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!

Other recognition clean up - Blanket recognition or filling in the list

dfreybur

Premium Member
Brethren,

I've been reading on recognition completeness as at least one brother has asserted that most jurisdictions have much smaller recognition lists than many think.

http://bessel.org/masrec/phachart.htm

I attended California GL in 1997-9 and I remember votes on recognition that included PHA jurisdictions. As such I believe the list to be short at least in the case of California. The point remains that the list on the web page is incomplete for every state mentioned not in the blanket list cited below. None of the PHA GLs are listed but I suspect they are in similar situations.

http://bessel.org/masrec/phablanket.htm

I attended Illinois GL I think 7-8 times 2003-2012. Each time the PHA Grand Line was in attendance (once with the Alabama GM which was nicely symbolic to me on "follow the local rules with regard to fellow visitors"). The recognition votes included GLs all over the world but no PHA GLs were mentioned. That's because Illinois adopted a blanket recognition policy in 2002 shortly before I started attending.

I would like both jurisdictions of all states to adopt blanket jurisdictions. As long as there are states not recognizing the basic problem still needs to be addressed. Until there is blanket recognition all around it will remain a bureaucratic mess.

In California the deadline for submitting legislation for the grand session in November is this month. I think I have time to submit for this year. I'd have to send the forms by mail to my lodge and then circulate it by proxy from there. This means I now have a year to lobby my mother GL to adopt blanket adoption legislation.

Reading the wording from DC I'd modify point D from "attempt to establish the exchange of Grand Representatives" to "request full recognition and attempt to establish the exchange of Grand Representatives". If grand lodges that adopt blanket recognition start requesting recognition from all others that should help clean up the lists in every direction.

Here's the quote if any brother who's a member of your own grand lodge (PM, WM, SM, JW sometimes others) wants to submit legislation here's the wording from DC per the web site. My modification about requesting recognition is in
RED CAPS. I have not changed references of DC to California in this reference -

Recognition of Prince Hall Grand Lodges

A. Our Grand Lodge hereby recognizes, and will in the future recognize without further Grand Lodge vote, each Prince Hall Grand Lodge that does not state that it does not want to be recognized by our Grand Lodge, and that is recognized, and continues to be recognized, by:

1. The Grand Lodge in its jurisdiction which our Grand Lodge already recognizes — so long as that Grand Lodge does not object to our Grand Lodge recognizing this Prince Hall Grand Lodge in its jurisdiction;

2. The Prince Hall Grand Lodge of the District of Columbia — so long as the Prince Hall Grand Lodge of the District of Columbia does not object to our recognizing this Prince Hall Grand Lodge in another jurisdiction;

B. This recognition by our Grand Lodge of a Prince Hall Grand Lodge in another jurisdiction will be effective on the same dates and to the same extent as the recognition by the Grand Lodge that our Grand Lodge already recognizes in that jurisdiction.

C. Our Grand Lodge Committee on Masonic Recognitions will provide the office of the Grand Secretary with a list, and future updates, of Prince Hall Grand Lodges in other jurisdictions that meet the standards described in this resolution and which are thus recognized by our Grand Lodge. A copy of the list of recognized Prince Hall Grand Lodges, and future updates, will be distributed regularly by the Grand Secretary’s office to each Lodge in our jurisdiction.

D. The office of the Grand Secretary will contact each Prince Hall Grand Lodge in another jurisdiction that is on the list of Prince Hall Grand Lodges recognized by our Grand Lodge,
REQUEST FULL RECOGNITION and attempt to establish the exchange of Grand Representatives.

The explanation for this proposal in May 2004, as amended by later events, is important to remember:

When one of our sister U.S. Grand Lodges recognizes the Prince Hall Grand Lodge in its jurisdiction, and that Prince Hall Grand Lodge is also recognized by the Prince Hall Grand Lodge of the District of Columbia, our Grand Lodge will routinely approve a request for recognition by that Prince Hall Grand Lodge. However, doing this one at a time is time-consuming (nationwide, 2,295 separate recognitions would be needed), creates unnecessary paperwork, and is disrespectful to Grand Lodges we already recognize.

Since the local “mainstream†Grand Lodge (the one we already recognize in each jurisdiction) has already investigated the regularity of the Prince Hall Grand Lodge in its jurisdiction and has recognized it, and the Prince Hall Grand Lodge of the District of Columbia has also investigated that Prince Hall Grand Lodge and recognized it, our Grand Lodge recognition of that Prince Hall Grand Lodge would be a sign of respect to those two Grand Lodges which we already recognize and respect.

It is becoming a common practice for Grand Lodges to recognize all Prince Hall Grand Lodges that are recognized by “mainstream†Grand Lodges in their jurisdictions. The Grand Lodge of New Jersey adopted this policy a couple of weeks ago, and the Grand Lodges of Nebraska and Kansas, among others, have had it in effect for several years, and they all report enthusiastic support for this policy and no adverse consequences.

No “mainstream†Grand Lodge has or will recognize a Prince Hall Grand Lodge that is not regular, nor would the Prince Hall Grand Lodge of the District of Columbia. However, in case either would in the future feel it necessary to withdraw recognition, or to object to our Grand Lodge recognizing or continue recognizing, a particular Prince Hall Grand Lodge for any reason, our recognition would terminate.
 

tomasball

Premium Member
You seem to be working on the theory that if your Grand Lodge says it recognizes all the Prince Hall Grand Lodges, all the PH GL's are somehow obliged to go along with you. If I were in a PH GL, I would consider it an affront to our sovereignty for a "mainstream" GL to inform us that they have recognized us, even though we didn't ask them to, and if we don't like it, we have to formally object.
 

dfreybur

Premium Member
You seem to be working on the theory that if your Grand Lodge says it recognizes all the Prince Hall Grand Lodges, all the PH GL's are somehow obliged to go along with you.

If recognition is the right thing to do then to me it's a matter of being informed that recognition is not in place yet. On being obliged - Every GL is sovereign. They don't have to do the right thing if they don't want to. GLs can be insular. One of the reasons the Conference of American Grand Masters exists is to reduce that effect. Unfortunately it still ignores that Masonry is world wide not American so there's still a tendency to ignore world wide standards when they aren't followed in the US.

The reality meets practice when a brother presents himself for visitation because his jurisdiction recognizes. If the lodge turns him away that reflects more on the lodge and GL turning him away than it does on the brother visiting and his recognizing GL.

If I were in a PH GL, I would consider it an affront to our sovereignty for a "mainstream" GL to inform us that they have recognized us, even though we didn't ask them to, and if we don't like it, we have to formally object.

Did it trigger a storm when DC adopted the blanket resolution? No. Thus I think you are creating a tempest in a teapot. It is completely beyond my ken that anyone would take your approach, because what I'm discussing is old news and that's not what happened.
 

dfreybur

Premium Member
Being a California Mason I have a login on the GL web site. I explored searching for tables of recognition. The California GL web site allows members to download copies of the Proceedings of previous years as well as a lot of other documents. There is a table in the 2012 Proceedings so I downloaded that document and went through it.

There are lists of jurisdictions that mutual recognition (with visitation and so on) and there are lists of jurisdictions that California has requested full recognition but that have not yet responded by recognizing California. Recognition with those jurisdictions will be complete as soon as they accept. For PHA jurisdictions the MWPHAGLofCA requested that dual membership be not included in the recognition agreements so that's included in all PHA recognitions with California.

MWPHAGLofTX is indeed in the list of mutual recognitions with California. That means my GL confirmed that MWPHAGLofTX allows me to visit. It's been stated in some other threads that I know they weren't supposed to let me in. Those statements were in error as I expected from my eyewitness attendence at California GL in 1997-9. I take it those statements were based on the list on the bessel web site which I now know to be incorrect. I have not yet written bessel to offer a correction.

When I compared the UGLE list against GLofCA list I found 3 differences.

Oklahoma - California has requested mutual recognition with MWPHAGLofOK but MWPHAGLofOK has not yet granted the request. MWPHAGLofOK does not yet appear in the UGLE list.

Delaware and Rhode Island - The PHA jurisdictions in both of these states appear in the UGLE list but do not appear in the California list.

I will email the secretary of my lodge and ask what route to take to ask California to request mutual recognition with MWPHAGLofDE and MWPHAGLofRI.

So of my current 2 jurisdictions, 1 I'll look into the list outside of North America the other I'll ask to add 2 states to complete their PHA list.
 
Top