Compact Signing

[fairbanks1363pm]

i understand we are not allowed to visit each other. what exactly are we allowed to do? i was there at GL when this was passed and the way i understood it was that if you met a ph mason on the street we would now be able to acknowledge each other. does this mean discuss masonry? help one another or what. i dont think this was ever realy discussed that day.

 

[Huw]

Hi Wes.

Well, if you and a PHAoTX member both come over here (England) to visit me, then you can both come to my Lodge and sit together as Brothers, which you couldn't do before. So that's a real change, albeit a small one, and you'd have to travel to take advantage of it.

Back home in TX, hmmm ... if you visit one another's social events (not actual meetings, obviously), then you can call one another Brother in public without fear of expulsion ... and, ummm ... that's about it, so far as I know.

It's quite handy for the London-resident Texan in my Lodge, though: when he goes home to visit his folks in TX, he'll be able to visit you and PHAoTX Lodges as well because UGLE has visiting with both, even though you can't visit one another.

T & F,

Huw

 

[rhitland]

I have heard from a VERY credible source says the original compact that was presented to our Fraternal Relations Committee had visitation but PHA was told to take it out or it would not pass.

Very credible is an understatement the Brother this was heard from in my opinion is beyond reproach. Which begs the question what is the truth? One is left to form his own opinion because leadership has been unclear on this issue and we all know what opinions are good for. I would love to see a GL education program on the very subject with the original compact included for all to read in its entirety.

Where would a GLoTexas Mason find the original or copy of the full compact signed?

 

[Bill Lins]

Welcome back, Puss Boy! I don't recall what year it was voted on at Grand Lodge, but if you can find that out, then check the "Proceedings" of that year's GL Communication and the Grand Master's report for that same year- both books should be in your Lodge's files and/or library.

 

[Huw]

Hi Bill.

I don't recall what year it was voted on at Grand Lodge

Voted through by GLoTX at 171st AC, 1st-2nd December 2006. Final draft signed by both GLs on 23rd April 2007.

However, the GL proceedings and reports will presumably show the final text as presented to the Brethren ... and not answer Rhitland's question about what was in the original draft presented by PHA, before (allegedly) being modified during the negotiations.

T & F,

Huw

 

[Bill Lins]

Voted through by GLoTX at 171st AC, 1st-2nd December 2006. Final draft signed by both GLs on 23rd April 2007.

However, the GL proceedings and reports will presumably show the final text as presented to the Brethren ... and not answer Rhitland's question about what was in the original draft presented by PHA, before (allegedly) being modified during the negotiations.

True, but I'm hoping the draft is included in the report of the Committee on Fraternal Relations, which should be in one of those volumes. If it isn't, then he'll need to try to get that Committee's records from that year- mebbe it'll be there.

 

[rhitland]

I would love to see either of them especially the original if there was a first draft but I have been in search of the signed one. I do not want to indicate I know there was I just heard this, so we are still in rumorsville on this which is not a place I like to be. I did look through my lodge library which is huge at the Ft Worth Temple and that was one was missing. Probably checked out at the time but I have had no luck finding it after a few lodge visits and perusing their library as well. I will keep up the search though.

 

[swole]

I met a PH Mason once a few years back, and he said it quote on quote "It all started with Juneteenth". Whatever that means..

Juneteenth commemorates the announcement of the abolition of slavery for Texas in 1865. It is a HUGE deal here in Austin. Celebration everywhere. Now you fellas know why I am torn in this debate of which way to go. My ignorance of the craft may make me a bit naive in the situation so i feel, naked, if you will.... coming in.

 

[owls84]

I have attended various PHA sponsered BBQ's and was treated on the Level everytime. So many guys came and gave me a handshake and a hug in most cases. In discussion all each of the ones said all they want is recognition as we would recognize ANY other Grand Jurisdiction.

 

[Huw]

Hi Owls.

... all they want is recognition as we would recognize ANY other Grand Jurisdiction.

Which not only means visiting, but also allowing dual allegiance, membership transfers, conferring degrees for one another on request, and so on. I can imagine that, for GLs which are not used to the idea of sharing geographical territory, that might seem to be a big ask, so I don't expect it'll happen tomorrow.

However, in UGLE we have long experience of shared territory in our many overseas Districts (and a little experience of sharing our home territory as well), and it seems to have worked out quite well in most places. South Africa is an interesting example, where five separate jurisdictions work side by side: the local GL of SA, plus a large number of English, Scottish and Irish Lodges, and one Dutch Lodge. All fully recognise one another, freely intervisiting, permitting multiple allegiance, and so on. It's a complex situation administratively, but it's been this way for a long time and it seems always to have worked pretty well in practice, with each Lodge working within the continuing traditions of its own jurisdiction.

If in the fullness of time GLoTX and PHAoTX can arrive at a situation analogous to the harmonious sharing of territory in South Africa, then I reckon you'll have achieved a satisfactory outcome for everyone.

T & F,

Huw

 

[owls84]

Hi Owls.



Which not only means visiting, but also allowing dual allegiance, membership transfers, conferring degrees for one another on request, and so on. I can imagine that, for GLs which are not used to the idea of sharing geographical territory, that might seem to be a big ask, so I don't expect it'll happen tomorrow.

Not necessarily Bro. Huw. In the US there are several Grand Jurisdictions that do not allow dual or plural membership from one jurisdiction to the next. They are all listed in a book we have issued every year.

 

[Bill Lins]

Not necessarily Bro. Huw. In the US there are several Grand Jurisdictions that do not allow dual or plural membership from one jurisdiction to the next. They are all listed in a book we have issued every year.

Including TX PHA. I've always wondered why. Many of our Lodges would have demised were it not for dual/plural members.

 

[Huw]

Hi Owls.

Not necessarily Bro. Huw. In the US there are several Grand Jurisdictions that do not allow dual or plural membership from one jurisdiction to the next. They are all listed in a book we have issued every year.

Yes, I know that those restrictions exist in some US GLs. However, that's a minority habit (hey, I've got a copy of the List of Lodges too!), and in particular it's not the GLoTX rule. Therefore, I would assume that the normal form of recognition offered by GLoTX to most GLs is the form which does allow dual affiliation, etc.

T & F,

Huw

 

[JTM]

that's a confusing statement. the GLoTX has plenty of GLs that it doesn't allow visitation to (and more especially - and it's the same thing - visitation/communication). all masonic grand lodges that i know allow and disallow certain grand lodges membership and visitation - it's part of the obligation. regularity in obligation is a requirement for recognition.

 

[Huw]

Hi JTM.

that's a confusing statement. the GLoTX has plenty of GLs that it doesn't allow visitation to (and more especially - and it's the same thing - visitation/communication).

Oh? Actually I'm finding your statement rather confusing too ... evidently there's some mis-communication here somewhere. Let's try to clarify, because now I'm really confused about what GLoTX policy is. What I'm trying to find out is what is the normal policy, as opposed to what might happen in a few special cases.

Is it or is it not the case that the form of recognition practiced by GLoTX normally includes visiting and dual affiliation? My understanding hitherto has been that the answer is yes.

In other words, does GLoTX normally include visiting and dual affiliation as part of recognition except when the other GL doesn't want it? Or is it the case that even if the other GL is happy to have visiting and dual affiliation, GLoTX is usually likely to refuse it and insist on only nominal recognition?

all masonic grand lodges that i know allow and disallow certain grand lodges membership and visitation

As an example of a GL which doesn't do recognition treaties without visitation and membership, there's my own in UGLE. In our rulebook, these rights follow automatically from recognition. Sometimes we have temporary suspensions of visiting rights and so on, when there's some dispute going on, but only as a temporary measure by edict, not as a permanent restriction built into the recognition agreement. If UGLE isn't happy to allow full-scale recognition with all the rights, then it simply doesn't recognise at all.

Our guiding principle in this is the equality of brotherhood: if we recognise him, then a Brother is a Brother and will be received as such, but if we can't receive him as a Brother, then he's not recognised as being a Brother at all. I suppose it's conceivable that sometime in history we may have signed a recognition treaty on some other basis than this, but I can't think of any example of us doing so.

it's part of the obligation. regularity in obligation is a requirement for recognition.

I'm not sure where the Obligation comes into this issue. Perhaps there's something in your Ob which isn't in mine? Of course I'm obligated to have masonic communication only with recognised Brothers, but there's nothing in my Obligation which subdivides recognition into different categories of partial recognition, it's pretty much an all-or-nothing issue for us: a guy is a Brother, or he's not. Is it different in your Ob?

T & F,

Huw

 

[owls84]

This is where I get my popcorn, sit back and watch.....

What are you going to say to that JTM???? Huh?? You have been called out now what?

 

[Huw]

Hi Owls (and JTM).

What are you going to say to that JTM???? Huh?? You have been called out now what?

Oh ... er, look, I'm not trying to call anyone out. I'm simply trying to understand what the policy is over there, because I'm now confused about it even though I previously thought I had understood. I wasn't trying to start a row.

T & F,

Huw

 

[owls84]

No worries Huw, JTM and I are long time forum goers. One of our jobs here is to stem debate and keep hot topics going. Don't let that stop you. All we are saying is the only place we have recognition without visitation is with PHAoTX. I personally have asked several PHA members and GLoTX officers about this "Compact" I was told two different stories as to how it went down and the reasoning why it happened like it did. One side I believe the other I question. Regardless of what any of us believe I am proud to be able to call them a Brother and meet with them in several functions that I have. I treat and talk to them just as I would a possible candidate and discuss Masonry in a broad sense. The only thing we can not speak of is that in which you can't tell your spouse. Which leaves quite a bit to talk about. These guys actually have so much we can learn from and we have stuff to learn from them. Just as the lodge down the road or in the other county. The only thing this stops us from doing is sitting in a Lodge together but I can still go to a fundraiser and invite them to ours.

 

[Huw]

Hi Owls.

All we are saying is the only place we have recognition without visitation is with PHAoTX.

You're saying that, yes. But JTM is directly contradicting you: above in this thread, he says

GLoTX has plenty of GLs that it doesn't allow visitation to.

You can't both be right. And furthermore, this is surely a matter of simple fact rather than opinion. How come you disagree? Am I missing some subtext here?

T & F,

Huw

 

[Bill Lins]

You're saying that, yes. But JTM is directly contradicting you

I believe what JTM meant is that there are many GL's that GLoT does not recognize as regular in origin and/or practice. AFAIK, PHAGLoT is the only GL we do recognize but are not allowed to fraternize with. Like owls, I've heard 2 different stories regarding why. And yes, I know I'm not supposed to end a sentence with a preposition. :wink: