GL of Louisiana withdraws recognition of GEKT

Discussion in 'The York Rite' started by texanmason, Aug 20, 2018.

  1. Keith C

    Keith C Registered User

    838
    962
    93
    My understanding is "Sort of."

    Except in PA, where the York Rite bodies are under direct control of the GM, Appendant Bodies are indeed independent. However, the GM of the jurisdiction has the authority to allow or prevent MMs under their jurisdiction from joining and attending Appendant Bodies. So, except in PA, the Grand Chapter, Grand Council and Grand Commandry do not need any "approvals" from any Grand Lodge, they can be devoided of membership by decision of the GM.
     
    Warrior1256 and LK600 like this.
  2. Glen Cook

    Glen Cook G A Cook Site Benefactor

    2,928
    3,366
    183
    In some GLs, appendant bodies do need specific GM approval, and even GM approval of the bylaws.
     
    LK600 likes this.
  3. Keith C

    Keith C Registered User

    838
    962
    93
    Thanks for the clarification!
     
  4. texanmason

    texanmason Registered User

    52
    34
    18
    Many appendant bodies are sovereign - however, there's the issue of regularity & stepping on toes. The Scottish Rite and CBCS, for example, have their own Craft degrees, but have agreed to not confer them in favor of being recognized by the various State & National grand lodges.
     
  5. LK600

    LK600 Premium Member

    654
    711
    113
    Maybe it's the terminology I'm getting hung up on. So, (depending on place) an appendant body is sovereign, but only if the GL in that area allows it to be (via allowing it's members to join or not)? Seems confusing. :)
     
    Warrior1256 likes this.
  6. Companion Joe

    Companion Joe Premium Member

    858
    899
    113
    I used the term sovereign to mean not subservient to GLs. In my state, our Grand Chapter and Grand Council are actually chartered by our GL because we pulled out of the General Grand. Those charters could be yanked by the GM, but those bodies have their own duly elected grand heads, conduct their own business, control their own finances, etc. As long as the bodies aren't doing something in violation of the state Masonic code, they are independent.

    The big problem with situations like La. and Ark. is that a lot of people suffer because a few people can't get along and do what they are supposed to do.
     
    Matt L, LK600 and Warrior1256 like this.
  7. Warrior1256

    Warrior1256 Site Benefactor

    7,335
    3,330
    183
    That is indeed the way it is here in Kentucky and, I assume, all states in the U.S.
    Yep, but that is the way that it is.
     
    LK600 likes this.
  8. Warrior1256

    Warrior1256 Site Benefactor

    7,335
    3,330
    183
    Agreed!
     
  9. Bloke

    Bloke Premium Member

    4,307
    3,035
    133
    Appendant Bodies will vary, some being under control of or linked to a Craft GL others being Sovereign, but being appendant, they all have one thing in common - you need to be a Freemason to be a member, and if you cease to be a Freemason, you no longer qualify for the appendant body. That's part of the reason they are "appendant" bodies, even if Sovereign, the qualifications to join are ultimately controlled by the Craft. If not, they sit outside Freemasonry and are not appendant.
     
    Warrior1256, Bill Lins and LK600 like this.
  10. Warrior1256

    Warrior1256 Site Benefactor

    7,335
    3,330
    183
    Right. Here even if you are a life member of an appendant body if you are suspended or expelled from your Blue Lodge you are suspended from the appendant body for non-affiliation.
     
    Bloke likes this.
  11. Glen Cook

    Glen Cook G A Cook Site Benefactor

    2,928
    3,366
    183
    Shrine reserves the right to determine if the loss of the prerequisite was for a Shrine offense.
     
    Warrior1256 likes this.
  12. Warrior1256

    Warrior1256 Site Benefactor

    7,335
    3,330
    183
    I'm not quite sure what this means Brother Glen. Could you give me a brief explanation?
     
  13. Glen Cook

    Glen Cook G A Cook Site Benefactor

    2,928
    3,366
    183
    Example: loss of membership in GL AR for purportedly owning a liquor store. Owning a liquor store is not a Shrine offense. The Shriner was allowed to keep his Shrine membership.
     
    Warrior1256 likes this.
  14. Warrior1256

    Warrior1256 Site Benefactor

    7,335
    3,330
    183
    Got it. I assume that the Shrine in AR does not require Blue Lodge membership in order to join.
     
  15. Bloke

    Bloke Premium Member

    4,307
    3,035
    133
    And how is that working out for the Shrine in AR ? Not well methinks
     
    Warrior1256 likes this.
  16. Warrior1256

    Warrior1256 Site Benefactor

    7,335
    3,330
    183
    That's why I assume that the Shrine in AR already does not require Blue Lodge affiliation to join.
     
  17. Glen Cook

    Glen Cook G A Cook Site Benefactor

    2,928
    3,366
    183
    Not exactly. Rather, it was because of an attempt to suppress the order by GL AR in forbidding Shrine to its members.
     
  18. Glen Cook

    Glen Cook G A Cook Site Benefactor

    2,928
    3,366
    183
    I don’t have numbers. I will defer to our AR resident on the list, who is now a MO Mason, I understand.
    Masonry itself is in a difficult position in AR because of disruption in the GL. KS has withdrawn recognition. Members have joined other GLs.
     
    Warrior1256 likes this.
  19. Warrior1256

    Warrior1256 Site Benefactor

    7,335
    3,330
    183
    From what I have heard it is kind of a mess Masonically in Arkansas.
     
  20. Companion Joe

    Companion Joe Premium Member

    858
    899
    113
    I'm not a member of the Shrine, but the whole deal in Ark. has always been a bit of puzzlement to me and certainly a black eye for Masonry. The Shrine has never been directly Masonic. A requirement for membership is being a Master Mason. Fair enough, but it doesn't operate under the umbrella of Freemasonry the same way York Rite and Scottish Rite bodies do. When the GL of Ark. declared its MMs could not be a member of the Shrine, I honestly don't see it any difference than the GL saying its membership couldn't belong to the Moose, Elks, Rotary, Lions, or Kiwanis.
     
    Warrior1256, Matt L and Bloke like this.

Share My Freemasonry