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!
Across The Atlantic, Masonic History In The Making
- Thread starter Squire Bentley
- Start date
Raymond Walters
Premium Member
I told myself I was not going to proffer any opinion on this topic, but something inside keeps nagging me that I should.
In my travels as a Freemason, I ended up becoming a member of the Grand Lodge of Texas. I held membership there from October 2000 until October 2011.
What I found while there was a series of hypocrisies by my own Grand Lodge and it's own rules. Grand Lodge of Texas refused to enforce it's own rules that should have protected & safeguarded me and my Masonic rights in it's own jurisdiction against the racism and bigotry I encountered within the State of Texas from lodges chartered under the Grand Lodge of Texas.
Because the Grand Lodge of Texas refused to enforce it's own rules in Texas, it certainly had no interest in enforcing my Masonic rights outside of it's own jurisdiction. That enforcement was left to then Grand Master Frank Haas in West Virginia in 2005 when I relocated to West Virginia. PGM Frank Haas ended up being expelled without trial, partially due to standing up for my Masonic rights, something my own Grand Lodge of Texas should have been doing on my behalf.
Now, I read about alleged complaints from a Grand Lodge [made up of elite, wealthy, aristocratic-minded persons] about invasion of territory. I do not have to have specific details on the matter to know this; in many African countries, where tribal alliances run strong and take precedence, those who petitioned the MW Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Texas may have needed to as they were not being afforded their rights --- legal, Masonic or moral.
And with that being a strong possibility, of rules being enforced for one's own use rather than for what is Moral & Just, the complaint filed is just that --- a complaint. A complaint by a Grand Lodge whose own hands may not be free of blood, or at a minimum, not free of mistreatment of others for no legitimate reason.
We were all taught to exercise CAUTION, perhaps that lesson should be first in our minds and in the forefront at this moment.
What I would like to know is why can't this amount of effort be spent on investigating why my Masonic rights were not enforced and upheld in the jurisdiction of the Grand Lodge of Texas, instead of so much focus placed on a situation that none of us have any real idea of what is going on?
When someone can answer my questions, I 'll be happy to start concerning myself with the business of another Grand Lodge halfway around the world.
In my travels as a Freemason, I ended up becoming a member of the Grand Lodge of Texas. I held membership there from October 2000 until October 2011.
What I found while there was a series of hypocrisies by my own Grand Lodge and it's own rules. Grand Lodge of Texas refused to enforce it's own rules that should have protected & safeguarded me and my Masonic rights in it's own jurisdiction against the racism and bigotry I encountered within the State of Texas from lodges chartered under the Grand Lodge of Texas.
Because the Grand Lodge of Texas refused to enforce it's own rules in Texas, it certainly had no interest in enforcing my Masonic rights outside of it's own jurisdiction. That enforcement was left to then Grand Master Frank Haas in West Virginia in 2005 when I relocated to West Virginia. PGM Frank Haas ended up being expelled without trial, partially due to standing up for my Masonic rights, something my own Grand Lodge of Texas should have been doing on my behalf.
Now, I read about alleged complaints from a Grand Lodge [made up of elite, wealthy, aristocratic-minded persons] about invasion of territory. I do not have to have specific details on the matter to know this; in many African countries, where tribal alliances run strong and take precedence, those who petitioned the MW Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Texas may have needed to as they were not being afforded their rights --- legal, Masonic or moral.
And with that being a strong possibility, of rules being enforced for one's own use rather than for what is Moral & Just, the complaint filed is just that --- a complaint. A complaint by a Grand Lodge whose own hands may not be free of blood, or at a minimum, not free of mistreatment of others for no legitimate reason.
We were all taught to exercise CAUTION, perhaps that lesson should be first in our minds and in the forefront at this moment.
What I would like to know is why can't this amount of effort be spent on investigating why my Masonic rights were not enforced and upheld in the jurisdiction of the Grand Lodge of Texas, instead of so much focus placed on a situation that none of us have any real idea of what is going on?
When someone can answer my questions, I 'll be happy to start concerning myself with the business of another Grand Lodge halfway around the world.
Ecossais
Registered User
Actually, there are about thirteen (13) very small, scattered, irregular grand lodges here in Texas. Many of them were created by scam artists who "sell" regalia, rituals, forms, etc. to religious ministers and instruct them how to set up a grand lodge, with subordinate lodges, with the minister as the "Grand Master" for life. They are a form of pyramid scheme, also known as a Ponzi scheme.
Meanwhile, the two regular grand lodges here in Texas, go on with life and ignore these small insignificant irregular "grand lodges."
The doctrine of exclusive territorial jurisdiction does not foster small irregular grand lodges, but rather, it keeps them down to a minimum. The last thing we want to do is open the door to the proliferation of small irregular grand lodges.
Paul Bessell, who, by the way, was defeated in his rise through the top four grand lodge offices in the District of Columbia, and never made it to Grand Master, has always exhibited a dismissive attitude toward the traditional standards of regularity. The other grand lodges that he lists in the Ivory Coast are offshoots of irregular grand lodges in France. What he ignores is the fact that the regular grand lodges of the world, all of which share recognition with the United Grand Lodge of England, do not recognize more than one grand lodge per jurisdiction, UNLESS the two or three grand lodges within a jurisdiction agree by treaty or compact to share that particular jurisdiction.
This does not indicate that there is no such thing as exclusive territorial jurisdiction. To the contrary, it states that there must be a treaty or agreement to share the jurisdiction, if more than one grand lodge is to be considered regular in that jurisdiction. In other words, the sharing of a jurisdiction is a PART OF the doctrine of exclusive territorial jurisdiction, and not a contradiction to it.
If you think that it is an "outmoded" or obsolete concept, then try creating a lodge in, say, Arkansas, California, or New York, and find out what happens. Better yet, try creating a lodge in London, England, and see how long it takes the U.G.L. of England to pull recognition from your grand lodge.
Meanwhile, the two regular grand lodges here in Texas, go on with life and ignore these small insignificant irregular "grand lodges."
The doctrine of exclusive territorial jurisdiction does not foster small irregular grand lodges, but rather, it keeps them down to a minimum. The last thing we want to do is open the door to the proliferation of small irregular grand lodges.
Paul Bessell, who, by the way, was defeated in his rise through the top four grand lodge offices in the District of Columbia, and never made it to Grand Master, has always exhibited a dismissive attitude toward the traditional standards of regularity. The other grand lodges that he lists in the Ivory Coast are offshoots of irregular grand lodges in France. What he ignores is the fact that the regular grand lodges of the world, all of which share recognition with the United Grand Lodge of England, do not recognize more than one grand lodge per jurisdiction, UNLESS the two or three grand lodges within a jurisdiction agree by treaty or compact to share that particular jurisdiction.
This does not indicate that there is no such thing as exclusive territorial jurisdiction. To the contrary, it states that there must be a treaty or agreement to share the jurisdiction, if more than one grand lodge is to be considered regular in that jurisdiction. In other words, the sharing of a jurisdiction is a PART OF the doctrine of exclusive territorial jurisdiction, and not a contradiction to it.
If you think that it is an "outmoded" or obsolete concept, then try creating a lodge in, say, Arkansas, California, or New York, and find out what happens. Better yet, try creating a lodge in London, England, and see how long it takes the U.G.L. of England to pull recognition from your grand lodge.
There are actually more that 25 grand lodges that are clandestine and not irregular operating in our great state.
How about we just stick to the 9 states in our own country were grand lodges who are very regular still do not have recognition from the "mainstream" grand lodges in their respective states, let alone the UGLE. For that reason, it seems that the concept of ETJ may be a bit flawed.
