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!

Grand Lodge of Ky and Most Worshipful Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Ky now have visitation

MRichard

Mark A. Ri'chard
Premium Member
Last time I checked GLSC was still spouting the "sovereign jurisdiction" line. As long as that barrier stands there will be no recognition.

Most if not all of them are using that. Some of them even consider PHA as clandestine and not regular but unrecognized. Louisiana does for sure.
 

Dontrell Stroman

Premium Member
It's an American doctrine. Basically, there should only be one grand lodge per jurisdiction.
And that's the catch, I agree there should only be one, but if a GL excludes black men from joining what else are they suppose to do ? That question is not directed towards you bro. Richard. As me and you have had this discussion multiple times.
 

MRichard

Mark A. Ri'chard
Premium Member
And that's the catch, I agree there should only be one, but if a GL excludes black men from joining what else are they suppose to do ? That question is not directed towards you bro. Richard. As me and you have had this discussion multiple times.

It's mainly an American doctrine. Each grand lodge is sovereign and as such doesn't have to follow the rules and regulations of another grand lodge. http://bessel.org/exclartl.htm
 

Brother JC

Moderating Staff
Staff Member
I find it a ridiculous concept. Imagine the diversity of living somewhere where five Grand Lodges exist amicably!
 

MRichard

Mark A. Ri'chard
Premium Member
I find it a ridiculous concept. Imagine the diversity of living somewhere where five Grand Lodges exist amicably!

You will probably never see that many regular and or recognized grand lodges in a jurisdiction in the US. But they are 3 grand lodges in CA but one is in exile so that is a special circumstance.
 

MRichard

Mark A. Ri'chard
Premium Member
Japan is home to five, only place I know of. But even having two would be a wonderful learning experience.

I agree with you but getting these US grand lodges to agree to new grand lodges or chartered lodges within their own jurisdiction; it is just not likely to happen anytime soon if ever. Some still don't recognize their PHA counterpart.
 

MarkR

Premium Member
People say it's mainly an American concept, but I challenge you to go start a new Grand Lodge in any of the Mother jurisdictions of England, Ireland, or Scotland and see if they welcome you.
 

Scoops

Registered User
People say it's mainly an American concept, but I challenge you to go start a new Grand Lodge in any of the Mother jurisdictions of England, Ireland, or Scotland and see if they welcome you.

Indeed, in UGLE's Book of Constitution (http://www.ugle.org.uk/images/files/Book_of_Constitutions_-_Craft_Rules_Sept_2016.pdf) page xiv (BASIC PRINCIPLES FOR GRAND LODGE RECOGNITION) Principle 5 specifically mentions that Sovereign Jurisdiction is required for recognition by UGLE.

However, you will note that it's very cleverly worded such that Sovereign Jurisdiction is over Lodges under the Grand Lodge's control rather than purely Geographic regions - hence how they are able to recognise two separate Grand Lodges in one US state.
 

dfreybur

Premium Member
But they are 3 grand lodges in CA but one is in exile so that is a special circumstance.

At least California and New York states host jurisdictions in exile. Their goal is to host lodges in their home country not in their host state so the overlap is not lodge to lodge only any office space used by the host and guest jurisdictions.

Before the fall of the Berlin Wall there were GLs in exile for several Eastern Bloc countries. The idea worked very well for that part of the world.

A variation on the theme is PHA Oklahoma. They sponsor lodges in remote countries then eventually encourage them to go independent. It can happen that they aren't the only sponsoring jurisdiction, so when the locals go independent they merge from various sources.
 

MRichard

Mark A. Ri'chard
Premium Member
People say it's mainly an American concept, but I challenge you to go start a new Grand Lodge in any of the Mother jurisdictions of England, Ireland, or Scotland and see if they welcome you.

That's an apples and oranges comparison. PHA was created because some men couldn't join the state grand lodges for whatever reason (racism). If they could have joined the state grand lodges, who knows what would have happened.
 

Glen Cook

G A Cook
Site Benefactor
Indeed, in UGLE's Book of Constitution (http://www.ugle.org.uk/images/files/Book_of_Constitutions_-_Craft_Rules_Sept_2016.pdf) page xiv (BASIC PRINCIPLES FOR GRAND LODGE RECOGNITION) Principle 5 specifically mentions that Sovereign Jurisdiction is required for recognition by UGLE.

However, you will note that it's very cleverly worded such that Sovereign Jurisdiction is over Lodges under the Grand Lodge's control rather than purely Geographic regions - hence how they are able to recognise two separate Grand Lodges in one US state.
More precisely, they can recognize more than one GL in a jurisdiction if shared by mutual agreement. See para 6 under Regularity. http://bessel.org/masrec/phaugle.htm
 

MarkR

Premium Member
That's an apples and oranges comparison. PHA was created because some men couldn't join the state grand lodges for whatever reason (racism). If they could have joined the state grand lodges, who knows what would have happened.
That wasn't the point of my post. I was addressing the contention that the idea of jurisdictional sovereignty is somehow primarily an American idea. It most certainly isn't. And of course, Grand Lodges can agree to share a jurisdiction, it happens all over the world.
 
Top