It's not just the year they came into existence that's the only problem.
Some legit GLs are as new as a baby too.
The problems i see are that supposedly 3 lodges came together to constitute themselves as a Grand Body. But then what followed is that they issued Charters back to these same lodges with some old arbitrary numbers which were previously attached. ??? Now that's a head scratcher.
Also there's mention of who was elected as their 1st GM. But no mention of the rest of the GLO line-up??? Another head scratcher.
In addition, what matter does any Brother care about the forming of a Grand Chapter and its 1st elected Grand Matron???
Lastly, what's all of the rhetoric after that and in between the mention of having 8 Chartered lodges with random numbers???
It's all a waste of a tree and a sheet of paper.
It's not just the year they came into existence that's the only problem.
....
The problems i see are that supposedly 3 lodges came together to constitute themselves as a Grand Body. But then what followed is that they issued Charters back to these same lodges with some old arbitrary numbers which were previously attached. ??? Now that's a head scratcher.
Also there's mention of who was elected as their 1st GM. But no mention of the rest of the GLO line-up??? Another head scratcher.
In addition, what matter does any Brother care about the forming of a Grand Chapter and its 1st elected Grand Matron???
Lastly, what's all of the rhetoric after that and in between the mention of having 8 Chartered lodges with random numbers???
It's all a waste of a tree and a sheet of paper.
Well, three lodges coming together as a grand body and then for the Grand organization to issue charters back is fine. The non-sequential numbering wouldn't affect regularity. I've seen lodges granted symbolic numbers.
If you look at UGLE webpage and my province, Cheshire, you don't see all officers. This is an announcement, not the proceedings.
As for wasting paper, I suspect this may be a landmark. .
It would be my suggestion when criticizing the clandestine (I do like aliteration) to simply stick to the standards of regularity: they do not appear to have legitimacy of origin and do not appear to have exclusive jurisdiction.
There is no established set of Landmarks. The principles for recognition used by CGMNA recommendations are here: http://www.recognitioncommission.org/publish/2004/06/10/the-standards-of-recognition/The Grand Lodge of DC allows its lodges to request numbers and the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts doesn't use numbers.
Here's a question for us USA masons: are landmarks a sign of regularity? If so which ones? If not why?
Oh my goodness.
...
Personally, I'd be a bit hesitant to join knowing that they've only been around since 2007. .
There is no established set of Landmarks. The principles for recognition used by CGMNA recommendations are here: http://www.recognitioncommission.org/publish/2004/06/10/the-standards-of-recognition/
Duly noted. An overly critical approach to addressing an organization's Masonic status might translate as nitpicking. Thanks for the counsel.Well, three lodges coming together as a grand body and then for the Grand organization to issue charters back is fine. The non-sequential numbering wouldn't affect regularity. I've seen lodges granted symbolic numbers.
If you look at UGLE webpage and my province, Cheshire, you don't see all officers. This is an announcement, not the proceedings.
As for wasting paper, I suspect this may be a landmark. .
It would be my suggestion when criticizing the clandestine (I do like aliteration) to simply stick to the standards of regularity: they do not appear to have legitimacy of origin and do not appear to have exclusive jurisdiction.
That is why I questioned the legitimacy of the three Lodges. The Grand Lodge of Texas was formed by three Lodges that were chartered regularly by the Grand Lodge of Louisiana. As there was no Grand Lodge exercising jurisdiction over Texas at that time, they were free to form their own Grand Lodge.Well, three lodges coming together as a grand body and then for the Grand organization to issue charters back is fine.
And Utah, whose three lodges had charters from three different states.That is why I questioned the legitimacy of the three Lodges. The Grand Lodge of Texas was formed by three Lodges that were chartered regularly by the Grand Lodge of Louisiana. As there was no Grand Lodge exercising jurisdiction over Texas at that time, they were free to form their own Grand Lodge.
The three lodges that formed the Grand Lodge of Minnesota had their charters from Ohio, Illinois, and Wisconsin.And Utah, whose three lodges had charters from three different states.
Sounds much like a group of disgruntled folks who didn't get their way in the mainstream systems.
" My question would be "Constituted and warranted by whom?"
Agreed!It would be my suggestion when criticizing the clandestine (I do like aliteration) to simply stick to the standards of regularity: they do not appear to have legitimacy of origin and do not appear to have exclusive jurisdiction.
Ill let a PHA brother answer this in depth but my understanding is that it is not legitGreetings and Peace and Blessings to all you brothers on this informative site. I recently just joined so I'm still moving around the site slowly. I just read the "Order out of Chaos" document that was posted and I would like to know what is your masonic perspective on the New Progressive Supreme Council Headed by Ralph Slaughter. Sov. Grnd. Com., PHA out of D.C.
My feeling also.Ill let a PHA brother answer this in depth but my understanding is that it is not legit