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!

Traveling

Akiles

Registered User
I'm just getting other brother opinions. I've never heard of a GL not using dues cards

Grand Lodge of Spain, for example.... That's why during the dictatorial government of Franco the Masonry was forbidden (1939-1975).... And every mason was hunted and killed....
 

dfreybur

Premium Member
On dues cards -

I once had an on-line discussion with a European brother who stated that his jurisdiction issues warrant documents so he would not accept dues cards. I asked him what a warrant document was (I have seen them so I knew already). Once he described one I asked "So you mean a document printed by Grand Lodge showing that you are on the roles at Grand Lodge and that is signed and dated by your own lodge showing when your dues are paid until?" He said yes. "So then what I need to do when visiting your lodge is hand you my document printed by GL showing that I am on the roles at GL and that is signed, dated and embossed by my own lodge secretary showing when my dues are paid until?" He said yes. "In other words I should not call my dues card a dues card because this simple matter of terminology confuses you. I need to call it a warrant document?" No response.

We call them "dues cards". Some number of jurisdictions call them "warrant documents". A rose by any other name. Those documents tend to be big and folded up. Not as practical but very nice looking!
 

Glen Cook

G A Cook
Site Benefactor
Though my grand lodge certificate in England is issued once, and not renewed annually. I have to pay for re issuance. In England, a warrant is the charter issued to the lodge by the GL
 

MRichard

Mark A. Ri'chard
Premium Member
@LAMason

Just noticed the following section the other day. So I assume that you have issues with the 3 Grand Lodges that were formed with just two lodges and the Grand Lodge of New Jersey as well. Does your grand lodge recognize them? Checking for consistency.

http://bessel.org/masrec/phaugle.htm

COMMENT ON PRINCE HALL MASONRY

3. By the standards of today, the formation of the Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Massachusetts was irregular. In the 18th Century, however, three Grand Lodges in North America were formed by not three but two Lodges, and the Grand Lodge of New Jersey was formed simply by a Grand Convention of Masons. By standards then prevailing, the formation of the Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Massachusetts could have been seen as merely eccentric, and of acceptable regularity.
 

LAMason

Premium Member
@LAMason

Just noticed the following section the other day. So I assume that you have issues with the 3 Grand Lodges that were formed with just two lodges and the Grand Lodge of New Jersey as well. Does your grand lodge recognize them? Checking for consistency.

http://bessel.org/masrec/phaugle.htm

COMMENT ON PRINCE HALL MASONRY

3. By the standards of today, the formation of the Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Massachusetts was irregular. In the 18th Century, however, three Grand Lodges in North America were formed by not three but two Lodges, and the Grand Lodge of New Jersey was formed simply by a Grand Convention of Masons. By standards then prevailing, the formation of the Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Massachusetts could have been seen as merely eccentric, and of acceptable regularity.

There is no precedent where a Constituent Lodge Chartered Lodges in two other American Colonies/States and then joined with them to form a Grand Lodge. If a Lodge charters other lodges without authority it becomes an irregular Lodge and the Lodges it charters are irregular, so you had three irregular Lodges forming a Grand Lodge so the formation was irregular. If a Grand Lodge wants to consider that "as merely eccentric" that is is there prerogative, but their decision does not obligate other Grand Lodges to do so. Just because something "could have" does not mean that it would have or should have.

It is obvious that you take this issue personally and are angry about it. I do not take it personally and I am not angry about it. It was not my intention to upset you by stating the conclusion I have drawn from the facts based on my research since 2009. You are certainly entitled to come to whatever conclusion you wish but that does not mean that I have to agree with you.
 

MRichard

Mark A. Ri'chard
Premium Member
There is no precedent where a Constituent Lodge Chartered Lodges in two other American Colonies/States and then joined with them to form a Grand Lodge. If a Lodge charters other lodges without authority it becomes an irregular Lodge and the Lodges it charters are irregular, so you had three irregular Lodges forming a Grand Lodge so the formation was irregular. If a Grand Lodge wants to consider that "as merely eccentric" that is is there prerogative, but their decision does not obligate other Grand Lodges to do so. Just because something "could have" does not mean that it would have or should have.

It is obvious that you take this issue personally and are angry about it. I do not take it personally and I am not angry about it. It was not my intention to upset you by stating the conclusion I have drawn from the facts based on my research since 2009. You are certainly entitled to come to whatever conclusion you wish but that does not mean that I have to agree with you.

Angry? Lol. You used that same link to support your arguments but you want to pick and choose what quotes to use. So I did what you did and your arguments are looking weaker and weaker. You cite precedence and yet ignore it when convenient.

I could venture to speculate why you have chosen to make such a big deal out of this but I really don't need to.
 

LAMason

Premium Member
Angry? Lol. You used that same link to support your arguments but you want to pick and choose what quotes to use. So I did what you did and your arguments are looking weaker and weaker. You cite precedence and yet ignore it when convenient.

I could venture to speculate why you have chosen to make such a big deal out of this but I really don't need to.

Give me another example where three irregular lodges formed a Grand Lodge.
 

MRichard

Mark A. Ri'chard
Premium Member
Give me another example where three irregular lodges formed a Grand Lodge.

Don't need to. I just gave you examples of grand lodges being formed without three regular lodges which you apparently have no problem with. Grand Lodge of New Jersey was formed by convention. Again no problem with that. Talk about an irregular formation but I bet the Grand Lodge of Louisiana recognizes them.
 

MRichard

Mark A. Ri'chard
Premium Member
Let me ask you a simple question. Does your grand lodge have a particular stance on the PHA grand lodge in your state? Clandestine, irregular, or regular but not recognized. If not what is your position?
 

pointwithinacircle2

Rapscallion
Premium Member
It seems to me that issues of regularity are sometimes based on who we decide to approve of and the reasons that we use to justify our position. Oops, no one was talking to me were they? I'll shut up now.
 

LAMason

Premium Member
Don't need to. I just gave you examples of grand lodges being formed without three regular lodges which you apparently have no problem with. Grand Lodge of New Jersey was formed by convention. Again no problem with that. Talk about an irregular formation but I bet the Grand Lodge of Louisiana recognizes them.

The Grand Lodges formed by 2 lodges were formed by 2 regular lodges. There were more than 3 regular lodges represented at the New Jersey convention.

If you want to consider those to be similar to a Grand Lodge being formed by 3 irregular lodges that is up to you but I do not have come to the same conclusion.
 

MRichard

Mark A. Ri'chard
Premium Member
The Grand Lodges formed by 2 lodges were formed by 2 regular lodges. There were more than 3 regular lodges represented at the New Jersey convention.

If you want to consider those to be similar to a Grand Lodge being formed by 3 irregular lodges that is up to you but I do not have come to the same conclusion.

So does the Grand Lodge of Louisiana recognize any of the aforementioned grand lodges I mentioned above. Yes or no.
 

LAMason

Premium Member
Let me ask you a simple question. Does your grand lodge have a particular stance on the PHA grand lodge in your state? Clandestine, irregular, or regular but not recognized. If not what is your position?

Our Constitution says: “No Lodge attempting to exist in this state without a Charter from this Grand Lodge shall be acknowledged as regular.” Louisiana Handbook of Masonic Law, Page 2.
 

LAMason

Premium Member
So does the Grand Lodge of Louisiana recognize any of the aforementioned grand lodges I mentioned above. Yes or no.

Yes. However, as I have pointed out I see a difference between a Grand Lodge being formed by "regular" lodges as opposed to being formed by "irregular" lodges, which is the same position that the UGLE took as late as 1988, and yes I know that they reversed their position in 1994 and decided to choose to ignore the irregular formation of Prince Hall Grand Lodge.
 

MRichard

Mark A. Ri'chard
Premium Member
Yes. However, as I have pointed out I see a difference between a Grand Lodge being formed by "regular" lodges as opposed to being formed by "irregular" lodges, which is the same position that the UGLE took as late as 1988, and yes I know that they reversed their position in 1994 and decided to choose to ignore the irregular formation of Prince Hall Grand Lodge.

Lol. This is beautiful. The Grand Lodge of Louisiana recognizes more than one grand lodge that was not formed by three regular lodges in an irregular formation. You just made my day, Brother. Your honesty is greatly appreciated. :D:):rolleyes::p:eek:o_O;):cool::mad:
 
Last edited:
Top