race?

    Not to my recollection.
     
    MRichard likes this.
  6. MRichard

    MRichard Mark A. Ri'chard Premium Member

    846
    608
    113
    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.
     
  7. Glen Cook

    Glen Cook G A Cook Site Benefactor

    2,910
    3,345
    183
    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.
     
  8. MRichard

    MRichard Mark A. Ri'chard Premium Member

    846
    608
    113
    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.
     
  9. Glen Cook

    Glen Cook G A Cook Site Benefactor

    2,910
    3,345
    183
    That has nothing to do with ETJ. They can recognise 18 other GLs in their state.
     
  10. MRichard

    MRichard Mark A. Ri'chard Premium Member

    846
    608
    113
    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.
     
  11. Glen Cook

    Glen Cook G A Cook Site Benefactor

    2,910
    3,345
    183
    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.
     
  12. MRichard

    MRichard Mark A. Ri'chard Premium Member

    846
    608
    113
    Then why won't the 9 grand lodges recognize the PHA grand lodge in their state? What is their justification?
     
  13. Glen Cook

    Glen Cook G A Cook Site Benefactor

    2,910
    3,345
    183
    In the main, it is because of bigotry

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

    MRichard Mark A. Ri'chard Premium Member

    846
    608
    113
    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.
     
  15. Glen Cook

    Glen Cook G A Cook Site Benefactor

    2,910
    3,345
    183
    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 likes this.
  16. MRichard

    MRichard Mark A. Ri'chard Premium Member

    846
    608
    113
    Thanks Brother Cooks. Will do.
     
  17. Travelling Man91

    Travelling Man91 Registered User

    983
    393
    63
    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
     
    alterian likes this.
  18. Travelling Man91

    Travelling Man91 Registered User

    983
    393
    63
    Do any of you brothers every try to reach out to these GLS that refuse to recognize PHA and see what their reasoning is ?

    Sent from my 831C using My Freemasonry mobile app
     
  19. Travelling Man91

    Travelling Man91 Registered User

    983
    393
    63
    Why can't other GLS that recognize PHA say to heck with these GLS that refuse to recognize and recognize them anyways ?

    Sent from my 831C using My Freemasonry mobile app
     
  20. MRichard

    MRichard Mark A. Ri'chard Premium Member

    846
    608
    113
    Each grand lodge is sovereign. It would be inappropriate for me to contact another grand lodge about their rules and regulations.
     

Share My Freemasonry