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!
New stipulations that come with visitation
- Thread starter Cblack
- Start date
Michael Neumann
Premium Member
I believe that the only adjustment needed would be in section II. and III. allowing visitation. With the deep and rich history of both lodges I feel as though we would lose something if we joined them. All I/we seek is mutual recognition and visitation.
Cblack
Registered User
Bro Neumann,
I have seen the compact and am very glad you shared it because I had wondered for years what it actually said...the stipulations that i'm referring, and this is just an example, is not being able to participate in certain degree work such as raisings which is what happens in NJ..also, to deter members from leaving either GL, one would have to start over from an EA..these are some amendments that I think would be added in the new compact. ..your thoughts?
I have seen the compact and am very glad you shared it because I had wondered for years what it actually said...the stipulations that i'm referring, and this is just an example, is not being able to participate in certain degree work such as raisings which is what happens in NJ..also, to deter members from leaving either GL, one would have to start over from an EA..these are some amendments that I think would be added in the new compact. ..your thoughts?
People are already switching and these ideas seem to indicate fear of the trend increasing. I feel only unhappiness would lead a person to change affiliations but we are only looking to learn from each other. These types of ideas would perpetuate the current divide.
People are switching from both sides though. Each GL may offer something that the other does not. In order to find out, members have to switch to see for themselves. Visitation would probably end that. Members would be able to just visit when they want and retain their current membership.
Freemason Connect Premium App
dfreybur
Premium Member
When California recognized there were some items that caused delay before visitation started. At the time the PHA GL was California and Hawaii at the time so Hawaii had to vote for recognition as well. That took an extra several months. There's now a recognized PHA GL in each state. Then the List of Jurisdiction books had to be reprinted. Then there was the detail that PHA GL only allows single affiliation (affiliate with a new lodge and it is mandatory to demit from your other lodge) while what I call George Washington Affiliation GL allows dual and plural affiliations (affiliate with a new lodge and there's a different form so every secretary of every lodge you belong to gets informed).
Wording appears in the California compact that restricts affiliations across jurisdictions to respect California PHA's single affiliation tradition. Today I learned that Texas PHA is single affiliation the same as California PHA.
I suggest dropping the word visitation and in its place put dual affiliation for the same reason that happened in California.
RockBender
Registered User
That is such a great question, I often wonder the same. think it would be a bennifit to say to the least for the brothers who trully travel...
dfreybur
Premium Member
I only know that a fair number of jurisdictions around the world have a single affiliation requirement so I was not surprised to learn of it. Which doesn't answer your question sorry.
Cblack
Registered User
Bro Lins...some PHA jurisdictions allow dual membership with the GLoState
Sent from my SPH-L710 using Freemasonry mobile app
scialytic
Premium Member
I would imagine to protect the dues to the individual Lodge. Many of our Lodges basically dissuade the same thing...creating a de facto non-plural/affiliation membership situation. It is classic protectionism. Some Brothers just won't click with the group and I (and most of you, I'm sure) would rather them be active Masons in another Lodge, rather than just keep paying dues and never show up. We need to focus on FRATERNITY members, not LODGE members (or "numbers"). The more Brothers we have...the better the world. ***BIG PICTURE***
Sorry...I can get preachy about stuff like this. (Oh wait...I guess that was what you were getting at, in a lot less words! ;-)
Sorry...I can get preachy about stuff like this. (Oh wait...I guess that was what you were getting at, in a lot less words! ;-)
Last edited:
Especially in rural areas of our state, there are quite a few Lodges that continue to exist only because of those Brethren who have taken plural memberships in them.As long as a Brother can afford to support multiple Lodges, both financially and by his presence & willingness to work, I see no reason to limit him. But that's just me. :wink:
MarkR
Premium Member
Our current sitting Deputy Grand Master, who will (tradition prevailing, blah blah blah) be installed as Grand Master next Saturday, is also a member of a Prince Hall Lodge.
Michael Neumann
Premium Member
Great questions and my apologies for taking so long to answer.
As Br. Upton stated, I believe that visitation would actually reduce the number of members switching, they would be able to see both sides without needing to demit. To achieve this we would have to have FULL visitation much like I receive when visiting a Mainstream lodge in SC while traveling from a Mainstream lodge in TX. Whether the man is put to work or just observes should be up to the specific lodge and its needs. If a man still feels the need to switch then yes, I do believe that they should have to start over from EA... mainly to deter this.
It needs to be clear that visitation is for the benefit of our craft and not so they can test the waters before switching lodges, this is an honest concern but I think after the initial trials everything will smooth out and the craft will be better for it.
Last edited: