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!

Petition for Joint Recognition and Visitation

Blake Bowden

Administrator
Staff Member
How about we give this effort a little more publicity with an article about what you are doing on "The Beehive" at Freemason Information~Masonic Traveler and also likewise on Phoenixmasonry? I am open to writing such an article if you are game.

Please feel free to correspond with me at Phoenixmasonrydirector@gmail.com

Frederic L. Milliken
MWPHGLTX

Bro. Milliken, you've always been an inspiration and because of your labors, I've upgraded your account to a Premium Membership. Thank you Brother. In regards to publishing an article, I would fully support such action. There are many Brethren on BOTH sides who are supportive of extending visitation, but our respective Grand Lodges continue to downplay such action. You write an article in support, I'll push it out to every Freemason I can...
 

Blake Bowden

Administrator
Staff Member
I personally emailed PGM Donny Broughton with questions regarding the Compact and of course, no response. To be fair, I also emailed current PH Grand Master Wilbert Curtis and the response was...nothing.

Let's continue shall we? I also emailed R.W. Jerry Martin (Deputy Grand Master). While he was Grand Orator, I spent countless hours producing a video for his presentations. Surely he responded right? No.

As a Texas Mason, if I have a question about the Craft and/or policies of Grand Lodge, I want answers. Just because you have a pretty apron or fancy name tag doesn't put you in a position to be above your fellow Brethren! You're in a position to answer to us and to lead the Craft during your tenure - not to be some elitist. It's obvious what this kind of mentality leads to, just look at the loss of membership we see each year.
 

Blake Bowden

Administrator
Staff Member
More than anything, it was an email to solicit an acknowledgement that he received it. I have the upmost respect for R.W. Broughton as he was at the front and center during the Compact so to get his input, even if it were to remain on the square, would be fantastic. Some questions I have:

Which Grand Lodge initiated contact first to pursue a "mutual recognition"?
What were the reasons for not extending to compact to include visitation?
Why do you believe nothing has transpired since the original compact was signed in 2007?
To the best of your knowledge, are you aware of any further meetings to discuss visitation between both M.W. Grand Lodges?
What were the most difficult issues faced during meetings prior to the compact signing?

Etc.
 

tomasball

Premium Member
I don't want to sound like I'm being personal here, but you seem to be presenting yourself like a journalist. If I was a present or past officer, I would in no way be inclined to respond to an interrogation like that. There are a lot of masons in Texas, and I'm sure our leadership all get a lot of mail criticizing their actions or asking for explanations.
 

Brent Heilman

Premium Member
I don't want to sound like I'm being personal here, but you seem to be presenting yourself like a journalist. If I was a present or past officer, I would in no way be inclined to respond to an interrogation like that. There are a lot of masons in Texas, and I'm sure our leadership all get a lot of mail criticizing their actions or asking for explanations.

Just my personal thoughts are that I highly doubt that is exactly the way Bro. Blake worded the email. In no way do I see those questions as critical of their leadership. It seems to me that they are more of a fact finding type of email. I wouldn't know of any other way to ask those questions. Any time you ask a series of questions it is almost always going to sound journalistic in nature. Even asking about someone's time on vacation can be taken that way if you want it to.
 

Mac

Moderator
Premium Member
Plus someone has to ask these questions (in whatever format) or we can plan on remaining in this recognition limbo perpetually.

It's time to take the next step.


Freemason Connect Mobile
 

Michael Neumann

Premium Member
More than anything, it was an email to solicit an acknowledgement that he received it. I have the upmost respect for R.W. Broughton as he was at the front and center during the Compact so to get his input, even if it were to remain on the square, would be fantastic. Some questions I have:

Which Grand Lodge initiated contact first to pursue a "mutual recognition"?
What were the reasons for not extending to compact to include visitation?
Why do you believe nothing has transpired since the original compact was signed in 2007?
To the best of your knowledge, are you aware of any further meetings to discuss visitation between both M.W. Grand Lodges?
What were the most difficult issues faced during meetings prior to the compact signing?

Etc.

These are questions that every Mason touched by the compact would like answered. Each of us know there are undercurrents that we are unaware of, the answers to Bro. Blakes questions would provide much needed insight. My wife just authorized another $500 to the ad campaign... time to fire up FB and Twitter.
 

Michael Neumann

Premium Member
I have new information for everyone.... just kidding. The page is still up and we are still getting new likes and petitions are still being turned in but there has been no surface movement that I know of.
 

Michael Neumann

Premium Member
I am contemplating calling the secretaries of each GL in regards to the petition. I would like official input from each jurisdiction.
 

widows son

Premium Member
I've looked on my GL website and can't find if we recognize PHA. I'm almost positive we do. If anyone can assist me it would be great. Also whether my GL recognizes PHA or not, I am in support of this. I'm not sure if there would be a point to me signing anything, put if I could I definitely would and will if possible. To all the brethren devoted to progress, may God bless you all.
 

chrmc

Registered User
I am contemplating calling the secretaries of each GL in regards to the petition. I would like official input from each jurisdiction.

I think it's a very admirable effort, and it would be interesting to hear what replies you got. I'm unfortunately a pessimist on this subject and don't think you would get much, but that does certainly not mean it shouldn't be done.
Call a couple of the bigger Grand Lodges and let's hear what they say.
 

Michael Neumann

Premium Member
I've looked on my GL website and can't find if we recognize PHA. I'm almost positive we do. If anyone can assist me it would be great. Also whether my GL recognizes PHA or not, I am in support of this. I'm not sure if there would be a point to me signing anything, put if I could I definitely would and will if possible. To all the brethren devoted to progress, may God bless you all.
Here is a list from masonicinfo.com http://www.masonicinfo.com/grandlodges.htm
 

dfreybur

Premium Member

North Carolina recognizes. Excellent. One step at a time.

Has anyone seen a list of US jurisdiction telling if they have returned to the worldwide standard of Stated meetings in the first degree? I think nearly all have at this point. It's a far less urgent issue than PHA recognition but until all have returned to the standard we still have that remaining fallout from the anti-Masonic movement of the 1840s to clean up.
 

Michael Neumann

Premium Member
Still seeing the random petition submitted. Though it has fallen to about 5 a month. Here is a great post from a young man on the Masonic Amity FB page.

https://www.facebook.com/MasonicAmi...set=0&total_comments=10&notif_t=share_comment

June 2, 1988, Grand Master Richard A Claytor of the Prince Hall Grand Lodge, of Massachusetts sent a letter to the United Grand Lodge of England, stating in part that he was writing on behalf of some 300,000 Prince Hall Masons, 42 jurisdictions, 5000 Lodges, who trace their lineage to a Charter issued African Lodge # 459, on September 29, 1784, by the Grand Masters Command and signed by R. Holt, D.G.M., and witness by WM. White, GS: -Our legality has been proven many times over he stated and yet we are denied the full rights of Masonry; we have the only charter issued from the Mother Grand Lodge to this country and we are still not recognized as Masons and closed by stating “I humbly ask that you consider placing Prince Hall Masonry in your directory of free Masons”e of Massachusetts.
September 21, 1988, a reply was sent to Grand Master Richard A Claytor, stating, that your letter of June 2, 1988, has now been considered by our Board of General Purposes; as you may know, the main bone of contention, as far as this Grand Lodge is concerned, relates to the origin of the Prince Hall movement, descended from African Lodge #459 formed in Boston in 1784 and then numbered 459 on the roll of the Grand Lodge of England. The warrant, like any other warrant issued to a private Lodge, gave no power to the members of that Lodge to form other Lodges; also the policy of our Grand Lodge is to recognize not more that one Lodge as having Jurisdiction in any country, state or territory, therefore we cannot extend recognition to you, while we continue to recognize the State Grand Lodge of Massachusetts. I am sorry to reply in terms which will cause you disappointment.
Signed-(M.B.S. Higham).Grand Secretary.
The 73rd Annual Session of the Prince Hall Conference of Grand Masters was held in Nassau, Bahamas, May 12-15, 1992 and many items of interest were discussed including the subject of recognition: It was also disclosed that some Prince Hall Grand Lodges and State Grand Lodges were recognizing, and even be visiting each other.
M.W Grand Master Daniel Lunsford of the Jurisdiction of Washington stated that he had petitioned the United Grand Lodge of England for recognition and was informed that before reacting to his petition it would make contact with the Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Massachusetts, (the Mother Jurisdiction of Prince Hall Masonry.)
Nicholas B. Locker was born on the island of Montserrat British West Indies and came to the United States of America in 1952, He was initiated a member of John J Smith Lodge #14 in 1974 and served as Worshipful Master in 1982.
After serving in several stations in the Grand Lodge, he was elected Most Worshipful Grand Master at the 201st Annual Session of the M.W. Prince Hall Grand Lodge, Jurisdiction of Massachusetts which was held in December 1992.
On January 15, 1993, the recognition process between the United Grand Lodge of England and the M.W Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Massachusetts took on a more serious and positive tone, as Grand Master Nicholas B. Locker received a letter and a recorded telephone message from Very Worshipful Brother Michael Higham, Grand Secretary of the United Grand Lodge of England. The call was returned on January 18, 1993 and the Grand Secretary expressed his desire to meet to discuss the possibility of recognition.
Grand Master Locker called a meeting of his Past Grand Masters at the home of Past Grand Master Andrew J Spears to brief them of the situation and seek their advice.
February 15, 1993, Grand Secretary Higham called to set a date for a meeting and stated he would come to Boston.ebruary 28, 1993, Grand Master Nicholas B Locker accompanied by his Deputy Grand Master Edgar R Mclean and Grand Historian Raymond T Coleman met with Grand Secretary Higham at the Park Plaza Hotel in Boston Massachusetts to discuss the possibility of recognition between the two Grand Lodges.
Grand Secretary Higham was brought up to date and made notes of the changes of the Prince Hall Grand Lodge, since the Charter was issued by the United Grand Lodge of England on September 29, 1784; this he needed to make a concise and factual report to his Board of General Purposes: The Grand Secretary insisted that Prince Hall return the Warrant #459 and seek reconsideration from the Grand Lodge of England to recharter another African Lodge, but Grand Master Locker made it clear that Prince Hall would not under any circumstances, consider any thing of that nature, that it traced its heritage through African Lodge # 459, warranted by the Grand Lodge of England and its position would not change; also the Prince Hall Grand Lodge is a regular and legitimate Grand Lodge and therefore should be recognized;. Grand Secretary Higham again stated that the main bone of contention as far as the Grand Lodge of England is concerned, relates to the origin of the Prince Hall movement:- The word regular / irregular became the key to the success or failure of the entire process.
April 7, 1993, Grand Master Locker received a letter, containing a position statement issued by the Grand Lodge of England, and this position statement was read at the Prince Hall Grand Masters Conference which was held in Somerset, New Jersey, in May 1993.
On October 20, 1993, Grand Master Locker sent a letter to the United Grand Lodge of England stating in part, “As Grand Master of the Mother Grand Lodge of Prince Hall Masons, I feel that it is incumbent on me to make every effort to bring closure to this matter in a manner that is acceptable and beneficial to both Grand Lodges and more particularly to the brethren we represent, but doubt a solution will be forthcoming in the near future, because of the difference of opinion, relative to the issue of regularity.”
May 1994, Grand Master Nicholas B Locker made a progress report at the Prince Hall Grand Masters Conference in Houston Texas.
August 25, 1994, Grand Secretary Higham called Grand Master Locker to say that he will be coming to Boston in September and will give him a call.
September 18, 1994, Grand Secretary Higham called from the Park Plaza Hotel in Boston Massachusetts, He stated, that his Board of General Purposes had found a way to move beyond the issue of irregularity and will make an announcement in the near future,
November 24, 1994, Grand Master Locker received written documents from Grand Secretary Higham, stating that a resolution will be considered by the United Grand Lodge of England at the December 14, 1994 Session, stating that, “not withstanding its unusualormation the Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Massachusetts should be considered as regular and be recognized.”
December 11, 1994, Grand Master Locker made that announcement to his Grand Lodge in Session.
December 14, 1994, Resolution Approved.
The Grand Lodge of England’s news letter stated that this recognition applies only to the Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Massachusetts, and applications for other Prince Hall Grand Lodges may follow and each must be considered on its merit.
The State Grand Lodge of Massachusetts was in Session at the time, and received word of the historical vote, and Grand Master David Lovering made the announcement to his Grand Lodge to a standing ovation.
December 16, 1994, Grand Master David Lovering sent a letter to Grand Master Nicholas B Locker, congratulating him and the Prince Hall Grand Lodge on this historical occasion and extended an invitation to meet.
December 23, 1994, Grand Master Nicholas B. Locker accompanied by Past Grand Masters Richard A Claytor and Chester R Isles met with Grand Master David Lovering and many of his Past Grand Masters in his office at the Masonic building on Tremont Street to celebrate the occasion.
December 27, 1994, Grand Master Nicholas B Locker installed his successor R.W. brother Edgar R McLean and completed his two year term as Grand Master.
Presently twenty seven (27) Prince Hall Grand Lodges have been recognized by the United Grand Lodge of England.
 

Blake Bowden

Administrator
Staff Member
I'd like to know what the deal is. I've personally contacted BOTH Grand Masters of Texas, and neither will respond. I guess both are content living in a world we where recognize each other as regular Masons, but heaven forbid we actually sit in Lodge and labor together.
 
Top