Traveling

Discussion in 'Recommended Reading' started by Travelling Man91, Aug 5, 2015.

  1. BroBook

    BroBook Premium Member

    586
    235
    63
    And those three regular GLs are ?
     
  2. Glen Cook

    Glen Cook G A Cook Site Benefactor

    2,876
    3,306
    183
    Three regular Lodges, not Grand Lodges. Edited the prior post. Apologies.
     
    BroBook likes this.
  3. Akiles

    Akiles Registered User

    54
    33
    18
    Grand Lodge of Spain, for example.... That's why during the dictatorial government of Franco the Masonry was forbidden (1939-1975).... And every mason was hunted and killed....
     
  4. dfreybur

    dfreybur Premium Member

    3,935
    2,384
    133
    On dues cards -

    I once had an on-line discussion with a European brother who stated that his jurisdiction issues warrant documents so he would not accept dues cards. I asked him what a warrant document was (I have seen them so I knew already). Once he described one I asked "So you mean a document printed by Grand Lodge showing that you are on the roles at Grand Lodge and that is signed and dated by your own lodge showing when your dues are paid until?" He said yes. "So then what I need to do when visiting your lodge is hand you my document printed by GL showing that I am on the roles at GL and that is signed, dated and embossed by my own lodge secretary showing when my dues are paid until?" He said yes. "In other words I should not call my dues card a dues card because this simple matter of terminology confuses you. I need to call it a warrant document?" No response.

    We call them "dues cards". Some number of jurisdictions call them "warrant documents". A rose by any other name. Those documents tend to be big and folded up. Not as practical but very nice looking!
     
  5. Glen Cook

    Glen Cook G A Cook Site Benefactor

    2,876
    3,306
    183
    Though my grand lodge certificate in England is issued once, and not renewed annually. I have to pay for re issuance. In England, a warrant is the charter issued to the lodge by the GL
     
  6. MRichard

    MRichard Mark A. Ri'chard Premium Member

    845
    607
    113
    @LAMason

    Just noticed the following section the other day. So I assume that you have issues with the 3 Grand Lodges that were formed with just two lodges and the Grand Lodge of New Jersey as well. Does your grand lodge recognize them? Checking for consistency.

    http://bessel.org/masrec/phaugle.htm

    COMMENT ON PRINCE HALL MASONRY

    3. By the standards of today, the formation of the Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Massachusetts was irregular. In the 18th Century, however, three Grand Lodges in North America were formed by not three but two Lodges, and the Grand Lodge of New Jersey was formed simply by a Grand Convention of Masons. By standards then prevailing, the formation of the Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Massachusetts could have been seen as merely eccentric, and of acceptable regularity.
     
  7. Glen Cook

    Glen Cook G A Cook Site Benefactor

    2,876
    3,306
    183
  8. MRichard

    MRichard Mark A. Ri'chard Premium Member

    845
    607
    113
    That is confusing but it looks like two (Fargo & Bismarck) and their charters had to be reissued after some confusion. The first lodges established appeared to be military that didn't last.
     
  9. LAMason

    LAMason Premium Member

    258
    150
    43
    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.
     
  10. MRichard

    MRichard Mark A. Ri'chard Premium Member

    845
    607
    113
    Angry? Lol. You used that same link to support your arguments but you want to pick and choose what quotes to use. So I did what you did and your arguments are looking weaker and weaker. You cite precedence and yet ignore it when convenient.

    I could venture to speculate why you have chosen to make such a big deal out of this but I really don't need to.
     
  11. LAMason

    LAMason Premium Member

    258
    150
    43
    Give me another example where three irregular lodges formed a Grand Lodge.
     
  12. MRichard

    MRichard Mark A. Ri'chard Premium Member

    845
    607
    113
    Don't need to. I just gave you examples of grand lodges being formed without three regular lodges which you apparently have no problem with. Grand Lodge of New Jersey was formed by convention. Again no problem with that. Talk about an irregular formation but I bet the Grand Lodge of Louisiana recognizes them.
     
  13. MRichard

    MRichard Mark A. Ri'chard Premium Member

    845
    607
    113
    Let me ask you a simple question. Does your grand lodge have a particular stance on the PHA grand lodge in your state? Clandestine, irregular, or regular but not recognized. If not what is your position?
     
  14. pointwithinacircle2

    pointwithinacircle2 Rapscallion Premium Member

    803
    840
    113
    It seems to me that issues of regularity are sometimes based on who we decide to approve of and the reasons that we use to justify our position. Oops, no one was talking to me were they? I'll shut up now.
     
    Travelling Man91 likes this.
  15. LAMason

    LAMason Premium Member

    258
    150
    43
    The Grand Lodges formed by 2 lodges were formed by 2 regular lodges. There were more than 3 regular lodges represented at the New Jersey convention.

    If you want to consider those to be similar to a Grand Lodge being formed by 3 irregular lodges that is up to you but I do not have come to the same conclusion.
     
  16. MRichard

    MRichard Mark A. Ri'chard Premium Member

    845
    607
    113
  17. MRichard

    MRichard Mark A. Ri'chard Premium Member

    845
    607
    113
    So does the Grand Lodge of Louisiana recognize any of the aforementioned grand lodges I mentioned above. Yes or no.
     
  18. LAMason

    LAMason Premium Member

    258
    150
    43
    Our Constitution says: “No Lodge attempting to exist in this state without a Charter from this Grand Lodge shall be acknowledged as regular.” Louisiana Handbook of Masonic Law, Page 2.
     
  19. LAMason

    LAMason Premium Member

    258
    150
    43
    Yes. However, as I have pointed out I see a difference between a Grand Lodge being formed by "regular" lodges as opposed to being formed by "irregular" lodges, which is the same position that the UGLE took as late as 1988, and yes I know that they reversed their position in 1994 and decided to choose to ignore the irregular formation of Prince Hall Grand Lodge.
     
    MRichard likes this.
  20. MRichard

    MRichard Mark A. Ri'chard Premium Member

    845
    607
    113
    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. :D:):rolleyes::p:eek:o_O;):cool::mad:
     
    Last edited: Sep 20, 2015
    mrpierce17 likes this.

Share My Freemasonry