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!

Has this occurred?

ess1113

Premium Member
Sir,
You may have valid points on all your issues but you lose legitimacy when you call the Grand Master the "Grand Jokester".
You should contact the committee chairman and ask for a copy of the report, then feel free to use as you may see fit. The report is free and available from the committee.

Fraternally
Eric
 

tomasball

Premium Member
Yes, it was very peculiar that the GM decided to abbreviate the Fraternal Relations Committee report. Bear in mind that the written report already is with the Grand Secretary, and we will be able to read it eventually. I privately inquired of a friend who is a member of that committee, and he told me they haven't heard anything from the MWPHGLoT since they cancelled the meeting over a year ago.
 

dfreybur

Premium Member
On Saturday morning, I was hoping that the Fraternal Relations Committee would report on the Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Texas and on the Grand Lodge in France, but apparently the Grand Master did not permit the Committee to make its Report, other than to vote on recognition for the Grand Lodge of Tahiti. The Committee Chairman said that their report included information on the Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Texas and on the Grand Lodge in France, but he was not allowed to report on those items.

Members of both of our Texas jurisdictions have tried waiting for our grand lines to change the agreement to include visitation. It did not work. Sure enough this report says that it has continued to not work.

Members of MWPHGLofTX went through the legislation process to force a trigger on the floor. They did an end run around their own leadership. They forced the issue. They voted favorably.

Now is the time we return the favor. Shall we discuss verbiage and set a deadline to start gathering signatures in March?
 

Bro. Michael

Registered User
On this subject, does anyone know if anything significant has occurred relating to this in Arkansas? I know the two do not allow visitation (in fact I don't think they even pretend to recognize each other) in Arkansas, but I am not aware of any action being taken to change this despite the fact that the reasons for not recognizing PHA Masons died out long ago. Racism may still exist, and unfortunately does, but the valid reasons for it (the ones which were related to freedom rather than skin color) died out when black men in America were no longer bound as slaves. At the point when they became able to take obligations for themselves and to keep those obligations, they should immediately have been recognized. On that note, I am not sure I support distinguishing PH from mainstream in any way. When I meet a brother (black, white, asian, hispanic, what have you), I do not identify him as "that black brother", "that white brother", etc. He is my brother, and to treat him worse or even to treat him better based strictly on color is truly unmasonic.

Perhaps I am ignorant in some way about this, but I would appreciate any clarity my brothers can offer.
 
Last edited:

Blake Bowden

Administrator
Staff Member
On Saturday morning, I was hoping that the Fraternal Relations Committee would report on the Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Texas and on the Grand Lodge in France, but apparently the Grand Master did not permit the Committee to make its Report, other than to vote on recognition for the Grand Lodge of Tahiti. The Committee Chairman said that their report included information on the Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Texas and on the Grand Lodge in France, but he was not allowed to report on those items.

The Grand Master then congratulated himself for finishing all the Resolutions and Committee Reports by 9:30 AM Saturday, and then turned our Grand Lodge session into a joke-telling marathon for the next 2 1/2 hours, with only the necessary breaks to ballot on Grand Junior Warden, Grand Treasurer, a Home & School Director and a Committee on Work position.

Why wasn't the Fraternal Relations Committee allowed to give its report? What was in the Report that the Grand Jokester didn't want the members to hear?

Excellent question.
 

ess1113

Premium Member
I have read the 2013 Fraternal Relations Committee report and I would emphasize that everyone that is interested please request a copy and read it. It is well formatted and well thought out and concise.
 

dfreybur

Premium Member
I have read the 2013 Fraternal Relations Committee report and I would emphasize that everyone that is interested please request a copy and read it. It is well formatted and well thought out and concise.

I take it there is an annual book of Proceedings sent to every lodge and available for purchase by any member that has the complete text of everything covered at the annual communication including the full text of every committee report? I'll order one of those through my lodge secretary tonight. I have a shopping list of items to order.

Is there a similar Proceedings book from the MWPHGLofTX that can be purchased by non-members? I would like one to have the exact wording of what passed the vote at their recent quarterly meeting.
 

bupton52

Moderator
Premium Member
Is there a similar Proceedings book from the MWPHGLofTX that can be purchased by non-members? I would like one to have the exact wording of what passed the vote at their recent quarterly meeting.

I don't know if they are available for purchase, but the Wilbert M. Curtis Prince Hall Library Museum is opened to non-members for research. All proceedings are filed there.
 

crono782

Premium Member
I don't know if they are available for purchase, but the Wilbert M. Curtis Prince Hall Library Museum is opened to non-members for research. All proceedings are filed there.

Interesting. I'm about 10 min or so down the road from there. I've been meaning to swing by and see the museum anyway.

EDIT: I wonder if it's still by appointment only. They don't even post a phone # on the museum website (or the MWPHGLoTX site either, :p ).
 
Last edited:

jjjjjggggg

Premium Member
How can masonry make good men better if we as masons regardless of affiliation do not allow all men ?

Not all men are good men, not all men should be masons.

The phrase is more of a catchy short-hand way of explaining masonry, but isn't the main guiding principle for admission into the fraternity.

As to basing admission into the fraternity on color of skin, this is unmasonic and against the landmarks.
 

Glen Cook

G A Cook
Site Benefactor
Landmark Eighteenth
I don't have 18 on my list. To which list are your referring? Mackey (25), George Oliver (40), WV, NJ, NV, KY, Joseph Fort Newton, Roscoe Pound (6)? As you see, there is no consistency in the landmarks. Consequently, to boldly declare something is contrary to the landmarks is usually of little use, as they are not a shared construct.

I assume you mean Mackey, as the GL of the State of OK adopted those. #18 refers to Qualifications of a candidate: that he shall be a man, unmultilated, free born, and of mature age. And yet, within my memory, our GL of the State of OK (and many others) was perfectly happy to interpret that as prohibiting African Americans, even to the point of in the 70's voicing complaint about a black man living on the grounds at the Masonic Home for the Aged. I was present at the GL Communication when we finally approved a limited recognition of our PHA brethren.

The history of the United States and of our US Masonic fraternity is one of discrimination (see the constitutional 3/5 rule). Regrettably, we have not been a fraternity of racial inclusion. While we may wish it was otherwise, it simply isn't and, I note, one Mason usually does not have the power to declare otherwise.
 

dfreybur

Premium Member
How can masonry make good men better if we as masons regardless of affiliation do not allow all men ?

As this thread started with a discussion of recognition in Texas lacking visitation I'll take this as "do not allow all brothers to visit".

On the one hand there's the issue of letter of the law. To what extent should we follow the spirit of the law not the letter of the law? In various countries Masons have been involved in revolutions so we know it's a part of our heritage. I ask the question rhetorically without offering an answer. Most normally prefer to work within the system to correct problems and it is very much a judgment call when to consider the system so broken that following the spirit by breaking the letter makes sense. Have you presented at your lodge a request for legislation to change the GL rules?

On the other hand we do have principles and we need to live up to them. At times this means we need to stretch ourselves out of our comfort zones and press others to do so as well.
 

jjjjjggggg

Premium Member
Great response! Checkmate.

It is my own ideal to believe all worthy men, regardless of color, be given the opportunity to join our fraternity. And I hope that we are brave enough to correct the injustices of those masons in our history who thought contrary.
 

Proudvet09

Registered User
Not all men are good hence the investigating committee, but color based on masonic principles should not matter. We are too afraid of change but not all change is bad. When are we going to stop chatting on here and taking action we should be men of action not words. When I was in Iraq I didn't ask if it was OK if I defended a man because he was not the same color as me or did not have the same beliefs. It's sounds like everyone is trying to find a way to justify it instead of taking action and making a difference based off of rules and regulations that will always grow and change with time as they have for hundreds of years
 
Top