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

LAMason

Premium Member
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.

You may not see a distinction between "regular" and "irregular" lodges but I do.
 

MRichard

Mark A. Ri'chard
Premium Member
You may not see a distinction between "regular" and "irregular" lodges but I do.

The standard that you so often quote is THREE regular lodges. You just admitted that the Grand Lodge of Louisiana has recognized at least three maybe four grand lodges that were formed in an irregular formation. Hmmm. No comment. Lol
 
Last edited:

LAMason

Premium Member
The standard that you so often quote is THREE regular lodges. You just admitted that the Grand Lodge of Louisiana has recognized at least three maybe four grand lodges that were formed in an irregular formation. Hmmm. No comment. Lol

Actually, for me the regularity of the lodges involved in the formation of the Grand Lodge is far more important than the number. How many regular lodges were involved in the formation of African Grand Lodge?
 

Dontrell Stroman

Premium Member
Actually, for me the regularity of the lodges involved in the formation of the Grand Lodge is far more important than the number. How many regular lodges were involved in the formation of African Grand Lodge?

It doesn't matter brother LA Mason, that's irrelevant. Let's be thankful that some brothers in that time period seen a man for who he was and not the color of his skin.
 

Glen Cook

G A Cook
Site Benefactor
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.
I will accept that no American lodge has chartered lodges in other colonies and then joined with them to form a GL. Yet, you appear aware that Mother Kilwinning chartered other lodges and only later joined GLoS, formed in part by some of its daughter lodges. Thus, there is precedent for lodges to charter other lodges.

What is your citation for chartering a lodge without authority causing the chartering Lodge to become irregular?
 
Last edited:

LAMason

Premium Member
Yet, you appear aware that Mother Kilwinning chartered other lodges and only later joined GLoS, formed in part by some of its daughter lodges. Thus, there is precedent for lodges to charter other lodges.

It is interesting that the only precedent that you can find is Mother Kilwinning. This Lodge was operating and chartering lodges prior to 1717, which is the beginning of our current Grand Lodge system and as such was a time immemorial lodge.
 

MRichard

Mark A. Ri'chard
Premium Member
Since you refuse to confirm or deny whether you are indeed "Bobby", I would like to get your thoughts on one of his posts:

"The misguided attempts to rewrite history and impose political correctness on the Grand Lodge of Louisiana will fail.

It will require an amendment to our constitution for PH Lodges to be recognized as regular in our State, which requires a 2/3 vote of Constituent Lodges. This will never happen.

LAFREEMASON and proud of it."
 

MRichard

Mark A. Ri'chard
Premium Member
Here is another of Bobby's posts:

"Now to address the issue of Recognition of PH by UGLE:

1. I will quote various portions of the “Report From The United Grand Lodge of England Prince Hall Masonry and the Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Massachusetts” and acknowlege that the UGLE did grant recognition. My arguments and excerpts from the report are to show that in doing so they departed from historical precedents and application of their own guidelines.

I also wish to point out that the only reason they did so was out of a desire to be politically correct and fear of being called racist. I hold no ill will to PH Masons, but do not believe that long held principles should be thrown aside just to conform to contemorary standards of right and wrong, to do so imperils our existence.

2. That being said I will now present my argument:
a. The report states :
i. “By the standards of today, the formation of the Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Massachusetts was irregular.”
ii. “All Prince Hall Grand Lodges are descended from what is now the Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Massachusetts”
iii. “To be eligible for recognition, a Grand Lodge must” “be regular in its origin”
b. Therefore by the UGLE’s own definition, PH Masonry is irregular, however they chose to ignore their own definition and chose to grant recognition.

3. They did however acknowledge that their action could not require other Grand Lodges to afford them recognition and stated “Recognition is a series of bi-lateral relationships between Grand Lodges. If a Grand Lodge seeks recognition from England, and in due course is recognised, the mutual recognition between it and England cannot bind a third Grand Lodge.”

I love masonry and have been a member of the Fraternity since 1973. I served as WM of my Lodge in 1976, and have served a Secretary for many years. My home Lodge was chartered in 1893, my Grandfather was a member of this Lodge in 1893 and most of the males including my Father, and all of his brothers, my brother, and many cousins have been members of this Lodge. I can trace my family’s membership in masorny back to 1870. I have been DDGM, have served as HP in the Chapter and IM in the Council as well as DDGHP. I say all of this to let you know that I take my Masonry seriously, and am deeply offended when Masons from other states call the good and honorable masons in my state racist and attemp to interject themselves into the affairs of our Grand Lodge.

Do what you wish in your own Grand Lodges and stay out of the affairs of our Grand Lodge."
 

MRichard

Mark A. Ri'chard
Premium Member
Now let's compare his last statement to a post you made here. Hmm.

http://www.myfreemasonry.com/threads/are-you-from-a-masonic-family.25280/

I can trace direct lineage back to my Paternal Grandfather, he was Raised in 1891, his Father in Law my Great Grandfather was also a Mason, but joined the Lodge after him. The furthest I can trace my Masonic lineage is my Paternal Grandfather’s Maternal Grandfather, my Great Great Grandfather, he was raised in 1874.

My Father and all 4 of his brothers were Masons, as well as several of my Paternal Grandfather’s brothers. My Brother and many of my cousins are/were Masons.
 

MRichard

Mark A. Ri'chard
Premium Member
Another post from "Bobby":

"The following was also in the report.

"In 1988 the Board was unable to support an application from the Grand Master of the Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Massachusetts, seeking recognition for his Grand Lodge (and in ultimate effect on behalf of some 300,000 Prince Hall Masons in jurisdictions descended from his)."

So what transpired in the period from 1988 to 1994 that would have transformed PH Masonry from irregular to regular?"
 

Glen Cook

G A Cook
Site Benefactor
It is interesting that the only precedent that you can find is Mother Kilwinning. This Lodge was operating and chartering lodges prior to 1717, which is the beginning of our current Grand Lodge system and as such was a time immemorial lodge.
Umm. Ok. Thus, there is precedent.

What is your citation to support your position that a lodge becomes irregular if it charters an irregular lodge?
 
Last edited:

MRichard

Mark A. Ri'chard
Premium Member
If the brother in question wishes for anyone to know his identify he would make it known. Let's leave it at that please.

It was posted on the internet if you look at the link I provided earlier. For all we know, it could be a handle. If someone has a problem with their identity being disclosed, then they shouldn't use their real name when posting. Not to mention that it is just one name and not a full name.
 

MRichard

Mark A. Ri'chard
Premium Member
I must say I am somewhat disappointed now. You going to the moderators complaining about your identity? Exactly, how has your identity been compromised? If you were X (let's call that poster X), then X posted on the comments section of a blog presumably using his real name.

Now @LAMason has no lodge identity info or any specific location as well. All he has is Grand Lodge of Louisiana. Exactly how has your identity been compromised other than the fact that you might be X and freely chose to post on a public blog using your real name if that is true.

I would further speculate that this has nothing to do with identity. It is the posts that were made. It is interesting to note that X left the debate in the comments section after the tide had swung and it was getting harder and harder to defend his position. Maybe this is one of those deja vu things?
 
Last edited:

MRichard

Mark A. Ri'chard
Premium Member
Can't believe I missed one of X's posts.

"The action by the GL of LA was the correct one. Our constitution provides that there can be only one legitimate GL in the State.

Prince Hall masonry can only be recognized as regular by an amendment to the Constitution of the GL of LA.

I do not understand why people in other states are interested in the actions that we take in LA concerning PH. Despite all of the effort made to revise history they are now and alway have been clandestine regardless of the actions that other states may take.

LAFREEMASONabsoade"
 

Warrior1256

Site Benefactor
I will tell you, that if someone tells me they need to see my dues card outside of lodge, I don't know that I would be cooperative.
I agree. I would be uncomfortable if someone that I had just met asked to see my dues card. For what reason? I'm not going to converse Masonically with someone that I don't know from Adam. If someone would notice my Square and Compass ring and bring up the fact that they, too, are a Freemason I would stick out my paw, tell them which lodge(s) I belong to and ask which lodge they are from. Just general conversation.
 

Levelhead

Premium Member
Funny story. Last night at the supermarket this guy had a shirt on.
It had a giant Square and compass and it had the all seeing eye and a skull in the middle giant artwork on a T-shirt. I walked up to him and asked "are your a Freemason". He replied "No" i said "well your shirt has masonic symbols on it just so you know" he said only "a couple" and I said "no every single aspect of your shirt is Masonic." Lol he looked confused as i packed my groceries. Lol


Sent from Mossy Oak Swamp Bottom
 

Warrior1256

Site Benefactor
Funny story. Last night at the supermarket this guy had a shirt on.
It had a giant Square and compass and it had the all seeing eye and a skull in the middle giant artwork on a T-shirt. I walked up to him and asked "are your a Freemason". He replied "No" i said "well your shirt has masonic symbols on it just so you know" he said only "a couple" and I said "no every single aspect of your shirt is Masonic." Lol he looked confused as i packed my groceries. Lol


Sent from Mossy Oak Swamp Bottom
Yeah, our symbols look "cool" on t-shirts. As a matter of fact I saw one for sale in Wal-Mart and bought one myself, lol!
 
Top