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!
Clandestine?
- Thread starter Blake Bowden
- Start date
This Lodge does not recognize The United Grand Lodge Of England (UGLE).
Yep, I believe its safe to say they are clandestine.
Yep, I believe its safe to say they are clandestine.
Ben Rodriguez
Registered User
Interesting, I never thought there would actually be clandestine lodges! Good thing the ones I have visited in my area I found through the GLoTX website's lodge locator. I am a freshman Master Mason, forgive me if I seem to be out of it! 
Bryan
Registered User
The Grand Lodge of Louisiana defines any lodge that operates within the borders of the state of Louisiana that is NOT a subordinate lodge of the GL of Louisiana to be clandestine.
For any grand lodge to give recognition to and have fraternal relations with any other grand lodge or lodge that operates within its state borders would require the sharing of jurisdiction. In essence the original GL would be relinquishing its rights of being supreme within its own jurisdiction.
The way I see it the GL of Louisiana, which was chartered in 1812 when Louisiana first became a state, was here first and is absolutely supreme in its own jurisdiction. Why should we share our jurisdiction with anyone else?
That would be the same as having two presidents of the USA or a state having two governors.... or two mayors of the same city.
This could also apply to football. Football teams that use two starting quarterbacks don't usually have a good season. I think LSU might be the one exception to that. lol
I know that this is not exactly what this thread was about but its something to think about when considering the word or terminology clandestine.
For any grand lodge to give recognition to and have fraternal relations with any other grand lodge or lodge that operates within its state borders would require the sharing of jurisdiction. In essence the original GL would be relinquishing its rights of being supreme within its own jurisdiction.
The way I see it the GL of Louisiana, which was chartered in 1812 when Louisiana first became a state, was here first and is absolutely supreme in its own jurisdiction. Why should we share our jurisdiction with anyone else?
That would be the same as having two presidents of the USA or a state having two governors.... or two mayors of the same city.
This could also apply to football. Football teams that use two starting quarterbacks don't usually have a good season. I think LSU might be the one exception to that. lol
I know that this is not exactly what this thread was about but its something to think about when considering the word or terminology clandestine.
Sirius
Registered User
Currently, around twelve organizations call themselves the GL of Texas. Most are off shoots of PH.
I've found some great info on this group however. Find it here :Regular Grand Lodge of England - Bogus!
I've found some great info on this group however. Find it here :Regular Grand Lodge of England - Bogus!