Dontrell Stroman
Premium Member
What three GLs are recognized in CA ?
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!
Shots Fired!
- Thread starter coachn
- Start date
http://www.ugle.org.uk/about/foreign-grand-lodges .
Does the Iran in Exile grand lodge actually meet or have lodges there?
Ripcord22A
Site Benefactor
GLs dont have charters. A GL is formed by 3 or more subordinate lodges from other jurisdictions that band together and form a GL, there are a lot of steps that I am not familiar with, once said steps are complete they request recognition from other GLs, once those other GLs recognize them, the subordinate lodges turn in their chraters/warrents to their original GLs and the new GLs issue them a new charter. But the GL does not have a charter
The lodges would need charters so they could form a grand lodge. Again, who is going to give them a charter?
Last edited:
Ripcord22A
Site Benefactor
Well, Im not saying this would work, but if enough of the GLoTN bonded together and could prove that the current GL was not acting in ways that reflected the views of the Craft in TN as a whole they could form their own GL and go to the other State GLs and plead their case as to why they should be the legitimate GL in TN. ANd if they got recognized then send a deligation to UGLE. If the UGLE agreed they could then pull recognition from the current GL and give it to the ne GL. But, there are plenty of states out there that recognize lodges that the UGLE does not and there is no problem with that, as long as the GL that is being recognized is regular.
Dontrell Stroman
Premium Member
Is the UGLE considering pulling recognition from the GL of TN and GA ?
Sent from my 831C using My Freemasonry Pro mobile app
Sent from my 831C using My Freemasonry Pro mobile app
dfreybur
Premium Member
Yesterday I did several individual responses. Today I took my time and merged then into one amalgamated response.
That is exactly what it is according to the letter of edict from one of my 3 Grand Masters. A violation of the landmark against introducing sectarian religion into lodge. The prohibition against homosexuality appears in exactly one religious lineage and is thus sectarian. Do not be confused by whether it's from your religious lineage or someone else's religious lineage. That doesn't matter when judging a matter sectarian.
Fun user handle by the way.
So you say and if you're a member in either TN or GA of course that will be your stance. Two of my 3 GMs currently hold TN and GA to be regular. One does not.
In return you simply pretend that a religious rule that comes from exactly one religious lineage does not count as sectarian and thus does not violate a landmark.
On many recognition matters UGLE leads the way. On other matters they have equal standing with every other jurisdiction. On this the UGLE is just one jurisdiction among many.
When CT first granted PHA recognition at least one southern US jurisdiction pulled recognition over it. Nearly everyone laughed at them for pulling recognition. Time did in fact wound that heal and heal that wound. Who now remembers CT with anything but admiration for their progress? No one I care to emulate.
Now GA and TN have stepped forward to bring sectarian rule. Time will wound that heal and heal that wound, be clear about that. If they don't relent soon it will only be a matter how some number of Masonic funerals as they watch the flow of new candidates reduce. Who later will remember this as example different from the religious bigotry that was rejected in FL three years ago? No one I care to emulate.
True in theory, unlikely in practice. A better projection is this will run out in a similar manner as PHA recognition. Very slowly.
In GA it has already been voted on and approved by their delegates at annual communication. Too late for them.
In TN and CA it is currently by edict/decision that needs to be voted on at annual communication.
The delegates in TN have the chance to vote against being known world wide as homophobes who destroyed the sanctuary aspect of Masonry in their territory. The letter from CA at least makes it clear that if the TN edict is voted down recognition is back the day that vote outcome is released to the world.
The delegates in CA have the chance to vote for or against the CA edict. I am already discussing with my wife the option of going to San Francisco this year.
Others have answered this already but I'll repeat - Grand lodges grant charters. They don't receive charters. What makes grand lodges legitimate is *recognition*.
This is an important point - The legitimacy of any one GL is determined by how many other GLs recognize them and by how many that don't.
That's worth repeating - The legitimacy of any one GL is determined by how many other GLs recognize them. When recognition is pulled by some that means the legitimacy has been questioned by some. When recognition is pulled by many that means the legitimacy has been refuted by many.
Others have answered the charter question - When a group of lodges band together to form a new jurisdiction they turn in their old charters to their former jurisdictions and the new jurisdiction writes news ones for them. Becoming a founding lodge in a new jurisdiction is a HUGE leap of faith that the new jurisdiction is legitimate and will thus be recognized immediately.
That is why I don't think any third jurisdiction will be formed. I think every other GL in America will wait for them to come back to the fold, very much like every other GL in America is waiting for the southern states to recognize PHA. Just as no one is pulling recognition over failure to recognize PHA I don't think adjacent states are going to charter lodges in the territory held by homophobic jurisdictions. (We might call them Obama/Clinton Affiliate lodges after leaders who integrated on the topic of gender).
This has a previous answer as well as a current answer.
Back in the 1990s when California voted on PHA recognition they did so in several annual steps. One year they declared PHA to be regular in origin and practice. The next year the GL of Mexico requested permission to charter a lodge in Imperial county near the Mexican border. The GLofCA voted to allow that lodge to be chartered as it set the precedent that when asked they can waive the principle of exclusive territory without dropping territorial sovereignty in general. Then recognition was voted in. For a while GLofCA, MWPHGLofCA+HI and GL of Mexico operated lodges in California. Some time in the 20+ years since then that Mexican lodge joined GLofCA and the overlap ceased.
The current answer was already answered - GL of Iran in Exile. They work to get Masonry allowed in Iran with the goal to move back there and found lodges. I pray for their eventual success.
That is exactly what it is according to the letter of edict from one of my 3 Grand Masters. A violation of the landmark against introducing sectarian religion into lodge. The prohibition against homosexuality appears in exactly one religious lineage and is thus sectarian. Do not be confused by whether it's from your religious lineage or someone else's religious lineage. That doesn't matter when judging a matter sectarian.
Fun user handle by the way.
So you say and if you're a member in either TN or GA of course that will be your stance. Two of my 3 GMs currently hold TN and GA to be regular. One does not.
In return you simply pretend that a religious rule that comes from exactly one religious lineage does not count as sectarian and thus does not violate a landmark.
On many recognition matters UGLE leads the way. On other matters they have equal standing with every other jurisdiction. On this the UGLE is just one jurisdiction among many.
When CT first granted PHA recognition at least one southern US jurisdiction pulled recognition over it. Nearly everyone laughed at them for pulling recognition. Time did in fact wound that heal and heal that wound. Who now remembers CT with anything but admiration for their progress? No one I care to emulate.
Now GA and TN have stepped forward to bring sectarian rule. Time will wound that heal and heal that wound, be clear about that. If they don't relent soon it will only be a matter how some number of Masonic funerals as they watch the flow of new candidates reduce. Who later will remember this as example different from the religious bigotry that was rejected in FL three years ago? No one I care to emulate.
True in theory, unlikely in practice. A better projection is this will run out in a similar manner as PHA recognition. Very slowly.
In GA it has already been voted on and approved by their delegates at annual communication. Too late for them.
In TN and CA it is currently by edict/decision that needs to be voted on at annual communication.
The delegates in TN have the chance to vote against being known world wide as homophobes who destroyed the sanctuary aspect of Masonry in their territory. The letter from CA at least makes it clear that if the TN edict is voted down recognition is back the day that vote outcome is released to the world.
The delegates in CA have the chance to vote for or against the CA edict. I am already discussing with my wife the option of going to San Francisco this year.
Others have answered this already but I'll repeat - Grand lodges grant charters. They don't receive charters. What makes grand lodges legitimate is *recognition*.
This is an important point - The legitimacy of any one GL is determined by how many other GLs recognize them and by how many that don't.
That's worth repeating - The legitimacy of any one GL is determined by how many other GLs recognize them. When recognition is pulled by some that means the legitimacy has been questioned by some. When recognition is pulled by many that means the legitimacy has been refuted by many.
Others have answered the charter question - When a group of lodges band together to form a new jurisdiction they turn in their old charters to their former jurisdictions and the new jurisdiction writes news ones for them. Becoming a founding lodge in a new jurisdiction is a HUGE leap of faith that the new jurisdiction is legitimate and will thus be recognized immediately.
That is why I don't think any third jurisdiction will be formed. I think every other GL in America will wait for them to come back to the fold, very much like every other GL in America is waiting for the southern states to recognize PHA. Just as no one is pulling recognition over failure to recognize PHA I don't think adjacent states are going to charter lodges in the territory held by homophobic jurisdictions. (We might call them Obama/Clinton Affiliate lodges after leaders who integrated on the topic of gender).
This has a previous answer as well as a current answer.
Back in the 1990s when California voted on PHA recognition they did so in several annual steps. One year they declared PHA to be regular in origin and practice. The next year the GL of Mexico requested permission to charter a lodge in Imperial county near the Mexican border. The GLofCA voted to allow that lodge to be chartered as it set the precedent that when asked they can waive the principle of exclusive territory without dropping territorial sovereignty in general. Then recognition was voted in. For a while GLofCA, MWPHGLofCA+HI and GL of Mexico operated lodges in California. Some time in the 20+ years since then that Mexican lodge joined GLofCA and the overlap ceased.
The current answer was already answered - GL of Iran in Exile. They work to get Masonry allowed in Iran with the goal to move back there and found lodges. I pray for their eventual success.
Ripcord22A
Site Benefactor
@Companion Joe Being that you are a member of the GLoTN what is your take and what are the brohters saying in your jurisdiction on this subject? Is it true that the GM issued a gag order on the subject? and that any brohter that speaks up for the couple in question will be immediatly expelled right along with them?
hanzosbm
Premium Member
I haven't read the ruling from TN or GA, but are they claiming this ruling against homosexuals on religious grounds? If so, then yes, I can see it violating a landmark. But what if they say 'no homosexuals because we think it's icky'?
Ripcord22A
Site Benefactor
In the UCMJ (uniform code of military justice) Sodomy is against the law, also anything other than missionary position is illegal as well. So I guess it is possible to make things illegal cause you dont like it,
hanzosbm
Premium Member
Exactly. I checked and the US Supreme Court overturned all sodomy laws in the US in 2003 (and the repeal of DADT essentially recently overturned it in the UCMJ) so they can't claim that it is for legal reasons, but I remember reading somewhere (I think it was Anderson's Constitution) that anything not covered in the landmarks is up for grabs to make rulings on. Heck, they could even claim that they find it immoral and therefore that person wouldn't be a good man. Morality is subjective, so it can't really be proven incorrect. At the same time, CA can say that bigotry is immoral as a justification for cutting ties.
Just like a court case, I think that there's a number of different directions that each party could go to make their case.
Ripcord22A
Site Benefactor
Not really. It is still there and if I went home and had back door relations with my wife and she had photographic proof and then we got in a afight and she left me later down the road she could take that to my commander and i could be charged with it. Its hard to prove hence why i said photographic proof. Adultery is also illegal as per the UCMJ and is just as hard to prove.
hanzosbm
Premium Member
Exactly. I remember questioning that when I was in. Until I saw what happens in the barracks and how much photographic (and video) evidence there was.
Just...wow.
MasterBulldawg
Registered User
To say the Grand Lodges of Tennessee and Georgia are homophobic because they do not allow homosexuals to join is a bit extreme as they are not advocating physical violence or hatred towards homosexuals just the exclusion from a private club.
Playing Devils Advocate I can make a case for homosexuals be excluded from Freemason that based on ancient times and our 3rd degree obligation. We all know homosexuals have been around since Biblical times as it was recorded in Solomon and Gomorrah. So when the Ancients set about coming up with the third degree they would have included certain male members of the Masons family along with the female members if they had thought that homosexuals would be joining the fraternity. Also I was told the reason why women do not join the fraternity this is about sexual tension and also to keep adulterous affairs out of the lodge as you know with other fraternities that are both male and female there have been scandals of the affairs between members. Can you imagine the lodge where there's two popular and an extremely active gay couples and for whatever reason there was an affair between the couples could split the lodge brothers having to choose one side or the other. I have to question weather the grand lodges California and DC would have taking this action if there hadn't been a public outcry. Having said all this is my personal opinion that each Grand Lodge should be responsible for its rules and regulations. I will follow my Grand Lodge but I will vote at Annual Communication also.
Playing Devils Advocate I can make a case for homosexuals be excluded from Freemason that based on ancient times and our 3rd degree obligation. We all know homosexuals have been around since Biblical times as it was recorded in Solomon and Gomorrah. So when the Ancients set about coming up with the third degree they would have included certain male members of the Masons family along with the female members if they had thought that homosexuals would be joining the fraternity. Also I was told the reason why women do not join the fraternity this is about sexual tension and also to keep adulterous affairs out of the lodge as you know with other fraternities that are both male and female there have been scandals of the affairs between members. Can you imagine the lodge where there's two popular and an extremely active gay couples and for whatever reason there was an affair between the couples could split the lodge brothers having to choose one side or the other. I have to question weather the grand lodges California and DC would have taking this action if there hadn't been a public outcry. Having said all this is my personal opinion that each Grand Lodge should be responsible for its rules and regulations. I will follow my Grand Lodge but I will vote at Annual Communication also.
Last edited:
MasterBulldawg
Registered User
Also on the PH GLs - Most assume the F&AM GLs are the ones withholding recognition but what if its the otherway around?
Cause the senior grand lodge has to consent or waive jurisdiction. Not to mention the location of the problem in the Southern Confederate states except WV. I am sure there are problems on both sides.
I don't have to imagine this. I had to deal with a situation when a couple in a lodge broke up, and the jilted (who was not a member of that lodge) kept coming back to the lodge, demonstrating jealousy, and finally was barred from visiting by vote of the lodge.
We also have a married couple in a lodge where one was not elected Master (he was not proficient and was a difficult person) and so the unelected person has joined a clandestine lodge. It now leaves a distrust of the remaining brother, who is a nice guy.