dfreybur
Premium Member
Brethren,
I've been reading on recognition completeness as at least one brother has asserted that most jurisdictions have much smaller recognition lists than many think.
http://bessel.org/masrec/phachart.htm
I attended California GL in 1997-9 and I remember votes on recognition that included PHA jurisdictions. As such I believe the list to be short at least in the case of California. The point remains that the list on the web page is incomplete for every state mentioned not in the blanket list cited below. None of the PHA GLs are listed but I suspect they are in similar situations.
http://bessel.org/masrec/phablanket.htm
I attended Illinois GL I think 7-8 times 2003-2012. Each time the PHA Grand Line was in attendance (once with the Alabama GM which was nicely symbolic to me on "follow the local rules with regard to fellow visitors"). The recognition votes included GLs all over the world but no PHA GLs were mentioned. That's because Illinois adopted a blanket recognition policy in 2002 shortly before I started attending.
I would like both jurisdictions of all states to adopt blanket jurisdictions. As long as there are states not recognizing the basic problem still needs to be addressed. Until there is blanket recognition all around it will remain a bureaucratic mess.
In California the deadline for submitting legislation for the grand session in November is this month. I think I have time to submit for this year. I'd have to send the forms by mail to my lodge and then circulate it by proxy from there. This means I now have a year to lobby my mother GL to adopt blanket adoption legislation.
Reading the wording from DC I'd modify point D from "attempt to establish the exchange of Grand Representatives" to "request full recognition and attempt to establish the exchange of Grand Representatives". If grand lodges that adopt blanket recognition start requesting recognition from all others that should help clean up the lists in every direction.
Here's the quote if any brother who's a member of your own grand lodge (PM, WM, SM, JW sometimes others) wants to submit legislation here's the wording from DC per the web site. My modification about requesting recognition is in RED CAPS. I have not changed references of DC to California in this reference -
Recognition of Prince Hall Grand Lodges
A. Our Grand Lodge hereby recognizes, and will in the future recognize without further Grand Lodge vote, each Prince Hall Grand Lodge that does not state that it does not want to be recognized by our Grand Lodge, and that is recognized, and continues to be recognized, by:
1. The Grand Lodge in its jurisdiction which our Grand Lodge already recognizes — so long as that Grand Lodge does not object to our Grand Lodge recognizing this Prince Hall Grand Lodge in its jurisdiction;
2. The Prince Hall Grand Lodge of the District of Columbia — so long as the Prince Hall Grand Lodge of the District of Columbia does not object to our recognizing this Prince Hall Grand Lodge in another jurisdiction;
B. This recognition by our Grand Lodge of a Prince Hall Grand Lodge in another jurisdiction will be effective on the same dates and to the same extent as the recognition by the Grand Lodge that our Grand Lodge already recognizes in that jurisdiction.
C. Our Grand Lodge Committee on Masonic Recognitions will provide the office of the Grand Secretary with a list, and future updates, of Prince Hall Grand Lodges in other jurisdictions that meet the standards described in this resolution and which are thus recognized by our Grand Lodge. A copy of the list of recognized Prince Hall Grand Lodges, and future updates, will be distributed regularly by the Grand Secretary’s office to each Lodge in our jurisdiction.
D. The office of the Grand Secretary will contact each Prince Hall Grand Lodge in another jurisdiction that is on the list of Prince Hall Grand Lodges recognized by our Grand Lodge, REQUEST FULL RECOGNITION and attempt to establish the exchange of Grand Representatives.
The explanation for this proposal in May 2004, as amended by later events, is important to remember:
When one of our sister U.S. Grand Lodges recognizes the Prince Hall Grand Lodge in its jurisdiction, and that Prince Hall Grand Lodge is also recognized by the Prince Hall Grand Lodge of the District of Columbia, our Grand Lodge will routinely approve a request for recognition by that Prince Hall Grand Lodge. However, doing this one at a time is time-consuming (nationwide, 2,295 separate recognitions would be needed), creates unnecessary paperwork, and is disrespectful to Grand Lodges we already recognize.
Since the local “mainstream†Grand Lodge (the one we already recognize in each jurisdiction) has already investigated the regularity of the Prince Hall Grand Lodge in its jurisdiction and has recognized it, and the Prince Hall Grand Lodge of the District of Columbia has also investigated that Prince Hall Grand Lodge and recognized it, our Grand Lodge recognition of that Prince Hall Grand Lodge would be a sign of respect to those two Grand Lodges which we already recognize and respect.
It is becoming a common practice for Grand Lodges to recognize all Prince Hall Grand Lodges that are recognized by “mainstream†Grand Lodges in their jurisdictions. The Grand Lodge of New Jersey adopted this policy a couple of weeks ago, and the Grand Lodges of Nebraska and Kansas, among others, have had it in effect for several years, and they all report enthusiastic support for this policy and no adverse consequences.
No “mainstream†Grand Lodge has or will recognize a Prince Hall Grand Lodge that is not regular, nor would the Prince Hall Grand Lodge of the District of Columbia. However, in case either would in the future feel it necessary to withdraw recognition, or to object to our Grand Lodge recognizing or continue recognizing, a particular Prince Hall Grand Lodge for any reason, our recognition would terminate.
I've been reading on recognition completeness as at least one brother has asserted that most jurisdictions have much smaller recognition lists than many think.
http://bessel.org/masrec/phachart.htm
I attended California GL in 1997-9 and I remember votes on recognition that included PHA jurisdictions. As such I believe the list to be short at least in the case of California. The point remains that the list on the web page is incomplete for every state mentioned not in the blanket list cited below. None of the PHA GLs are listed but I suspect they are in similar situations.
http://bessel.org/masrec/phablanket.htm
I attended Illinois GL I think 7-8 times 2003-2012. Each time the PHA Grand Line was in attendance (once with the Alabama GM which was nicely symbolic to me on "follow the local rules with regard to fellow visitors"). The recognition votes included GLs all over the world but no PHA GLs were mentioned. That's because Illinois adopted a blanket recognition policy in 2002 shortly before I started attending.
I would like both jurisdictions of all states to adopt blanket jurisdictions. As long as there are states not recognizing the basic problem still needs to be addressed. Until there is blanket recognition all around it will remain a bureaucratic mess.
In California the deadline for submitting legislation for the grand session in November is this month. I think I have time to submit for this year. I'd have to send the forms by mail to my lodge and then circulate it by proxy from there. This means I now have a year to lobby my mother GL to adopt blanket adoption legislation.
Reading the wording from DC I'd modify point D from "attempt to establish the exchange of Grand Representatives" to "request full recognition and attempt to establish the exchange of Grand Representatives". If grand lodges that adopt blanket recognition start requesting recognition from all others that should help clean up the lists in every direction.
Here's the quote if any brother who's a member of your own grand lodge (PM, WM, SM, JW sometimes others) wants to submit legislation here's the wording from DC per the web site. My modification about requesting recognition is in RED CAPS. I have not changed references of DC to California in this reference -
Recognition of Prince Hall Grand Lodges
A. Our Grand Lodge hereby recognizes, and will in the future recognize without further Grand Lodge vote, each Prince Hall Grand Lodge that does not state that it does not want to be recognized by our Grand Lodge, and that is recognized, and continues to be recognized, by:
1. The Grand Lodge in its jurisdiction which our Grand Lodge already recognizes — so long as that Grand Lodge does not object to our Grand Lodge recognizing this Prince Hall Grand Lodge in its jurisdiction;
2. The Prince Hall Grand Lodge of the District of Columbia — so long as the Prince Hall Grand Lodge of the District of Columbia does not object to our recognizing this Prince Hall Grand Lodge in another jurisdiction;
B. This recognition by our Grand Lodge of a Prince Hall Grand Lodge in another jurisdiction will be effective on the same dates and to the same extent as the recognition by the Grand Lodge that our Grand Lodge already recognizes in that jurisdiction.
C. Our Grand Lodge Committee on Masonic Recognitions will provide the office of the Grand Secretary with a list, and future updates, of Prince Hall Grand Lodges in other jurisdictions that meet the standards described in this resolution and which are thus recognized by our Grand Lodge. A copy of the list of recognized Prince Hall Grand Lodges, and future updates, will be distributed regularly by the Grand Secretary’s office to each Lodge in our jurisdiction.
D. The office of the Grand Secretary will contact each Prince Hall Grand Lodge in another jurisdiction that is on the list of Prince Hall Grand Lodges recognized by our Grand Lodge, REQUEST FULL RECOGNITION and attempt to establish the exchange of Grand Representatives.
The explanation for this proposal in May 2004, as amended by later events, is important to remember:
When one of our sister U.S. Grand Lodges recognizes the Prince Hall Grand Lodge in its jurisdiction, and that Prince Hall Grand Lodge is also recognized by the Prince Hall Grand Lodge of the District of Columbia, our Grand Lodge will routinely approve a request for recognition by that Prince Hall Grand Lodge. However, doing this one at a time is time-consuming (nationwide, 2,295 separate recognitions would be needed), creates unnecessary paperwork, and is disrespectful to Grand Lodges we already recognize.
Since the local “mainstream†Grand Lodge (the one we already recognize in each jurisdiction) has already investigated the regularity of the Prince Hall Grand Lodge in its jurisdiction and has recognized it, and the Prince Hall Grand Lodge of the District of Columbia has also investigated that Prince Hall Grand Lodge and recognized it, our Grand Lodge recognition of that Prince Hall Grand Lodge would be a sign of respect to those two Grand Lodges which we already recognize and respect.
It is becoming a common practice for Grand Lodges to recognize all Prince Hall Grand Lodges that are recognized by “mainstream†Grand Lodges in their jurisdictions. The Grand Lodge of New Jersey adopted this policy a couple of weeks ago, and the Grand Lodges of Nebraska and Kansas, among others, have had it in effect for several years, and they all report enthusiastic support for this policy and no adverse consequences.
No “mainstream†Grand Lodge has or will recognize a Prince Hall Grand Lodge that is not regular, nor would the Prince Hall Grand Lodge of the District of Columbia. However, in case either would in the future feel it necessary to withdraw recognition, or to object to our Grand Lodge recognizing or continue recognizing, a particular Prince Hall Grand Lodge for any reason, our recognition would terminate.