Across The Atlantic, Masonic History In The Making

Across the Atlantic Masonic History In The Making : FmI – Masonic Traveler

Frederic L. Milliken
MWPHGLTX

Thank you for the inspiring article.

Did the MWPHGLoT consult with the Grand Lodge of the Cote d'Ivoire before doing this?

According to a letter from the GM of the GL of the Ivory Coast (GLCI), sent out to multiple grand lodges in February 2012, this was an invasion of the territorial jurisdiction of the GLCI.

Ecossais said:

According to a letter from the GM of the GL of the Ivory Coast (GLCI), sent out to multiple grand lodges in February 2012, this was an invasion of the territorial jurisdiction of the GLCI.

Click to expand...

And it has thrown another obstacle in the way of improving the relationship of GLoT & MWPHAGLoT. :sad:

There will be an obstacle only if a person wants to create one. A mention was made about the doctrine of territorial but according to this article on the subject http://bessel.org/exclartl.htm that argument is not valid and also at the moment there are four Grand Lodges there that can make that claim (Grande Loge Nationale de Côte d'Ivoire, Grand Lodge of the Ivory Coast, Grand Loge Unie de Côte d'Ivoire, Le droit Humain - Juridiction de la Côte d'Ivoire). The doctrine means they have exclusive jurisdiction over their constituent lodges not that the first one to establish a lodge in a state or country owns that state or country.

PH021211 said:

There will be an obstacle only if a person wants to create one. A mention was made about the doctrine of territorial but according to this article on the subject http://bessel.org/exclartl.htm that argument is not valid and also at the moment there are four Grand Lodges there that can make that claim (Grande Loge Nationale de Côte d'Ivoire, Grand Lodge of the Ivory Coast, Grand Loge Unie de Côte d'Ivoire, Le droit Humain - Juridiction de la Côte d'Ivoire). The doctrine means they have exclusive jurisdiction over their constituent lodges not that the first one to establish a lodge in a state or country owns that state or country.

Click to expand...

Thank you for that link. It was a good and enlightening read.
However, I still do not think it justifies nor explains the present situation in the Ivory Coast. Whether it is technically permissible under Masonic lodge to charter a lodge in another jurisdiction, it must be recognized that it is largely considered poor form today, especially if not done with the current lodges in that areas permission.
One of the Grand Lodges have complained about the action of the Prince Hall lodge, and I think it would be great to hear an official reply and explanation.

Again, just because it's technically legal, doesn't make it good style.

PH021211 said:

There will be an obstacle only if a person wants to create one. A mention was made about the doctrine of territorial but according to this article on the subject http://bessel.org/exclartl.htm that argument is not valid and also at the moment there are four Grand Lodges there that can make that claim (Grande Loge Nationale de Côte d'Ivoire, Grand Lodge of the Ivory Coast, Grand Loge Unie de Côte d'Ivoire, Le droit Humain - Juridiction de la Côte d'Ivoire). The doctrine means they have exclusive jurisdiction over their constituent lodges not that the first one to establish a lodge in a state or country owns that state or country.

Click to expand...

That argument is fine, if you want to be recognized by Paul Bessel. If you want to be considered regular by the Grand Lodge of Texas, though, you don't set up lodges in the territory of a Grand Lodge with which the Grand Lodge of Texas is in amity. It's in our constitution. Simple to understand. Not subject to personal whim.

I would, however like to hear somebody explain what the problem was with the Grand Lodge of the Cote d'Ivoire that caused these masons to split off and seek a charter from the MWPHGLoT.

Look at it like a grade school tiff. I don't like you because my friend doesn't like you. There are at least six grand lodges here in Texas. Two are recognized as being legitimate and the rest clandestine. With the political climate that was in place when the Prince Hall Grand lodge was founded in Texas, if the Grand Lodge of Texas were to be asked for permission, it would have been a resounding NO!! All of these factions have been created from issues like this. Who owns freemasonry? None of us and all of us. You can not copyright masonry or none of us can consider our affiliation the ultimate authority and protector of the craft. The issues and social moirés of 200 years ago have contributed to multiple affiliations with multiple loyalties with no one wanting to share. Lincoln said "A house divided against itself cannot stand.". Freemasonry is now that house. We can not put the genie back in the bottle and have one grand organization but we can look progressively forward instead of hiding behind excuses and contrived controversies. Many states have solved this issue with allowing plural membership and both bodies working together but here in Texas we can't even talk to each other. I work with two masons hailing from the Grand Lodge of Texas and all I can say to them is "hello". Does that make any sense to anyone here? Many years ago I used to hear the statement "I have white friends" or "I have negro friends". Then you ask if they have eve invited that friend over and they start stuttering and trying to come up with an explanation as to why that friend has never been invited over. I was there when the lodge from the Ivory coast performed the lodge opening ritual in French and when they were awarded their charter. It was amazing. Maybe you should be asking why they thought it necessary to petition to the Prince Hall Grand Lodge for a charter. It was probably something that they did not like about the Grand Lodge of the Ivory Coast[SUP][/SUP] and something that they did like about Prince Hall Masonry that influenced their decision. We did not go to them, they came to us.

PH021211 said:

...I was there when the lodge from the Ivory coast performed the lodge opening ritual in French and when they were awarded their charter. It was amazing. Maybe you should be asking why they thought it necessary to petition to the Prince Hall Grand Lodge for a charter. It was probably something that they did not like about the Grand Lodge of the Ivory Coast and something that they did like about Prince Hall Masonry that influenced their decision. We did not go to them, they came to us.

Click to expand...

I hear what you are saying, but to be honest I think it's important not to confuse matters in this case. We can all agree that the situation between GLOTX and MWPHGLoT is silly and I think you'll find many people on this board that really wished that we could recognize each other, visit.
But that's not presently what we are debating. We are talking about why a Grand Lodge decided to go into another jurisdiction and set up "shop" so to speak, and more importantly how MWPHGLoT feel about the complaints that have been lodge. Was it all a misunderstanding? Do they care? Do they wish to expand their territory or?

You make the statement that maybe we should look into why these brethren felt it necessary to petition MWPHGLoT to have a lodge set up, but does that make it right to help in their request? If I'm unhappy with GLOTX can I petition UGLE to set up a jurisdiction in Texas? As I've mentioned earlier the Swedish rite is not being worked in Texas, does that mean that the Grand Lodge of Sweden can start chartering lodges over here?

As I've stated earlier, I fully believe that MWPHGLoT only have done something out of good intentions, but it causes me concern when we hear about formal complaints, especially since these will ultimately have a negative effect on the possibilities of mutual recognition of the lodges in Texas that so many of us desire.

The issue is that none of us (GLOTX and MWPHGLoTX) are beholden to the UGLE. We do not have to seek their permission for anything. This is from the UGLE website: "The United Grand Lodge of England currently has over a quarter of a million members meeting in over 8,000 Lodges, which are grouped as follows: Lodges meeting in London (an area generally within a 10-mile radius of Freemasons’ Hall), are administered by the Metropolitan Grand Lodge of London, which is headed by the Metropolitan Grand Master. Lodges meeting outside London, and within England, Wales, the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands, are grouped into 47 Provinces, whose boundaries often correspond to those of the old Counties, with each headed by a Provincial Grand Master.Lodges that meet outside England, Wales, the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands are grouped into 33 Districts, with each headed by a District Grand Master, five Groups (ie: currently too small to make up a District), with each headed by a Grand Inspector, and 12 Lodges abroad which are directly administered by Freemasons’ Hall.". Other than recognition and fraternal relations, the UGLE has no bearing or authority outside of those lodges directly under its' control and as long as they follow the tenets listed in the Book of Constitutions (http://www.ugle.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/boc-online-craft-rev-6.pdf).

As for the Grand Lodge of Ivory Coast, They may lodge a complaint but the UGLE has no jurisdiction over the activities any of the parties. None of us owe allegiance to them and do not have to ask their permission to do anything. The only thing any of the lodges has done was to establish fraternal relations with them which does not include giving them control over our affairs.

We currently have recognition without visitation between the GLOTX and MWPHGLoTX but both sides keep using paper lions like this issue as a excuse not to proceed any further. There are states in this country where the Grand Lodges on either side recognizes each other but that does not make them any less legitimate. It just makes them look archaic.


References: United Grand Lodge of England Book of Constitutions http://www.ugle.org.uk/about-ugle/book-of-constitutions/

I'm sure you know this, since you obviously enjoy researching these matters, but this seems a bit similar to the business that got the Grand Lodge "Valle de Mexico" de-recognized a few years ago. Several of the grand lodges of the various states of Mexico raised a fuss because GLVdM was setting up lodges in their territory without their permission. The result was that most of the Mexican Grand Lodges, together with the mainstream grand lodges in Arizona, California, and Texas, withdrew recognition of the Grand Lodge Valle de Mexico, and consider it irregular.

Until we have an official stance or POV from the MWPHGLoTX, anything that we discuss here is purely speculation. Unfortunately, we aren't privy to the conversations that were had with the brothers from the Ivory Coast and the MWPGLoTX. Clarification on the matter would be wonderful. I hope that when the time comes we can put as much energy in fixing our (GLoTX and MWPHGLoTX) relationship.

If twenty masons in Oklahoma decided they didn't like their grand lodge, and asked the MWPHGLoT for a charter, how would that fare?

tomasball said:

If twenty masons in Oklahoma decided they didn't like their grand lodge, and asked the MWPHGLoT for a charter, how would that fare?

Click to expand...

If the men were members of the GLoOK, the MWPHGLoTX is going to direct them to the already existing PHGL in that state because fortunately, or unfortunately depending on how you look at it, men have a choice of which GL they want to affiliate with. Was that the case with the brothers from the Ivory Coast? Did they have a choice to petition another GL in that jurisdiction outside of the one already there? I'm struggling to see where your analogy is going.

...and if the men were members of the Prince Hall Grand Lodge?

tomasball said:

...and if the men were members of the Prince Hall Grand Lodge?

Click to expand...

Then their only other option would be to petition the other lawfully operating GL in the state, GLoOK, or demit.

I would welcome contradiction here, but it's my understanding that the two grand lodges of Oklahoma, like those in Texas, have agreed not to allow each others members to transfer. So, why shouldn't it be an option to join the MWPHGL of Texas?

As regular members that would be able to petition the MWPHGLoTX. There are stipulations about where they reside and whatnot. If those things were satisfied, then upon demit from their current GL they could join. As far as chartering a lodge, that would be a no. It wouldn't be because the GLoOK is already operating there, but because there is already a PHGL operating there. PHGLoTX and PHGLoCO both chartered lodges in UT. There is no PHGL in that state, but there is a GLoUT. The same thing is true in several other states. Perhaps there was a need to open lodges there just as there was a need to do so in the Ivory Coast.