Obscure yet interesting aspects of "Masonic Law" - Need some ideas

[JTM]

it was tough for me when i was JW. I always looked to the WM and asked him what he'd like to emphasize, then picked a law/article/whatever that emphasized what he'd like me to do. It worked well.

 

[Tony Uzzell]

3Does GLofTX recognize PHA in a lot of states? If they do there's another fun point. Is the recognition document the same for all of them or is it just standard everywhere else? Where ever it's standard GLofTX members can visit when they are in that state.

Applying the "when visiting act like the locals" you could visit a GLofCA lodge and another visitor could be from MWPHAGLofTX. There would you be able to stay? You would if texas has the "when visiting act like the locals" rule.

It's funny, because a group of guys I was with recently had this discussion. It reminded me of this thread and discussion.

In response to your first question, when one Grand Lodge recognizes another, it also recognizes the Grand Lodges that the second Grand Lodge recognizes. Otherwise, it must state that the second Grand Lodge recognizes "clandestine Masons", which causes it to be a "clandestine Lodge". Thus, when the Grand Lodge of Texas recognized the Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Texas, it, for all intents and purposes, recognized those Grand Lodges which are in fraternal concord with the Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Texas. The exception comes from an old rule passed by the UGLE that says that, once a Grand Lodge is recognized for a territorial jurisdiction, no other Grand Lodge can be recognized for the same jurisdiction without the recognition of the first Grand Lodge. In simpler terms, the UGLE recognized the Grand Lodge of Texas around 1837, when it was formally created (if I'm remembering my chronology correctly). Several years later, the Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Texas was formed and established, but the UGLE could not recognize it due to this rule. However, when the Grand Lodge of Texas recognized the regularity of the Prince Hall Grand Lodge, it became eligible for recognition by UGLE. However, since Texas does not have visitation rights with Prince Hall Lodges in Texas, going to a Lodge which is only recognized by the Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Texas (and not another Grand Lodge in fraternal concordance with the Grand Lodge of Texas), visitation is prohibited.

So, to your comments about Illinois, here you go: the Grand Lodge of Illinois has fraternal recognition and visitation with the Grand Lodge of Texas and the Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Illinois. Thus, if I went to a meeting of the Grand Lodge of Illinois and there were members of the Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Illinois also in that tiled session, I am 100% allowed to stay. In fact, had the Grand Master of Alabama realized this, he would have realized that he did not have to leave the meeting of the Grand Lodge of Arizona at which he was in attendance.

Also, this means that, if I am in a Lodge under the Grand Lodge of California and also visiting is a member of a Lodge under the jurisdiction of the Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Texas, I am 100% allowed to stay.

This came up in the discussion we were having as we were reminded that we should follow the rules of the Grand Lodge under whose jurisdiction we are at that point.

TU

 

[Brother_Steve]

It's funny, because a group of guys I was with recently had this discussion. It reminded me of this thread and discussion.

In response to your first question, when one Grand Lodge recognizes another, it also recognizes the Grand Lodges that the second Grand Lodge recognizes. Otherwise, it must state that the second Grand Lodge recognizes "clandestine Masons", which causes it to be a "clandestine Lodge". Thus, when the Grand Lodge of Texas recognized the Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Texas, it, for all intents and purposes, recognized those Grand Lodges which are in fraternal concord with the Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Texas. The exception comes from an old rule passed by the UGLE that says that, once a Grand Lodge is recognized for a territorial jurisdiction, no other Grand Lodge can be recognized for the same jurisdiction without the recognition of the first Grand Lodge. In simpler terms, the UGLE recognized the Grand Lodge of Texas around 1837, when it was formally created (if I'm remembering my chronology correctly). Several years later, the Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Texas was formed and established, but the UGLE could not recognize it due to this rule. However, when the Grand Lodge of Texas recognized the regularity of the Prince Hall Grand Lodge, it became eligible for recognition by UGLE. However, since Texas does not have visitation rights with Prince Hall Lodges in Texas, going to a Lodge which is only recognized by the Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Texas (and not another Grand Lodge in fraternal concordance with the Grand Lodge of Texas), visitation is prohibited.

So, to your comments about Illinois, here you go: the Grand Lodge of Illinois has fraternal recognition and visitation with the Grand Lodge of Texas and the Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Illinois. Thus, if I went to a meeting of the Grand Lodge of Illinois and there were members of the Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Illinois also in that tiled session, I am 100% allowed to stay. In fact, had the Grand Master of Alabama realized this, he would have realized that he did not have to leave the meeting of the Grand Lodge of Arizona at which he was in attendance.

Also, this means that, if I am in a Lodge under the Grand Lodge of California and also visiting is a member of a Lodge under the jurisdiction of the Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Texas, I am 100% allowed to stay.

This came up in the discussion we were having as we were reminded that we should follow the rules of the Grand Lodge under whose jurisdiction we are at that point.

TU

I feel like I'm back in calculus...

simplify f(x+h)-f(x)/h

Sorry for steering the thread in the wrong direction.

 

[Tony Uzzell]

Aaaahhhhhhh…Masonic law!

TU



Freemason Connect HD

Tony Uzzell
J.H. Gurley Lodge No. 337, A.F & A.M.
Waco, Texas

 

[dfreybur]

... when one Grand Lodge recognizes another, it also recognizes the Grand Lodges that the second Grand Lodge recognizes. Otherwise, it must state that the second Grand Lodge recognizes "clandestine Masons", which causes it to be a "clandestine Lodge".

It doesn't quite work that way. Each GL is sovereign and makes its own recognition decisions. For example because of the recent problems in France some GLs have pulled recognition others have not. Most GLs follow UGLE's lead most of the time and most US GLs follow the lead of the Commission on Information for Recognition most of the time but as in the example of France it's not lock step. Another good example is PHA Oklahoma. PHA Oklahoma is not yet recognized by UGLE but is recognized by assorted US GLs.

What you described tends that happen among GLs that are near each other (same continent or whatever "near" means in any one situation). Neighboring GLs pay closer attention to each other. North and South Dakota pay much closer attention to each other than either pay to Sweden. That far away they will likely just go with the UGLE listing.

Thus, when the Grand Lodge of Texas recognized the Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Texas, it, for all intents and purposes, recognized those Grand Lodges which are in fraternal concord with the Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Texas.

If this were true Texas and everyone else would recognize PHA West Virginia, Florida and so on in the 7 states still lacking PHA recognition. PHA Texas does recognize all 7.

The exception comes from an old rule passed by the UGLE that says that, once a Grand Lodge is recognized for a territorial jurisdiction, no other Grand Lodge can be recognized for the same jurisdiction without the recognition of the first Grand Lodge.

This is called the American Doctrine of Territorial Exclusivity. I am not aware that UGLE has ever ratified it. Have anyone read their book of laws?

http://www.ugle.org.uk/about/book-of-constitutions

 

[jwhoff]

GHEE! I'm just curious what a Lodge Secretary's take is on ... say ... f(x+h) - f(x)/h. :40:

 

[Bill Lins]

GHEE! I'm just curious what a Lodge Secretary's take is on ... say ... f(x+h) - f(x)/h. :40:

Have I ever told you how well I didn't do in calculus? :sad:

 

[Blake Bowden]

Re: Obscure yet interesting aspects of "Masonic La

Instead of covering some obscure law which may solicit a "humm", bring up a real issue.

 

[Ol Kev]

Re: Obscure yet interesting aspects of "Masonic La

Instead of covering some obscure law which may solicit a "humm", bring up a real issue.

OK, things are kinda quiet around here . . . give me an idea.
This is the kind of stuff I'm looking for

 

[Rufus]

Re: Obscure yet interesting aspects of "Masonic La

THE MOON IN MASONIC HISTORY.

Thank you very much.
Very interesting information!!