Compact Signing

[Huw]

Hi Bill.

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.

Ah, I see. That's not quite how I read what JTM said, but okay, that makes sense of it. Obviously there are hundreds (maybe even thousands) of spurious organisations in the world claiming to be masons.

But this puts us right back to what I said in the first place, with which others appeared to be taking issue: the normal form of recognition by GLoTX is full recognition with visiting rights, membership transfers when appropriate, courtesy conferral of degrees on request, dual affiliation if the other GL allows it, and so on. So if PHAoTX members have said (as you and Owls appeared to testify earlier in this thread) that they want to be recognised in the same way as any other GL, then that means that they do want visitation and all the rest (except dual affiliation because they don't allow that ... at the moment).

Frankly, I'd be surprised if PHAoTX wanted it otherwise, and I'm even surprised that GLoTX apparently want it otherwise. This current situation of saying that the other guy is a Brother for some purposes but not a Brother for other purposes feels very strange to an outside observer like me. It's understandable as a temporary suspension of normal relations when there's a dispute going on, but the idea that this is written into the treaty as a permanent suspension of normal rights is the strange part. When there's a dispute, the outcome anywhere else in the world would be either that the dispute is soon resolved and normal relations are resumed, or it's not resolved and recognition is withdrawn. So to outsiders, the current relations in TX look like an "ongoing dispute" situation.

Of course I realise that this has happened because the history down your way is different from most places, but that doesn't stop it from looking odd and uncomfortable to outsiders. I'm almost tempted to get on a plane to DFW and test how it feels on the ground, since I have visiting rights to both GLs in TX, but I'm not sure I'd enjoy the experience of visiting two sets of Brothers in the same town who are cut off from visiting one another.

And yes, I know I'm not supposed to end a sentence with a preposition. :wink:

As my old English teacher once remarked: never end a sentence with "with" ... er ... unless you have nothing else to end it with!:wink:

T & F,

Huw

 

[owls84]

We'd sure show you a good time. By the way I think we actually solved something here.

 

[Bill Lins]

Obviously there are hundreds (maybe even thousands) of spurious organisations in the world claiming to be masons.

According to Nelson King, there are over 200 clandestine Prince Hall groups just in Texas!

But this puts us right back to what I said in the first place, with which others appeared to be taking issue: the normal form of recognition by GLoTX is full recognition with visiting rights, membership transfers when appropriate, courtesy conferral of degrees on request, dual affiliation if the other GL allows it, and so on. So if PHAoTX members have said (as you and Owls appeared to testify earlier in this thread) that they want to be recognised in the same way as any other GL, then that means that they do want visitation and all the rest (except dual affiliation because they don't allow that ... at the moment).

We do not know if PHAoTX members want visitation or not. We do know that the PHA GL wanted recognition so that they could seek recognition by UGLE.

This current situation of saying that the other guy is a Brother for some purposes but not a Brother for other purposes feels very strange to an outside observer like me.

It feels pretty strange to us on the inside also., but I just work here. ;-)

S&F, Bill

 

[rhitland]

It feels pretty strange to us on the inside also., but I just work here. ;-)

S&F, Bill

my thoughts exactly

 

[Robert G]

Actually, PHA recognition has been accomplished by 41 US jurisdictions which include the District of Columbia. The only mainstream masonic jurisdictions which do not recognize at least their own PHA counterpart are the following ten: West Virginia, Kentucky, South Carolina, Tennessee, Arkansas, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana. Florida just the other day rejected recognizing their PHA counterpart. Interestingly, Virginia, North Carolina and Texas are the only jurisdictions in the old Confederate states which have recognized any PHA jurisdiction.

 

[pha]

Bro Robert, in my Travels Eastward I have noticed with out a doubt that the only power some jurisdiction's have IS the power to deny recognition, as a member of PHA I hold no animosity toward's any of the brother's in the state's that deny recognition. Lets look at it like this, If we (PHA of Texas) are given recognition by the Mother Lodge in England (and we are) and if those lodges that deny recogniton are also a part of the Mother Lodge, what have so called mainstream masonic jurisdictions accomplished, this subject has gotten more publicity then it deserves considering that most of us live, work worship, shop,bank,vacation and send our kids to schools ect, etc that are diverse, what are we accomplising by carrying on with this denying someones right to practice the art of being BETTER MEN.

 

[Huw]

Hi Robert.

Actually, PHA recognition has been accomplished by 41 US jurisdictions which include the District of Columbia.

Evidently you're counting only the State GL jurisdictions, but surely they're not the only ones who count: you could add another 40-something by noticing that the various PHA jurisdictions also recognise one another!

However, a large part of the point of this thread is discussing what "recognition" means. There are 41 State GLs which say they recognise their co-terminous PHGL, yes. But in some cases that recognition means the same as what recognition normally means, whilst in other cases it means (at least so far) something significantly less than what recognition normally means.

Also, although 41 State GLs have announced recognition (in some sense) of their local PHA, only some of those have yet progressed to recognition of the PHGLs of other States. So there's an awful lot still to be done before the relationships among GLs in the US is going to look like the normal situation between regular GLs internationally. No doubt it'll take years yet.

T & F,

Huw

 

[Robert G]

http://www.mwphglotx.org/compact.htm

This whole compact is kinda silly. So let me get this straight, we recognize each other as legitimate Masonic entities, yet we're prohibited from meeting upon the level?

No visitation
No membership
No dual membership

Does it benefit Freemasonry to keep the divide alive and well?

In reading the compact, you will note that the final paragraph clearly states that the Texas PHA Grand Lodge sought the compact solely to obtain recognition from the mother lodge, the United Grand Lodge of England (UGLE). I've taken a picture of the last paragraph and attached it here. You can read the entire compact at the PH GL of Texas website. On the left-side navigation frame click compact signing. By the way, checking with the UGLE's website you'll see that they do indeed recognize the Texas PHA GL.

 

[Huw]

Hi Robert.

In reading the compact, you will note that the final paragraph clearly states that the Texas PHA Grand Lodge sought the compact solely to obtain recognition from the mother lodge, the United Grand Lodge of England (UGLE).

Sorry, no, I must take issue with this.

The compact notes UGLE recognition as the "ultimate goal" of PHAoTX, but it doesn't say that it's their "sole" goal. I rather suspect that this note was inserted into the compact as a "reassurance" for those Brethren (of either GL, but perhaps mainly from GLoTX) who weren't keen on the idea of recognising one another in TX. But the compact conspicuously omits to say that PHAoTX didn't also have some other objectives in mind, it's merely silent about other objectives, and it reads to me as a rather "loud silence" - the absence of any denial of additional objectives implies to me that there probably are other objectives, and eventually achieving visiting rights is the most obvious guess for what else they may have had in mind. But they probably didn't dare say that, for fear that even this partial recognition under the Compact might be denied to them if they openly admitted that what they actually want is to be treated like normal recognised Brethren from anywhere else.

By the way, checking with the UGLE's website you'll see that they do indeed recognize the Texas PHA GL.

Correct.

Furthermore, the UGLE recognition of PHAoTX is full normal recognition, not the restricted recognition which GLoTX and PHAoTX give one another. That's why I'm in the unusual posiiton, as a UGLE member, of having visiting rights to both TX jurisdictions. However, an odd side-effect of the situation is that if I were to dual-affiliate as a member in one of the TX jurisdictions, then I'd instantly lose my visiting rights to the other TX jurisdiction, even though I might (perfectly legally) have visited the other TX jurisdiction in the same town the previous day! That's a rather weird-feeling thought.

T & F,

Huw

 

[Robert G]

Hi Robert.



Sorry, no, I must take issue with this.

The compact notes UGLE recognition as the "ultimate goal" of PHAoTX, but it doesn't say that it's their "sole" goal. I rather suspect that this note was inserted into the compact as a "reassurance" for those Brethren (of either GL, but perhaps mainly from GLoTX) who weren't keen on the idea of recognising one another in TX. But the compact conspicuously omits to say that PHAoTX didn't also have some other objectives in mind, it's merely silent about other objectives, and it reads to me as a rather "loud silence" - the absence of any denial of additional objectives implies to me that there probably are other objectives, and eventually achieving visiting rights is the most obvious guess for what else they may have had in mind. But they probably didn't dare say that, for fear that even this partial recognition under the Compact might be denied to them if they openly admitted that what they actually want is to be treated like normal recognised Brethren from anywhere else.



Correct.

Furthermore, the UGLE recognition of PHAoTX is full normal recognition, not the restricted recognition which GLoTX and PHAoTX give one another. That's why I'm in the unusual posiiton, as a UGLE member, of having visiting rights to both TX jurisdictions. However, an odd side-effect of the situation is that if I were to dual-affiliate as a member in one of the TX jurisdictions, then I'd instantly lose my visiting rights to the other TX jurisdiction, even though I might (perfectly legally) have visited the other TX jurisdiction in the same town the previous day! That's a rather weird-feeling thought.

T & F,

Huw

I must say that I have to agree with you. The word 'solely' was an interpretation on my part and not stated in the compact. I, for one, would love to visit PHA lodges, but my GL (Florida) does not recognize its corresponding PH GL. Interestingly, though, our district instructor stated that if we were visiting in a jurisdiction which recognizes PH masonry and we happened to be sitting in a lodge in which there was a PH visitor admitted we could stay and not excuse ourselves. The idea being that as a visitor we would be conforming to the masonic law as it applies to the lodge being visited. I thought that that was rather a new and generous concept since in the past one was supposed to leave under such circumstances.

 

[Huw]

Hi Robert.

Interestingly, though, our district instructor stated that if we were visiting in a jurisdiction which recognizes PH masonry and we happened to be sitting in a lodge in which there was a PH visitor admitted we could stay and not excuse ourselves. The idea being that as a visitor we would be conforming to the masonic law as it applies to the lodge being visited. I thought that that was rather a new and generous concept since in the past one was supposed to leave under such circumstances.

That certainly isn't the rule for me in UGLE, and I don't think it's the rule for most other GLs either. As you say, the normal rule is that you must withdraw if someone attends who is not recognised by your own GL, regardless of whether or not the local GL recognises him. I don't see how you can vary this rule without changing your Obligations, so this is a very interesting subject.

I think you ought to check carefully whether your District Instructor is right about this - even senior Brethren sometimes get the rules wrong! And if that is indeed now the rule under GLoFL, then I'd be very interested to hear more about when GLoFL adopted this new rule, and what the wording of the resolution or edict was which brought in this change. If you can find out and report back on here, then I'd be grateful.

T & F,

Huw

 

[Robert G]

Hi Robert.



That certainly isn't the rule for me in UGLE, and I don't think it's the rule for most other GLs either. As you say, the normal rule is that you must withdraw if someone attends who is not recognised by your own GL, regardless of whether or not the local GL recognises him. I don't see how you can vary this rule without changing your Obligations, so this is a very interesting subject.

I think you ought to check carefully whether your District Instructor is right about this - even senior Brethren sometimes get the rules wrong! And if that is indeed now the rule under GLoFL, then I'd be very interested to hear more about when GLoFL adopted this new rule, and what the wording of the resolution or edict was which brought in this change. If you can find out and report back on here, then I'd be grateful.

T & F,

Huw

I contacted the former district instructor discussed above. This is what he wrote: "My experience has been as you mentioned. I asked a Grand Master that very question years ago and he gave me the same answer."

Here is an interesting section from the Florida Masonic Digest (Law): "ACTS OF OTHER GRAND JURISDICTIONS Regulations 15.02 The Grand Lodge of Florida shall give full force and effect to the actions of other recognized Grand Jurisdictions not inconsistent with the jurisprudence of this Grand Jurisdiction."

The former DI also wrote this: "The only person who can interpret the digest is the GM...all others simply give opinions. If you are perplexed by this question I would suggest contacting GL for the GM's interpretation. My opinion is that I will continue to sit in a lodge whose jurisdiction is accepted by our GL without worrying about who they accept as regular. There is a toll free number for GL. The GM will publish his ruling and decision."

 

[Huw]

Very interesting, Robert, thanks.

If your GM does indeed publish a ruling and decision at some point, then it'd be interesting to know what he says. Obviously your rules are a matter for your own GL and GM to decide, but personally I'm not convinced that it can be regular for Brethren to sit in Lodge with those whom you don't recognise - it looks to me like a breach of Obligation (because it would be for me, under my Obligations), although I don't know the exact wording of the Obligations under GLoFL.

Your rule about "Acts of other Grand Jurisdictions" is curious. What is (or is not) "inconsistent" with your home jurisprudence is inevitably going to be a matter for interpretative rulings in most situations, so looking at the the rule alone it appears to leave it all hanging in the air and undecided until case-by-case rulings are issued ... in which case, what was the point of introducing the rule at all? I assume that the drafters of this rule actually did have some specific objective in mind, but it's not obvious to me what it was, so it'd be interesting to know more about why they invented it.

T & F,

Huw

 

[Wingnut]

or under whos jurisdiction you may become...

When in Rome, you do as the Romans do. While Texas does recognize PHA, we dont allow visition. IF however Im in OK which DOES allow visitation, and a OK PHA is visiting that lodge, I do NOT have to leave that lodge. We are both recognized visitors in that lodge.

 

[Huw]

Hi Wyndell.

or under whos jurisdiction you may become...

In English ritual, we have a line similar to that about obeying the civil law of wherever you are, but it's very clearly about civil law and not masonic rules. In UGLE, masonic jurisdiction is defined by membership, not territory, so all of our members are under our rules wherever they are (although simultaneously under the rules of another place if they're dual-affiliated).

When in Rome, you do as the Romans do.

One of the most widely-abused and confusing quotations in all of scripture. I think it's generally a poor guide for conduct - the Romans did many wrong things, and I don't think it's an excuse for me to do wrong. I've always seen the scriptural injunction as permission to go along with local rules when necessary, rather than a command to sell out my principles for momentary expediency.

While Texas does recognize PHA, we dont allow visition. IF however Im in OK which DOES allow visitation, and a OK PHA is visiting that lodge, I do NOT have to leave that lodge. We are both recognized visitors in that lodge.

Are you certain? I'm sure that some other GLoTX Brethren here in MoT have previously told me that the GLoTX rule on this point is the same as what I'm used to in UGLE, i.e. that if my own GL doesn't recognise someone as a Brother then I may not sit in Lodge with him (regardless of whether I'm in a place where the local GL recognises him).

T & F,

Huw

 

[Wingnut]

Yes Im positive thats the way it is. I was told that by 2 different PGMs.

LOL You make it sound like the Romans are the only people that ever did things they should be ashamed of... But then I can think of many things that other countries have done I would be ashamed of, but thats beside the point. Dont be so literal good grief.

To your final point, thank the GAOTU that we are past that and have moved on. If they were expelled, suspended, unrecognized I can see that. As I said, 2 PGMs have told me that is the way it is, I beleive its in the Additional Lodge Light book also, Ill have to double check the wording. I cant see visiting a lodge in Scotland/Hawaii/Canada and then having to determine if every member inside the lodge is recognize by the GLoTx! How exactly would that work? If the brothers of a recognized lodge let people into the lodge room I have to assume that everyone in there a properly vouched for Mason.

 

[rhitland]

For what it is worth Brother Wing I was told the same thing on numerous occasions the highest ranking whom told me this was the GS.

 

[Robert G]

I'd like to add some thoughts to this discussion. First of all, it seems to me that I am not a deputized policeman of the GL of Florida when I am traveling. It's not up to me to discern the masonic bona fides of everyone sitting in a lodge I'm visiting. In fact, it's not up to me to decide who sits in their lodge. So, what do I do? Do I go to the WM and ask him who the visitors are and then consult my own trusty GL of FL list of recognized lodges which I just happen to have in my back pocket and then decide if I will deign to allow this lodge to welcome me as a fellow mason? It's just too over-the-top arrogant. And...let's be honest, the second issue is that we all know is that among the grand jurisdictions which are in amity with the United Grand Lodge of England more or less recognize the same jurisdictions as regular. Certainly, if I'm in Nebraska I don't have to worry that they've admitted masons from the Grand Orient of France. The odds are that I don't have to worry about anyone being there who is considered clandestine by the body of UGLE-related masonry. There will be no one there from Le Droit Humain, or any of the continental grand orients in amity with the Grand Orient of France. When we get right down to it, any differences beyond that are simply politics. Today Florida doesn't recognize Prince Hall Masonry, but next year they might. If I'm in a lodge in Nebraska with a PHA mason, how would I know that's what he is? Maybe he's simply a member of a mainstream jurisdiction who happens to be black. Who am I do be concerned about that? Who's going to call me on it, some other member from Flrorida also sitting in that lodge? When we get home do we file masonic charges against each other so that we can both be expelled? Let's face it, the issue is absurd.

 

[Huw]

Thanks for the correction, Wyndell, evidently I had previously got the wrong idea about what the GLoTX rule is on this.

However, although you can't see yourself going visiting elsewhere and being expected to verify that everyone present is actually recognised by your own GL, nevertheless that is precisely what UGLE rules expect me to do, and yes that definitely is also the rule for most other regular GLs outside the US as well (in fact, I don't know of any regular GL anywhere outside the US which doesn't have this rule, although of course there may be some because obviously I don't know everyone's rules). The usual mechanism is to consult the Secretary of the Lodge and enquire if there are any other visitors present from other jurisdictions, and if so which other jurisdictions. Before we go visiting anywhere, we're expected to have checked which other jurisdictions our hosts recognise which we don't recognise, and thereby be aware in advance of which ones to look out for, and withdraw if any such are present.

Of course it might be the case that accidents occur, and we end up sitting with someone we don't recognise without realising it. That'd probably earn a warning for sloppy checking, but probably wouldn't get us expelled. But if we did it deliberately, then yes, it's an expulsion offence.

Robert, you say it's not up to you to discern everyone's bona fides. Neither is it ours in respect of those who are members of our host jurisdiction, of course - if we're allowed to visit there at all, then we assume that they've correctly established the bona fides of their own members. But in the case of other visitors, coming from third-party jurisdictions, then yes, we're expected to know whether or not we're allowed to sit with them. It's not a matter of deciding who can sit in our host Lodge, obviously that's their business, but it's a matter of deciding if we ourselves can sit in their Lodge, which is our own business. You ask who are you to be concerned about it, the answer is that you're a Brother with an Obligation to follow the rules ... if GLoFL doesn't have this particular rule, then you needn't worry about it, but for those of us who come from GLs which have this rule (i.e. most GLs), then yes, we're each expected to "police" ourselves to ensure that we act regularly. As for who's going to call you on it if you violate your Obligation, then in the first instance your own conscience should do so ... but if you don't realise that there's an unrecognised person present, then probably no-one will call you on it, unless it subsequently happens to come to light some other way. But in UGLE (and I suspect in many other non-US GLs as well), we're constantly warned about the dangers of meeting unrecognised persons when visiting other jurisdictions, so there's certainly an expectation laid upon each of us to exercise due diligence in checking who's present. (As an example of the constancy of warnings here, many of our Lodges will print a warning about this issue on every summons for every meeting!) Yes, this does make it quite complicated to visit other jurisdictions!

T & F,

Huw

 

[Squire Bentley]

Brother Miley, The reason that things are the way that they are, is because that is precisely what the PH Masons asked the Grand Lodge of Texas to do several years ago. They did not seek visitation rights . They simply asked for recognition. I believe that if enough of the members of the PHGL and the GLOT want this to happen then it will .

This is just not true. Take it from a Prince Hall Mason who knows!