2010 List of Lodges Masonic

Discussion in 'General Freemasonry Discussion' started by david918, Mar 26, 2010.

  1. david918

    david918 Premium Member

    875
    3
    16
    I just received our lodges new 2010 List of Lodges Masonic and noticed that there were only 3 Prince Hall Grand Lodges included(California,Connecticut,and North Carolina).I was just wondering why the other Prince Hall Grand Lodges were not included? Did the other Grand Lodges fail to submit their information or is there some other reason why they are not in the book?
     
  2. drapetomaniac

    drapetomaniac Premium Member Premium Member

    471
    3
    38
    I'm wondering why any were included if not our own?

    There are a few states whose recognitions are more expansive, meaning they recognize PHA in their state and any GLs recognized by that PHA GL. It's some form of that if I don't have it exactly right.

    Does this mean we can visit PHA in those three states?
     
  3. Blake Bowden

    Blake Bowden Administrator Staff Member

    5,679
    984
    113
    Good question.
     
  4. david918

    david918 Premium Member

    875
    3
    16
    No we can not visit those Prince Hall Grand Lodges since the GL of Texas does not recognize them.Other Grand Lodges in the book that we do not recognize are the Grand Lodge of Morocco,the Grand Lodge of Mato Grosso in Brazil and the Grand Lodge of the Valle de Mexico.
    Grand Lodges that are not in the book that we do recognize are the Grand Lodges of Croatia, Mali,San Marino, Macedonia, and Andorra,as well as the following Grand Lodges in Mexico: Aquacalientes, Lazzaro Cardenas, and Guerrero.
     
  5. owls84

    owls84 Moderator Premium Member

    1,653
    9
    38
    No this book is a generalized copy that is used by all GLs in the US and abroad. The cover is reprinted for us here in TX. If you look at the fine print under the GLoTX section it will explain that we recognize PHAoTX but do not have visitation. It also lists others that ARE listed in the book but we do not recognize. Pretty tricky but we now teach this in the ALL Program as well.
     
  6. Huw

    Huw Guest

    0
    0
    0
    David raises an interesting question. I haven't yet got the new List of Lodges Masonic, but looking at the previous one I see that similarly it contained very few of the PHGLs.

    Of course different GLs do have different recognition lists, and this is obviously a problem for the compilers of this book (which they acknowledge in their frontispiece) when they have to decide which GLs to include and which to leave out. For example, since I'm a UGLE member, I can visit most (although not all) of the PHGLs, whereas clearly GLTX members can't do that, whereas on the other hand there are some other GLs included in the book which you can visit but I can't (such as several in South and Central America which my GL doesn't recognise).

    It'd be fascinating to see more details about exactly how the compilers take their decisions on what to include. However, I suspect that they won't tell us, because it'd probably just start a lot of arguments. As the compilers have previously pointed out, publishing separate editions (correctly reflecting the recognition list for each separate GL) would be very expensive.

    T & F,

    Huw
     

Share My Freemasonry