Having many masters?

Discussion in 'Masonic Jurisprudence' started by Mac, Jul 19, 2011.

  1. Michael Hatley

    Michael Hatley Premium Member

    461
    49
    28
    I hope visitation between PHA and F&A is squared away this year at GL. And if it isn't, I'll keep hoping for it. And saying so to every mason I meet.

    Occam's Razor to cut through that particular issue, anyway.
     
  2. Beathard

    Beathard Premium Member

    1,627
    18
    0
    It is not confusing. It is clear cut. According to the Grand Lodge of Texas, you are required to follow the rules of the Grand Lodge where you are. It is based on physical presence not residence. If you are in Kansas you follow Kansas rules. If you are in Texas you follow Texas rules. If you belong to both Texas and Kansas and you are in Texas, you follow Texas rules, not Kansas.
     
  3. Mac

    Mac Moderator Premium Member

    542
    25
    18
    Beathard, that makes perfect sense except when you discuss membership in outside organizations. I understand you can't visit PHA in Texas, regardless of home Grand Lodge, but technically you're not supposed to be a member of the Widow's Sons while in Texas, right? I'll have to look at the Edict, but does that mean Widow's Sons can't visit our Lodges? Or can they and just say "I'm not a WS today."
     
  4. Beathard

    Beathard Premium Member

    1,627
    18
    0
    No, you cannot hold membership in Widows Sons and be a Texas mason period. Visitors to Texas are members from other states. Texas can say they can't dual, but they can visit. Out of respect they shouldn't mention that affiliation, but it does not prevent their visit.

    When a person visits we check their lodge membership, not their affiliations.
     
    Last edited: Jul 24, 2011
  5. WarriorProphet

    WarriorProphet Registered User

    18
    0
    0
    Exactly, and especially if you are a member in Texas and Kansas, because if you violate Texas grand lodge law you can be suspended, and and if suspended in one, and suspended in all, the vis a vis Kansas membership suspended too.

     
  6. chancerobinson

    chancerobinson Registered User

    61
    2
    6
    This evening I ran across Chapter 2 Title V Art. 505 (4) which states It shall be a Masonic disciplinary violation for a Lodge, a committee or any combination of Masons, or an individual Mason to: Publish or print, or participate in the publishing or printing, or advertising in, subscribe for or, solicit advertisement or subscriptions for, or otherwise knowingly aid, any publication not authorized under the Laws of the Grand Lodge of Texas and approved by the Grand Master, which publication uses the word "Masonry," "Masons," or any derivations of such word, in the title, slogan, catch word or advertisements of such publication, or any insignia, emblems, hieroglyphs, or Masonic picturization as a part of the format of such publication or which purports to be for or in the interest of Masons or Masonry, except as permitted under the immediately preceding subparagraph.

    Need less to say I hope that my interpretation on this matter is wrong, but it seems that a subscription to Philalethes magazine or any other magazine not specifically listed in 225a is a Masonic offense.
     
    Last edited: Jul 28, 2011
  7. Mac

    Mac Moderator Premium Member

    542
    25
    18
    It seems like the law needs to be updated to deal with a rapidly changing world that uses the internet. If I subscribe to this website's feed, is that like subscribing to something described in your quote from the law book?

    I can only hope no mason would ever be charged with something because he subscribed to a scholarly journal that wasn't printed in the law book. Maybe a resolution should be submitted that would allow masons to join these organizations unless specifically forbidden in "the following paragraph," and just list the groups the Grand Lodge doesn't like. Seems like that would be a much shorter list.
     
  8. LukeD

    LukeD Registered User

    171
    0
    0
    So, basically the GLoT states what I can and can't read when it comes to Masonic material. I really hope I missed something. I know certain material is not allowed in a Lodge room, or even on the premises, but what I read in my own home is my choice and right. I'll have to look into this more, I just picked up the law book with the updates.
     
  9. chancerobinson

    chancerobinson Registered User

    61
    2
    6
    Upon further review...

    the preceding paragraph "essentially rescinds this paragraph" (my words) by stating:

    except ...


    ... that such regulations shall not apply to



    a.) Masonic supplies;
    b.) Masonic books, journals, or other such periodicals;
    c.) Masonic Temple Associations, cemetery associations;
    d.) Employment and relief bureaus under the control of lodges under this Grand Lodge;
    e.) Masonic tombstones and/or cornerstones; etc.

    This is my really abbreviated version of the article and should not be quoted, but you can read Article 505 (3) and (4) for your self to clear this up.

    For me it took calling another brother more knowledgeable than I for clarification ... this is why I am not a lawyer nor do I wish to be one.

    In conclusion (by my understanding) you may subscribe or publish/edit Masonic journals, periodicals, etc. but you may not join an organization predicated on being a Master Mason unless it is listed in Article 225a.
     
  10. chancerobinson

    chancerobinson Registered User

    61
    2
    6
    My apologies for causing more confusion by bringing up article 505 (4) as Brother Lins had already previously provided the correct answer to my question.

     
  11. Huw

    Huw Guest

    0
    0
    0
    Hi All, and especially Bro. Beathard.

    Sorry to "unclarify" things, but the general situation is more complicated than you imply.

    Since it appears that GLTX has a specific rule which says "host GL law applies instead" when visiting out of State, what Beathard says is therefore correct for GLTX members. But it's not necessarily correct for others, and it can cease to be correct for you if you dual-affiliate outside Texas.

    However, NOT all GLs have a rule saying "host GL law applies instead". If you're a member of a GL which doesn't have this rule, then the default worldwide masonic jurisprudence is that the law of your OWN GL still applies to you wherever you are.

    For example, since I'm a UGLE member, and since UGLE doesn't have a "host GL law applies instead" rule, I'm still under UGLE rules if I visit Texas. Which means I can visit both GLTX and PHATX, because we exchange full visiting rights with both, even though you can't visit one another. BUT if UGLE had a "host GL law applies instead" rule, then BOTH GLTX and PHATX would be my host jurisdictions, so I'd be under the rules of both, which means that I wouldn't be able to visit in Texas AT ALL - because the GLTX rule would say I couldn't visit PHATX and the PHATX rule would say I couldn't visit GLTX!

    However, if I move to Texas and remain a UGLE member but also dual-affiliate to GLTX, then I lose the right to visit PHATX, which I have until joining GLTX. Or for that matter, if I dual-affiliate to PHATX instead (which UGLE does allow), then I lose the right to visit GLTX.

    More complicated still, if I dual-affiliate to some other GL (outside Texas) which DOES have the "host GL law applies instead" rule, and then visit Texas, then if that other GL DOESN'T recognise PHATX I'll be able to visit GLTX, but if the other GL DOES recognise PHATX then again I'm stuck in the position that I can't visit anyone in Texas because the GLTx and PHATX rules combine to block all options.

    There's another worldwide principle of masonic jurisprudence which underlies all this. Contrary to what someone else implied earlier in this thread, joining a second GL doesn't magically release you from your obligations to your original GL. Instead, both GL's laws now apply to you all at once. In other words, if EITHER of your GLs say you can't visit some third GL, then you can't visit, even if your other GL would allow the visit.

    Therefore, if a GLTX member joins UGLE's Internet Lodge #9659 (as someone suggested), then he still can't visit PHATX.

    The most shocking consequence, so far as I can see, is that if any other USGL outside Texas has a "host GL law applies instead" rule (and many do, although I think not all), and if that other USGL now recognises PHATX, then the PHATX rule (as one of the host GLs) means that the other USGL loses the right to visit GLTX! Since there are about a dozen States where the State GL has granted "blanket" recognition of PHA (therefore including PHATX), and since it is likely that some of these dozen do have the "host GL law applies instead" rule, it seems quite likely that you've already welcomed visits from numerous Brethren who in fact are not permitted to visit you (although they probably don't realise that they can't).

    Frankly, Brethren, it's a mess, and very difficult for a Brother to keep track of where he can or can't go! My own opinion is that the "host GL law applies instead" rule is a mistaken attempt to simplify things which has instead had the effect of making things more complex, and that instead we should have a consistent rule everywhere that a Brother is always under the jurisdiction of the GL in which he's actually a member.

    T & F,

    Huw
     
  12. rhitland

    rhitland Founding Member Premium Member

    1,417
    9
    58
    clear as Mississippi Mud!
     
  13. Mac

    Mac Moderator Premium Member

    542
    25
    18
    Brother Huw, I apologize for not responding sooner, but I wanted to thank you for an insightful post that shows just how convoluted our "universal" brotherhood can be!
     
  14. cog41

    cog41 Premium Member

    754
    15
    38
    Each time I read this, I get more and more confused. Bout midway I think I've got it. By the end I just say HOOEY!:bored:
     
  15. mrmarcust

    mrmarcust Premium Member

    23
    0
    0
    Completely understood that Bro Huw and so glad you put that out there. I was going to add my two cents but after reading your reply, there's no need.
     
  16. Michaelstedman81

    Michaelstedman81 Premium Member

    789
    4
    38
    Wow. I just went throught his thread and don't really know for sure or not if I have a better understanding of the topic or not...lol Why is a lot of this kind of stuff so confusing? Is it that the GL laws are not clear and specific enough, or maybe too specific on certain subjects? Is it because the GL laws are so different and varied from jurisdictions? Or is it possibly because several Brothers have their own understandings of the laws and their differing opinions of them?

    It just seems like some topics would be extremely easy to nail down and have and understanding of, but after seeing some discussions there seems to be more than one person lost in the sauce... Myself being one of them...lol

    (Just a note: I read my post over and it looks to me like some may take what I am saying as I understand all these topics easily and that I'm a know it all or that others that don't grasp the topics and answers aren't able to catch onto things that are simple. That is not what I am saying at all. Whether it is because I still consider myself a "young" Mason or not, there are still a lot of topics and questions out there that seem like they would be very simple to understand but I am very confused by. Like the whole PH issue. Since joining this site, I have a better understanding of it and have been able to form my own opinions on it, but not near enough for me to actively counsel someone on the subject or be much help to a new Mason who has a question about how to handle the subject if it comes up. So, just saying that I'm wondering why such easy sounding topics can end up being so doggone confusing for some of us...lol)
     
  17. Bill Lins

    Bill Lins Moderating Staff Staff Member

    4,340
    1,135
    183
    It's really very simple- most of this stuff is written by lawyers so that they'll have something to argue about. :wink:
     
  18. owls84

    owls84 Moderator Premium Member

    1,653
    9
    38
    Or be used against you when needed.

    Much like how you can't be a member of a group like the Widow's Sons or anything like that since it has not be approved but The Masonic Society is ok because I know a couple of Past Grand Masters that are members of that organization but it has not been officially approved and nothing has ever been said. Try having charges brought up against you for having a shirt with a square and compass on it that was not approved. Or as it was stated on my charges....

     
    Bill Lins likes this.
  19. Warrior1256

    Warrior1256 Site Benefactor

    7,192
    3,255
    183
    That's the way it is here in Kentucky at the present. We recognize PH Masonry and vise versa but there is not visitation privileges between the two.
     

Share My Freemasonry