The other way around. Some GLs allow a lodge to prohibit a visitor.
Last edited:
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!
There's no place for "Racism" in Freemasonry
- Thread starter Dontrell Stroman
- Start date
Well, you don't necessarily have to have prior permission, but it is a courtesy.
UGLE BOC 126 allows the Master to refuse admission if he believes the visitor would be likely to disturb the harmony of s lodge.
Utah section 3-9-1: Not a Right. A Master Mason in good standing may be extended the privilege to visit any Lodge in this Jurisdiction, subject to the right of any member thereof to object to his admission as a member.
MarkR
Premium Member
I see what you're saying. In Minnesota, a member may object to a visitor as well (other than a Grand Lodge Officer.) That's different than the situation of recognition without visitation. Those jurisdictions have a blanket prohibition on visitation between "mainstream" and PHA even though they have recognition, which I find strange and pointless.
The underlying claim was that visitation is an ancient landmark. It clearly is not such
As to visitation...
In California:
"A visitor shall not be admitted if, in the opinion of the Master, there is a valid objection to the admission by a member of the Lodge. The objection shall be made privately to the Master, stating the reason therefor. The Master’s decision shall be governed by his discretion and is final. He shall not disclose to the visitor, any member, or any other person the name of the member objecting, but he shall privately inform the visitor that a member objects."
In New Mexico:
"No visitor shall be admitted to a Lodge if a member thereof objects and such objection shall remain in force and effect for the communication only. Objection cannot be made to a Masonic official engaged in the discharge of his duties."
In California:
"A visitor shall not be admitted if, in the opinion of the Master, there is a valid objection to the admission by a member of the Lodge. The objection shall be made privately to the Master, stating the reason therefor. The Master’s decision shall be governed by his discretion and is final. He shall not disclose to the visitor, any member, or any other person the name of the member objecting, but he shall privately inform the visitor that a member objects."
In New Mexico:
"No visitor shall be admitted to a Lodge if a member thereof objects and such objection shall remain in force and effect for the communication only. Objection cannot be made to a Masonic official engaged in the discharge of his duties."
No, but they do have the power of persuasion.
OK- now I see to what you are referring- far afield from the original premise of this thread & my comment. GLoTX doesn't allow a Lodge to refuse admission from any proven Texas Mason in good standing, but the WM may exclude a visitor form another jurisdiction upon the objection of any member of the Lodge being visited. If three or more members object to the visitor, the WM must exclude him. (Art. 383) This Article is currently being held in abeyance and, I suspect, will be either modified or repealed at our annual communication.
Not in my experience.
I was responding to the claim that visitation is an ancient landmark. It clearly is not such
MarkR
Premium Member
I think you're splitting hairs. An occasional denial of visitation under Grand Lodge rules, while still having a GENERAL right of visitation, is not at all the same thing as "recognition without visitation," where no visitation is permitted under any circumstances. If I were to show up at your lodge, the presumption would be that I'd be permitted to visit, subject to any valid objection. If a "mainstream" Kentucky Mason showed up at a Kentucky PHA lodge, or vice versa, the presumption is that they'd NOT be permitted to visit.
Visitation IS one of the Ancient Landmarks spelled out by Mackey (#14).
LANDMARK FOURTEENTH
THE RIGHT OF EVERY MASON TO VISIT and sit in every regular Lodge is an unquestionable Landmark of the Order." This is called "the right of visitation." This right of visitation has always been recognized as an inherent right, which inures to every Mason as he travels through the world. And this is because Lodges are justly considered as only divisions for convenience of the universal Masonic family. It is right may, of course be impaired or forfeited on special occasions by various circumstances; but when admission is refused to a Mason in good standing, who knocks at the door of a Lodge as a visitor, it is to be expected that some good and sufficient reason shall be furnished for this violation, of what is in general a Masonic right, founded on the Landmarks of the Order.
The main page of the Grand Lodge of Utah says they promote the Ancient Landmarks. I know that not every Grand Lodge has adopted all, or even any, of Mackey's list. What Ancient Landmarks does Utah follow, since they say they promote them?
Dontrell Stroman
Premium Member
Question : So if Prince Hall Affiliated masons are considered regular, why doesn't the ancient landmarks on Mackey list extend to them ?
Utah does not have an approved list of landmarks. Note the verb used: promote vice follow. As we specifically declare visitation is not a right, we don't seem to accept that as a Landmark.
Just because Mackey wrote it doesn't make it right. This is demonstrated by your note that if we look at the various lists of Landmarks, we see divergence from Mackey's declaration as to Landmarks. I think the better analysis would be to review the various GL lists and determine which declare visitation to be a right.
In Utah, no reason, let alone valid reason, needs to be given to object to a member. UGLE simply requires a determination that admission would disturb the harmony of the lodge
We may look to current practice to determine whether an item is, indeed, a landmark. As I recollect, OK, TX, KY and to a lesser extent, Utah, all began PHA recognition with limited recognition.
I do agree we have an expectation of visitation.
Not all GLs deem PHA regular. Not all GLs accept Mackey's landmarks.
Mackey was merely an editor and author, not the ultimate source of knowledge. The NM Monitor has "The Landmarks," "The Ancient Charges," and "The Old Regulations," none of which are "law" in that Jurisdiction.
MarkR
Premium Member
While I'll agree that he's not "the ultimate source of knowledge," (Pike even disagreed with him on a lot of topics) he was considerably more influential than "merely an editor and author."
Warrior1256
Site Benefactor
I believe it is the same here in Kentucky.
dfreybur
Premium Member
Interesting. I read that in the Texas rule book and got confused. It read like Texas treated its entire jurisdiction as one lodge. Visitation is a privilege not a right in my other jurisdictions, though it is extremely rare for a brother to disapprove. Attendance in one's own lodge is a right, which is part of why the ballot is supposed to be unanimous. Since brothers do not have the chance to exclude candidates in other lodges attendance can't be a right when visiting.
So it wasn't me who was confused (compared to other jurisdictions) it was the Texas rule book. Just one of the many interesting variations jurisdiction to jurisdiction.
Now I am confused. There is nothing in GLoTX law that either requires or suggests that ballots be unanimous. A ballot can have any combination of blackballs and protests, not exceeding 2, and the vote will be held to be favorable. In addition, Brothers in other GLoTX Lodges DO have the opportunity to exclude candidates, either for the Degrees or for advancement, in other GLoTX Lodges.
What is a protest in your jurisdiction?