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!
Basic uncomprehension about Masonic organizing of a Grand Lodge & its constituents.
- Thread starter BullDozer Harrell
- Start date
Oh my goodness.
It appears to me that they have no issue with being open with their "Grand Lodge" organization. That statement raises not only red flags but also the eyebrows. Sounds much like a group of disgruntled folks who didn't get their way in the mainstream systems.
Personally, I'd be a bit hesitant to join knowing that they've only been around since 2007. It is quite a normalcy that in almost every major town, the first buildings erected were churches, and lodges... banks of course as well. To wait a couple hundred years is almost humorous.
Exceedingly interesting.
It appears to me that they have no issue with being open with their "Grand Lodge" organization. That statement raises not only red flags but also the eyebrows. Sounds much like a group of disgruntled folks who didn't get their way in the mainstream systems.
Personally, I'd be a bit hesitant to join knowing that they've only been around since 2007. It is quite a normalcy that in almost every major town, the first buildings erected were churches, and lodges... banks of course as well. To wait a couple hundred years is almost humorous.
Exceedingly interesting.
BullDozer Harrell
Registered User
It's not just the year they came into existence that's the only problem.
Some legit GLs are as new as a baby too.
The problems i see are that supposedly 3 lodges came together to constitute themselves as a Grand Body. But then what followed is that they issued Charters back to these same lodges with some old arbitrary numbers which were previously attached. ??? Now that's a head scratcher.
Also there's mention of who was elected as their 1st GM. But no mention of the rest of the GLO line-up??? Another head scratcher.
In addition, what matter does any Brother care about the forming of a Grand Chapter and its 1st elected Grand Matron???
Lastly, what's all of the rhetoric after that and in between the mention of having 8 Chartered lodges with random numbers???
It's all a waste of a tree and a sheet of paper.
Some legit GLs are as new as a baby too.
The problems i see are that supposedly 3 lodges came together to constitute themselves as a Grand Body. But then what followed is that they issued Charters back to these same lodges with some old arbitrary numbers which were previously attached. ??? Now that's a head scratcher.
Also there's mention of who was elected as their 1st GM. But no mention of the rest of the GLO line-up??? Another head scratcher.
In addition, what matter does any Brother care about the forming of a Grand Chapter and its 1st elected Grand Matron???
Lastly, what's all of the rhetoric after that and in between the mention of having 8 Chartered lodges with random numbers???
It's all a waste of a tree and a sheet of paper.
I also agree with you and your key points, all valid.
Well, three lodges coming together as a grand body and then for the Grand organization to issue charters back is fine. The non-sequential numbering wouldn't affect regularity. I've seen lodges granted symbolic numbers.
If you look at UGLE webpage and my province, Cheshire, you don't see all officers. This is an announcement, not the proceedings.
As for wasting paper, I suspect this may be a landmark.
. It would be my suggestion when criticizing the clandestine (I do like aliteration) to simply stick to the standards of regularity: they do not appear to have legitimacy of origin and do not appear to have exclusive jurisdiction.
The Grand Lodge of DC allows its lodges to request numbers and the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts doesn't use numbers.
Here's a question for us USA masons: are landmarks a sign of regularity? If so which ones? If not why?
Well, three lodges coming together as a grand body and then for the Grand organization to issue charters back is fine. The non-sequential numbering wouldn't affect regularity. I've seen lodges granted symbolic numbers.
If you look at UGLE webpage and my province, Cheshire, you don't see all officers. This is an announcement, not the proceedings.
As for wasting paper, I suspect this may be a landmark.
It would be my suggestion when criticizing the clandestine (I do like aliteration) to simply stick to the standards of regularity: they do not appear to have legitimacy of origin and do not appear to have exclusive jurisdiction.
Here's a question for us USA masons: are landmarks a sign of regularity? If so which ones? If not why?
There is no established set of Landmarks. The principles for recognition used by CGMNA recommendations are here: http://www.recognitioncommission.org/publish/2004/06/10/the-standards-of-recognition/The Grand Lodge of DC allows its lodges to request numbers and the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts doesn't use numbers.
Here's a question for us USA masons: are landmarks a sign of regularity? If so which ones? If not why?
As a US GL? Yeah, that's an issue.
Well dang a good answer right off the bat.
BullDozer Harrell
Registered User
Duly noted. An overly critical approach to addressing an organization's Masonic status might translate as nitpicking. Thanks for the counsel.Well, three lodges coming together as a grand body and then for the Grand organization to issue charters back is fine. The non-sequential numbering wouldn't affect regularity. I've seen lodges granted symbolic numbers.
If you look at UGLE webpage and my province, Cheshire, you don't see all officers. This is an announcement, not the proceedings.
As for wasting paper, I suspect this may be a landmark.
It would be my suggestion when criticizing the clandestine (I do like aliteration) to simply stick to the standards of regularity: they do not appear to have legitimacy of origin and do not appear to have exclusive jurisdiction.
That is why I questioned the legitimacy of the three Lodges. The Grand Lodge of Texas was formed by three Lodges that were chartered regularly by the Grand Lodge of Louisiana. As there was no Grand Lodge exercising jurisdiction over Texas at that time, they were free to form their own Grand Lodge.
And Utah, whose three lodges had charters from three different states.
MarkR
Premium Member
The three lodges that formed the Grand Lodge of Minnesota had their charters from Ohio, Illinois, and Wisconsin.
Ripcord22A
Site Benefactor
Kenneth Munn
Registered User
Kenneth Munn
Registered User
Greetings and Peace and Blessings to all you brothers on this informative site. I recently just joined so I'm still moving around the site slowly. I just read the "Order out of Chaos" document that was posted and I would like to know what is your masonic perspective on the New Progressive Supreme Council Headed by Ralph Slaughter. Sov. Grnd. Com., PHA out of D.C.
Warrior1256
Site Benefactor
Ripcord22A
Site Benefactor
Ill let a PHA brother answer this in depth but my understanding is that it is not legit
Sent from my LG-H918 using My Freemasonry mobile app
Warrior1256
Site Benefactor
My feeling also.