Compact Signing

Discussion in 'Masonic Jurisprudence' started by Blake Bowden, Feb 15, 2010.

  1. Bill Lins

    Bill Lins Moderating Staff Staff Member

    4,392
    1,209
    183
    Yes, sir- that would be correct.
     
  2. TexMass

    TexMass Registered User

    253
    1
    0
    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.

    [​IMG]
     
  3. Huw

    Huw Guest

    0
    0
    0
    Hi Bill.

    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
     
  4. Bill Lins

    Bill Lins Moderating Staff Staff Member

    4,392
    1,209
    183
    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.
     
  5. Huw

    Huw Guest

    0
    0
    0
    Hi Bill.

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

    However ...
    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
     
  6. drapetomaniac

    drapetomaniac Premium Member Premium Member

    471
    3
    38
    I believe the PHA web site with the compact pictures, etc state it was "a goal" which is different from being the "only" reason.
     
  7. TexMass

    TexMass Registered User

    253
    1
    0
    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: Apr 19, 2010
  8. Bill Lins

    Bill Lins Moderating Staff Staff Member

    4,392
    1,209
    183
    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.
     
  9. Huw

    Huw Guest

    0
    0
    0
    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
     
  10. Huw

    Huw Guest

    0
    0
    0
    Hi Bill.

    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
     
  11. TexMass

    TexMass Registered User

    253
    1
    0
    GOOD STUFF! Thanks Brother!
     
  12. Huw

    Huw Guest

    0
    0
    0
    :001_cool::001_smile:
     
  13. Robert G

    Robert G Premium Member

    47
    1
    28
    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.
     
  14. Bill Lins

    Bill Lins Moderating Staff Staff Member

    4,392
    1,209
    183
    I've been told the same thing- wonder why?
     
  15. jonesvilletexas

    jonesvilletexas Premium Member

    916
    11
    18
    I would love to see a pole from every mason in texas to see how many wont to merage with ph.
     
    Last edited: May 1, 2010
  16. Blake Bowden

    Blake Bowden Administrator Staff Member

    5,668
    1,051
    113
    I wouldn't support any form of "merging". Visitiation, yes.
     
  17. Gerald.Harris

    Gerald.Harris Premium Member Premium Member

    281
    6
    0
    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.
     
  18. drapetomaniac

    drapetomaniac Premium Member Premium Member

    471
    3
    38
    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.
     
  19. Ronald D. Martin

    Ronald D. Martin Registered User

    36
    0
    6
    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.
     
  20. TexMass

    TexMass Registered User

    253
    1
    0
    I have sat in several jurisdictions that either did not allow plural membership or did not allow more that two. This is not uncommon.
     

Share My Freemasonry