Grand Lodge of Ky and Most Worshipful Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Ky now have visitation

Well the point of my post is that it is primarily an American doctrine (exclusive jurisdiction) when used to deny another grand lodge recognition when the primary reason they exist is due to the past actions of said grand lodge.

 

But it is not primarily an American doctrine. Yes, it is used as an ostensible reason to deny recognition.

 

I did mention when used. I haven't heard of grand lodges denying entry to certain races to the point where the men are forced to form a grand lodge and then the grand lodges in question use exclusive jurisdiction. Where else has that happened?

 

I don't understand why brothers can't face the fact and admit it boils down to racism plain and simple.

Sent from my 831C using My Freemasonry mobile app

 

I think your question may be, Have GLs outside the US used ETJ to deny recognition based on race?

Not to my recollection.

 

Not exactly my question. I will not claim that the use of exclusive jurisdiction is solely based on race because you can't really prove it. But it is clear why there was a need for the PHA grand lodges? My point was that the PHA grand lodges were created because of race. It seems somewhat disingenuous to use exclusive jurisdiction when you or your predecessors created the problem in the first place.

If PHA was created for other reasons, I wouldn't really have a problem with the exclusive jurisdiction doctrine.

 

I have seen ETJ used in cases other than race. The NY DC issue over Lebanon comes to mind.

For the GLs who are withholding recognition of PHA GLs who are not in Amity with their state grand Lodge counterpart, ETJ is in operation, but is not racially motivated for those grand lodges, as seen by their recognition of other PHA GLs.

 

I wasn't even referring to those grand lodges. My point of reference is the 9 grand lodges that won't recognize the PHA grand lodge in their state.

 

That has nothing to do with ETJ. They can recognise 18 other GLs in their state.

 

Not understanding your logic when most of those grand lodges are using exclusive jurisdiction as the reason they won't recognize the PHA grand lodge in their state.

 

I do not understand that to be the ostensible reason they use. ETJ does not prevent recognition within a jurisdiction. If it did, other SGLs could not recognise their PHA counterparts. UGLE could not share South Africa and Argentina.

 

Then why won't the 9 grand lodges recognize the PHA grand lodge in their state? What is their justification?

 

In the main, it is because of bigotry

There are three PHA GLs apparently in Amity with GLdF. That is problematic.

 

I knew that was the reason. I have seen a lot of members from those grand lodges cite exclusive jurisdiction as the reason.

So there are 3 in amity with GLdF, what about the other 6? Those 3 should just withdraw recognition. Problem solved.

 

Can't disagree.

When they try the ETJ, ask why they haven't withdrawn recognition of UGLE which shares jurisdictions, California, Utah.. If you want, bring me in on the conversation.

 

Thanks Brother Cooks. Will do.

 

I believe PHA was created due to segregation and racial inequality. I recently heard a gentleman state there was no longer a need for PHA. I beg to differ. As long as there are GLS and subordinate lodges that refuse to admit a man based on the color of his skin there will be a need for PHA masons.

Sent from my 831C using My Freemasonry mobile app

 

Do any of you brothers every try to reach out to these GLS that refuse to recognize PHA and see what their reasoning is ?

Sent from my 831C using My Freemasonry mobile app

 

Why can't other GLS that recognize PHA say to heck with these GLS that refuse to recognize and recognize them anyways ?

Sent from my 831C using My Freemasonry mobile app

 

Each grand lodge is sovereign. It would be inappropriate for me to contact another grand lodge about their rules and regulations.