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!

Shots Fired!

MasterBulldawg

Registered User
Cause the senior grand lodge has to consent or waive jurisdiction. Not to mention the location of the problem in the Southern Confederate states except WV. I am sure there are problems on both sides.
From what my understanding of the reasons why PHA in my state has not seeked recognition is they find we are not discriminating enough in who we allow to join.
 
R

Ressam

Guest
There is an existance of 3 "types" of Love.
1. Natural Love: Sexual Love between man & a woman. It's more related with instincts. And posterity.
2. Kinship Love: Loving all relatives. Loving your mom, dad, grandpa, sisters, brothers, etc.
3. Spiritual Love: The Most Important type of Love. Loving your neighbours, friends. Christ's Love.

IMO, LGBT-community is related with 1'st type of Love.
This is "road to nowhere". This is road to extinction. This is not within The Harmony of The Universe.
I'm absolutely sure that -- GAOTU is not approvin' this kind of relations!
But, of course, we have to tolerate them! But not promote, of course!
Hold on, guys! Stay strong on this "Life Exam"!
 

MRichard

Mark A. Ri'chard
Premium Member
From what my understanding of the reasons why PHA in my state has not seeked recognition is they find we are not discriminating enough in who we allow to join.

Could you elaborate on that? Are you saying they have a problem with who you let in the Grand Lodge of Florida? Who is the problem?
 
Last edited:

dfreybur

Premium Member
Well, assuming the nuclear option happens on either or both grand lodges. Then the PHA grand lodge in either or both states could request recognition. Then they would be the senior grand lodge? Hmm. Maybe?

If UGLE pulls recognition over this issue *by calling it a move away from regularity*, MWPHGLofGA and MWPHGLofTN should very definitely request recognition from UGLE as they will then be the only regular jurisdictions in their territory. The UGLE has declared the emergence of PHA Masonry regular based on the circumstances of the time and based on the fact that African 459 tried to stay loyal to and in contact with the Premier GL of England who had issued their charter. The UGLE has declared the PHA family regular. They only recognize when local recognition is in place so it should work.

I would be surprised in the UGLE would cite irregularity as the reason for pulling recognition. I predict that the UGLE will avoid comment as long as they can hoping this American matter will settle down on its own without input from them.

I haven't read the ruling from TN or GA, but are they claiming this ruling against homosexuals on religious grounds? If so, then yes, I can see it violating a landmark. But what if they say 'no homosexuals because we think it's icky'?

They cite moral grounds, thus dodging the fact that what they are doing is bringing a religious law from exactly one religious family into their assemblies. It probably never even occurred to them that's what they were doing.

If they took up a policy of dropping cubes, no one would have noticed for a long time and there's no reason for other jurisdictions to pull recognition. The locals would notice and the new generation would avoid Masonry actively instead of passively. Those jurisdictions would go the way of the Odd Fellows.




Also on the PH GLs - Most assume the F&AM GLs are the ones withholding recognition but what if its the otherway around?

It is easily shown that many PHA jurisdictions refuse to recognize. Here's a quote from the GLofCA recognition list as of 2014 starting page 459 of the 2014 Proceedings -

The Grand Lodge of California has extended an offer of mutual recognition with
the following Prince Hall Grand Lodges, but mutual recognition has not yet
been established. Visitation between our members and members of Lodges
under the jurisdiction of these Grand Lodges cannot yet be made. When mutual
recognition is established, the Grand Secretary will notify our Lodges in writing.

ARIZONA: Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Arizona and Its Jurisdiction*;
CONNECTICUT: Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Connecticut, Inc. (29); HAWAII:
Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Hawaii and Its Jurisdiction*; ILLINOIS: Prince Hall
Grand Lodge of Illinois INDIANA: Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Indiana, Inc.*;
IOWA: Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Iowa and Jurisdiction*; KANSAS: Prince
Hall Grand Lodge of Kansas and Its Jurisdiction*; MARYLAND: Prince Hall
Grand Lodge of Maryland and Its Jurisdiction*; MICHIGAN: Prince Hall
Grand Lodge of the Jurisdiction of Michigan*; MINNESOTA: Prince Hall
Grand Lodge Jurisdiction of Minnesota, Inc.*; NEW JERSEY: Prince Hall
Grand Lodge of New Jersey, Inc.*; NEW YORK: Prince Hall Grand Lodge
Jurisdiction of New York, Inc.*; NORTH CAROLINA: Prince Hall Grand
Lodge of North Carolina and Jurisdictions, Inc.*; OHIO: Prince Hall Grand
Lodge of the State of Ohio, Inc.*; OKLAHOMA: Prince Hall Grand Lodge
Jurisdiction of Oklahoma*; VIRGINIA: Prince Hall Grand Lodge Jurisdiction of
Virginia*; WASHINGTON: Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Washington State and
Its Jurisdiction*; WISCONSIN: Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Wisconsin, Inc.*

That's 18 PHA jurisdictions that have not bothered to recognize California by not responding to California's offer. In comparison when I tabulate the list of PHA jurisdictions that have returned California's offer I discovered there are 2 PHA jurisdictions California fails to list. I have corresponded with the Gr Sec a few times to see if that's a misprint* or those 2 just fell through the cracks at the time.

This means that the number of PHA jurisdictions that ignores California is 9 times the number that California ignores. And twice the number that don't have local recognition. That's only for California. I bet there is a LOT of missing recognition completeness in both branches of our family.

To PMs, WMs, SWs and JWs in all states I recommend that you look up your own recognition list and submit legislation to complete the set.

I am a PM in Illinois so I have a vote there as well - Illinois recognizes every PHA with local recognition (called "blanket") and does not even track which PHA jurisdictions have responded.

I am in the line in TX so for the moment I don't have a vote in that jurisdiction yet - It'll be a few years before I look up the Texas list and ask that it be completed.

*Based on discussion with my wife last night I am highly likely to attend California GL this October. Since I'm going I need to force this issue by submitting legislation because I'll be there to defend it. No one will object to completing the list.
 

Ripcord22A

Site Benefactor
Gotta approach this in pieces...........

Playing Devils Advocate I can make a case for homosexuals be excluded from Freemason that based on ancient times and our 3rd degree obligation. So when the Ancients set about coming up with the third degree they would have included certain male members of the Masons family along with the female members if they had thought that homosexuals would be joining the fraternity..

In my Jurisdictions this is a false statement as that part alludes to the relationships being unwated and illegal.

Also I was told the reason why women do not join the fraternity this is about sexual tension and also to keep adulterous affairs out of the lodge as you know with other fraternities that are both male and female there have been scandals of the affairs between members.

I am all for keeping females out, even though it would be interesting to see how they would be clothed for the degrees....ha..see that right there is why we need to keep it males only. Also as someone stated before, its guy time, and its guy time where the wives know their hubbys are safe from the prying hands of other women.

Can you imagine the lodge where there's two popular and an extremely active gay couples and for whatever reason there was an affair between the couples could split the lodge brothers having to choose one side or the other..

As Brother Glen already mentioned, its happend and it will happen again.

I have to question weather the grand lodges California and DC would have taking this action if there hadn't been a public outcry. Having said all this is my personal opinion that each Grand Lodge should be responsible for its rules and regulations. I will follow my Grand Lodge but I will vote at Annual Communication also.

They probably would not have. If no public outcry no way for them to know. And you should vote. At next weeks annual communication my lodges deligates are going to stand and speak and suggest that the GL send a letter to TN and GA condeming these actions, not their entire GL just these actions.
 

Companion Joe

Premium Member
@Companion Joe Being that you are a member of the GLoTN what is your take and what are the brohters saying in your jurisdiction on this subject? Is it true that the GM issued a gag order on the subject? and that any brohter that speaks up for the couple in question will be immediatly expelled right along with them?

All,
I have read this and many other sites daily with great interest to keep abreast on people's thoughts on this situation, and this will be my only post (at least until after our annual communication later this month). Because I hold various Grand appointments, anything I say could be taken - and certainly taken out of context - by anyone in the world as official position. Please understand and accept my stance on that.

I will say this: To partisans on either side of the aisle both in my home state and around the world, it is easy to swing the sword of righteousness when what you really know are half truths at best.

The one thing I will go on record as saying, and you can sing it from the highest mountain tops, "My mama's only son is intelligent enough not to dive head first into an Internet dumpster fire."

May brotherly prevail.
 

MasterBulldawg

Registered User
[quote uid=14748 name="MasterBulldawg" post=157406]Also on the PH GLs - Most assume the F&amp;AM GLs are the ones withholding recognition but what if its the otherway around?[/QUOTE]<br />Initials are confusing since "state" GLs use both sets. are you saying PH is holding out, or State? It definitely works both ways.

I am saying it is my understanding that PHA is not seeking recognition nor giving it.

Sent from my SM-N910P using My Freemasonry Pro mobile app
 

MasterBulldawg

Registered User
[quote uid=14748 name="MasterBulldawg" post=157431]From what my understanding of the reasons why PHA in my state has not seeked recognition is they find we are not discriminating enough in who we allow to join.[/QUOTE]<br /><br />Could you elaborate on that? Are you saying they have a problem with who you let in the Grand Lodge of Florida? Who is the problem?

I am not entirely sure I was told that the reason why Prince Hall does not seek recognition is because we're not selective enough in who we admit as members. I have heard rumors that Prince Hall dues is significantly higher than our own dues. It seems to me we may be blue collar to their white collar.

Sent from my SM-N910P using My Freemasonry Pro mobile app
 

MRichard

Mark A. Ri'chard
Premium Member
I am not entirely sure I was told that the reason why Prince Hall does not seek recognition is because we're not selective enough in who we admit as members. I have heard rumors that Prince Hall dues is significantly higher than our own dues. It seems to me we may be blue collar to their white collar.

Sent from my SM-N910P using My Freemasonry Pro mobile app

Unfortunately, that sounds like rumors and familiar rumors at that. Could be true or could be false. There are quite a few PHA members on here from Florida. Would be interesting to hear their take on it. @BroBook @mrpierce17
 

mrpierce17

KOP Council director / Lodge instructor
Premium Member
I believe our dues are pretty similar here in Florida I don't think that's the reason we are not yet in amenity
 

The Undertaker

Premium Member
There is an existance of 3 "types" of Love.
1. Natural Love: Sexual Love between man & a woman. It's more related with instincts. And posterity.
2. Kinship Love: Loving all relatives. Loving your mom, dad, grandpa, sisters, brothers, etc.
3. Spiritual Love: The Most Important type of Love. Loving your neighbours, friends. Christ's Love.

IMO, LGBT-community is related with 1'st type of Love.
This is "road to nowhere". This is road to extinction. This is not within The Harmony of The Universe.
I'm absolutely sure that -- GAOTU is not approvin' this kind of relations!
But, of course, we have to tolerate them! But not prom
There is an existance of 3 "types" of Love.
1. Natural Love: Sexual Love between man & a woman. It's more related with instincts. And posterity.
2. Kinship Love: Loving all relatives. Loving your mom, dad, grandpa, sisters, brothers, etc.
3. Spiritual Love: The Most Important type of Love. Loving your neighbours, friends. Christ's Love.

IMO, LGBT-community is related with 1'st type of Love.
This is "road to nowhere". This is road to extinction. This is not within The Harmony of The Universe.
I'm absolutely sure that -- GAOTU is not approvin' this kind of relations!
But, of course, we have to tolerate them! But not promote, of course!
Hold on, guys! Stay strong on this "Life Exam"!

ote, of course!
Hold on, guys! Stay strong on this "Life Exam"![/QUO

So according to YOUR three "types" of love, every straight relationship also falls into the first category. So simplistic it makes no sense.
 
R

Ressam

Guest
Hi, Sir.
You've made some mistakes with quotation.
Please, expalain deeper, what you are not agree with(if you want).
 

jermy Bell

Registered User
I'm confused, is this the way that it was in the beginning? Or do we as a whole, change and keep changing things to suit the needs of others in order to be politically correct?
 

coachn

Coach John S. Nagy
Premium Member
I'm confused, is this the way that it was in the beginning? Or do we as a whole, change and keep changing things to suit the needs of others in order to be politically correct?
<cough> Freemasonry has changed from its beginnings continually and usually due to changing social, political, and cultural norms.
 

jermy Bell

Registered User
But why, why should we let these people into our fraternity that we see as undesirable? I think if these people that don't meet our qualifications, we shouldn't have to bow down to meet others needs. Isn't masonry a private club so to speak ? I mean if you belong to the VFW doesn't that mean that you can't join unless your a vet ? Why should masonry be any different ? And social change is not a good enough answer.
 

coachn

Coach John S. Nagy
Premium Member
But why, why should we let these people into our fraternity that we see as undesirable? I think if these people that don't meet our qualifications, we shouldn't have to bow down to meet others needs. Isn't masonry a private club so to speak ? I mean if you belong to the VFW doesn't that mean that you can't join unless your a vet ? Why should masonry be any different ? And social change is not a good enough answer.
You did not ask for an answer that you would accept. You asked a question. I provided to you an answer. It did not have to be a good one.
 

MRichard

Mark A. Ri'chard
Premium Member
But why, why should we let these people into our fraternity that we see as undesirable? I think if these people that don't meet our qualifications, we shouldn't have to bow down to meet others needs. Isn't masonry a private club so to speak ? I mean if you belong to the VFW doesn't that mean that you can't join unless your a vet ? Why should masonry be any different ? And social change is not a good enough answer.

Wouldn't it be nice if all freemasons were just and upright men and judged potential candidates on the internal and not external? We don't always see the same undesirables.
 
Top