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!

Compact Signing

Bill Lins

Moderating Staff
Staff Member
am I correct in believing that the one concrete result of this type of recognition is that, if a GLoTX member and a PHAoTX member are both visiting in a third jurisdiction which recognises both of them (such as here in UGLE), then they *can* now sit together in a third-party Lodge?

Yes, sir- that would be correct.
 

TexMass

Registered User
Many of you have seen my photo album and know of my installtion. Here is a repost of my installation night. The installation was performed by a suite from PHA in Boston. On the far right is MW Robert Chester Isles PGM. To the far left is RW Gerald Thaxton.

attachment.php
 
H

Huw

Guest
Hi Bill.

Yes, sir- that would be correct.
Thanks, I just wanted to make sure I was understanding the interpretation correctly.

However, so far as I can see, this seems to be the only substantial effect of the compact. It's obviously a step towards reconciliation, but it doesn't actually appear to mean much when you're at home in TX.

T & F,

Huw
 

Bill Lins

Moderating Staff
Staff Member
huw posted "it doesn't actually appear to mean much when you're at home in TX."

No, it doesn't. We were told that the only reason PHA asked for recognition by GLoT was in order for them to be recognized by UGLE. No idea if this is the case or not.
 
H

Huw

Guest
Hi Bill.

We were told that the only reason PHA asked for recognition by GLoT was in order for them to be recognized by UGLE.

Well so far as that point is concerned, mission accomplished.

However ...
No idea if this is the case or not.

Indeed. I note that conflicting stories are being put about.

What reason is given for PHAoTX apparently not wanting a fuller form of recognition? Ab initio, one would have thought that PHAoTX would seek full recognition in the same way that GLs normally recognise one another, and in the same way that other PHGLs have with their respective State GLs. When they came to us in UGLE, PHAoTX sought (and got) normal recognition with visiting rights and so forth. It's not obvious to me why they would deliberately want a more restricted form of recognition at home in TX.

T & F,

Huw
 

drapetomaniac

Premium Member
Premium Member
No, it doesn't. We were told that the only reason PHA asked for recognition by GLoT was in order for them to be recognized by UGLE. No idea if this is the case or not.

I believe the PHA web site with the compact pictures, etc state it was "a goal" which is different from being the "only" reason.
 

TexMass

Registered User
The UGLE thing sounds funny since Prince Hall's first lodge, African lodge in Boston, was chartered by England. I had never heard that story. When I met PGM Fred Allen and I asked him about the compact he said that PH wanted recognition but did not want visitation or dual membership. Maybe he figured it was too much too soon.

I went to Bessel.org and see that UGLE still doesn't show recognition for PH of TX. Interesting.
 
Last edited:

Bill Lins

Moderating Staff
Staff Member
What reason is given for PHAoTX apparently not wanting a fuller form of recognition? Ab initio, one would have thought that PHAoTX would seek full recognition in the same way that GLs normally recognise one another, and in the same way that other PHGLs have with their respective State GLs. When they came to us in UGLE, PHAoTX sought (and got) normal recognition with visiting rights and so forth. It's not obvious to me why they would deliberately want a more restricted form of recognition at home in TX.

We were told that PHA was afraid that their members would abandon them for GLoT and that new prospects would join us instead of them- leading to the demise of PHA.
 
H

Huw

Guest
Hi Jack.

The UGLE thing sounds funny since Prince Hall's first lodge, African lodge in Boston, was chartered by England. I had never heard that story.

Oh yes. African Lodge was our #459. The story is moderately well-known over here ... but of course it's not surprising that we've heard of it, since it was one of our own.

I went to Bessel.org and see that UGLE still doesn't show recognition for PH of TX. Interesting.

If you go to UGLE's own site (http://www.ugle.org.uk/about-ugle/recognised-foreign-grand-lodges/), then you'll see that we do list PHAoTX.

I've noticed before that the Bessel list is often well behind the times. I don't think he updates very often. His list of UGLE recognitions currently looks to be around 5-6 years out of date. We now recognise quite a lot more (including PHAoTX, various other PHGLs, and several other GLs in other countries), and have withdrawn recognition from a couple of GLs which he still shows us as recognising.

For those who are interested in knowing more accurately who UGLE recognises, the list on the UGLE site is kept fairly up-to-date.

T & F,

Huw
 
H

Huw

Guest
Hi Bill.

We were told that PHA was afraid that their members would abandon them for GLoT and that new prospects would join us instead of them- leading to the demise of PHA.

Interesting. I can see that as being a credible concern for some of the PHGLs in the northern States where PHA is quite small (in some States only a few hundred members and a handful of Lodges), yet in those States they've nevertheless usually gone right ahead and negotiated full-scale recognition. But in TX, PHA is a much more substantial and solidly-established organisation (around 10,000 members and 150 Lodges), so it seems pretty odd that PHAoTX would be so worried about this risk that they'd actually choose this current limited-recognition deal.

T & F,

Huw
 

TexMass

Registered User
Hi Jack.



Oh yes. African Lodge was our #459. The story is moderately well-known over here ... but of course it's not surprising that we've heard of it, since it was one of our own.



If you go to UGLE's own site (http://www.ugle.org.uk/about-ugle/recognised-foreign-grand-lodges/), then you'll see that we do list PHAoTX.

I've noticed before that the Bessel list is often well behind the times. I don't think he updates very often. His list of UGLE recognitions currently looks to be around 5-6 years out of date. We now recognise quite a lot more (including PHAoTX, various other PHGLs, and several other GLs in other countries), and have withdrawn recognition from a couple of GLs which he still shows us as recognising.

For those who are interested in knowing more accurately who UGLE recognises, the list on the UGLE site is kept fairly up-to-date.

T & F,

Huw

GOOD STUFF! Thanks Brother!
 

Robert G

Premium Member
Texas is one of the three mainstream masonic jurisdictions of the former Confederacy which has some form of recognition of Prince Hall Masonry. The others are Virginia and North Carolina. Of the 51 mainstream masonic jurisdictions in the United States, the following do not recognize any Prince Hall jurisdiction: West Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, South Carolina, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia and Florida. Thus 41 jurisdictions do have some form of recognition. Although Texas does not allow visitation, it is way ahead of the above-listed jurisdictions in that it recognizes Prince Hall masons as regular. I think that that's a major step forward. Eventually I'd like to see a maturing of this recognition to allow visitation if such is desired by the PH Grand Lodge. By the way, I have been informed that Prince Hall masonry does not allow for dual or plural membership among its own lodges.
 

Gerald.Harris

Premium Member
Premium Member
I wouldn't support any form of "merging". Visitiation, yes.

I think that visitation would be a much smoother transformation than merging. If PHGL does not even allow their members to belong to more than one lodge at a time and a merger is generally associated with one lodge giving up their identity, then a merger is pretty much out of the question.
 

drapetomaniac

Premium Member
Premium Member
By the way, I have been informed that Prince Hall masonry does not allow for dual or plural membership among its own lodges.

I've been thinking about this and it actually seems to echo what many masons seem to be pushing towards with more conservative measures to "revive" or maintain their masonry.

At various times and places, some lodges have had a maximim number of members, with the intent on being a group of men truly focused on keeping that particular lodge. I can see that rule as similar to not having plural membership. Of course, plural membership doesn't mean you can't visit or interact either.
 

Ronald D. Martin

Registered User
Nor does it require you to attend lodge. I am aware of a couple of PHA Brothers that are looking at switching to a Mainstream GL, in part due to this exact restriction.
 

TexMass

Registered User
I have sat in several jurisdictions that either did not allow plural membership or did not allow more that two. This is not uncommon.
 
Top