He apparently was not aware he was clandestine

[dfreybur]

I've long figured the founders of clandestine jurisdictions know but few of their members have any idea the lodge they petitioned is clandestine. Yesterday I encountered a situation that seems to confirm that. I attended a first degree at a local lodge. I was asked "You're from Illinois aren't you? Have you ever heard of X Lodge Number N?"

A brother from Illinois came by the lodge at the previous meeting. When he presented his dues card everything stopped. His jurisdiction was not in the book.

Slam dunk number one - His lodge is in Illinois but his dues card was issued out of Ohio. The only regular jurisdictions that cover more than one state cover the smallest population states. Neither Ohio nor Illinois are small population states.

Slam dunk number two - His dues card had a blank space to fill in the jurisdiction.

Slam dunk number three - In the blank was written in pen "St James". No regular jurisdiction in the US has a name resembling that. Mississippi PHA contains "Styker" and Florida contrains "Union" otherwise they are all variations on GL of State (with or without MW) or MW PHA GL of State (some jurisdictions cover more than one state).

Slam dunk number four - He stated Prince Hall is clandestine. Both Ohio and Illinois recognized longer ago than this guy was put through his clandestine degrees.

He had no idea he was clandestine. He was invited to demit from his clandestine jurisdiction and petition fresh. I have no idea ig he will do so. I hope so.

 

[bupton52]

You just described daily conversations with members of clandestine bodies. I wish him the best and hope that he takes advantage of the opportunity to join a legitimate masonic body.

 

[bupton52]

Also, that GL's name is Stringer GL not Stryker. LOL. @dfreybur

 

[MBC]

Slam dunk number three - In the blank was written in pen "St James". No regular jurisdiction in the US has a name resembling that. Mississippi PHA contains "Styker" and Florida contrains "Union" otherwise they are all variations on GL of State (with or without MW) or MW PHA GL of State (some jurisdictions cover more than one state).

Sorry to disturb, according to the UGLE(http://www.ugle.org.uk/about/foreign-grand-lodges), it seems these two GLs is not recognized by the UGLE. Can I ask why you said it is regular?

 

[dfreybur]

Sorry to disturb, according to the UGLE(http://www.ugle.org.uk/about/foreign-grand-lodges), it seems these two GLs is not recognized by the UGLE. Can I ask why you said it is regular?

That is the first place to look for recognition but recognition and regularity are not the same thing. Regularity is necessary for recognition but recognition is not necessary for regularity.

The policy of the UGLE in the past has been to recognize each US PHA jurisdiction as they are recognized by the US state that shares their territory. Incidentally they are several years behind in recognizing PHA Oklahoma. It appears the topic is of low urgency to the UGLE.

Regularity is about valid traceable lineage. Once it was established that MWPHAGLofCT was regular because it was descended from African 459's charter from the Premier GL of England, that established the regularity of other PHA jurisdictions with their own valid traceable lineage. The link I posted gives a list of all such regular PHA jurisdictions. Most have recognition some do not yet have recognition.

Clandestine is about lack of valid traceable lineage. A jurisdiction is clandestine if they created themselves. There are jurisdictions that use the PHA name that did create themselves. That is why it is important to look up jurisdictions for regularity when considering recognition and for recognition when considering visiting.

 

[bupton52]

Every GL does not have to be recognized in order to be regular, but every GL must be regular in order to be recognized.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I317 using My Freemasonry HD mobile app

 

[MarkR]

Incidentally they are several years behind in recognizing PHA Oklahoma. It appears the topic is of low urgency to the UGLE.

Has Oklahoma PHA asked UGLE for recognition? Generally, they'll only act on requests; they don't go looking for Grand Lodges to recognize.

 

[Warrior1256]

I feel very sorry for the poor fellow who innocently fell in with a false lodge.

 

[Warrior1256]

He had no idea he was clandestine. He was invited to demit from his clandestine jurisdiction and petition fresh. I have no idea ig he will do so. I hope so.

Just curious, do you know if he demited and joined the regular / recognized lodge?

 

[Glen Cook]

That happened in 1717 when 4 lodges declared themselves to constitute the Grand Lodge of London and Westminister.

The new GL thereupon rewrote Masonic history in their own image and likeness

No. They were three regular lodges and they invaded no territory.

 

[Mike Martin]

That happened in 1717 when 4 lodges declared themselves to constitute the Grand Lodge of London and Westminister.

The new GL thereupon rewrote Masonic history in their own image and likeness

Nice try! There were no Grand Lodges before the first and so there was no possibility of irregular Grand Lodges.

However, once the three Home Grand Lodges were constituted and Freemasonry started to spread around the world the possibility came about.

 

[Mike Martin]

The oldest of those lodges was about 50 years and the youngest was 5 years. Did they have no charters from a GL?

See my post above.

 

[coachn]

No. They were three regular lodges and they invaded no territory.

FROM WIKI:
Officially, the Grand Lodge of England was founded in London on St. John the Baptist's day, 24 June 1717, when four existing Lodges gathered at the Goose and Gridiron Ale-house in St. Paul's Church-yard in London and constituted themselves a Grand Lodge. The four lodges had previously met together in 1716 at the Apple-Tree Tavern, "and having put into the Chair the oldest Master Mason (now the Master of a Lodge), they constituted themselves a Grand Lodge pro Tempore in due form." It was at that meeting in 1716 that they resolved to hold the Annual Assembly and Feast and then choose a Grand Master from among themselves, which they did the following year. All four lodges were simply named after the public houses where they were accustomed to meet, at the Goose and Gridiron Ale-house in St. Paul's Church-yard (Lodge now called Lodge of Antiquity No. 2); the Crown Ale-house in Parker's Lane off Drury Lane; the Apple-Tree Tavern in Charles Street, Covent Garden (Lodge now called Lodge of Fortitude and Old Cumberland No. 12); and the Rummer and Grapes Tavern in Channel Row, Westminster (Lodge now called Royal Somerset House and Inverness Lodge No. IV). While the three London lodges were mainly operative lodges, the Rummer and Grapes, by the Palace of Westminster, appears to have been primarily a lodge of accepted and speculative gentlemen masons..

So, which of the three were regular and which was not?

 

[coachn]

Nice try! There were no Grand Lodges before the first and so there was no possibility of irregular Grand Lodges.

However, once the three Home Grand Lodges were constituted and Freemasonry started to spread around the world the possibility came about.

Although I agree with you, there exists a group of Brothers who claim that another lodge was operating in the "capacity" of a GL a few years before the PGL, issuing charters and such. This eventually led to the war between the Antient and Modern GLs. As much as I share facts, they hang on to the illusion. The PGL was the one that actually got the ball rolling and did so successfully enough for us to have this discussion.

 

[coachn]

So would you like to explain how a 5 year old lodge is time immemorial?

Love to! The same way "the constitutions of free & accepted masons" and all the other "lore" are explained: It was all fabricated to appear old.

 

[coachn]

The new Grand Lodge just rewrote Masonic history to justify its own existence.

Well, you have to first clearly and cleanly define what you mean by the word "Masonic" before you go down that path. The PGL was theatrical society that used the lexicon and façade of Masonry to create "Freemasonry (a word that did not exist until the PGL and all its lore were created)". (And even in it's beginning, it was just a group of guys wanting to get together to talk, eat, sing and drink. The theater was only something that was inserted for entertainment purposes.)

Brother Mackay said it very well:

“How is the history of Freemasonry to be written, so that the narrative shall win the respect of its enemies , and secure the assent and approbation of its friends? In the first place, we must begin by a strict definition of the word Masonry. If we make it synonymous with Freemasonry, then must we confine ourselves closely to the events that are connected with the Institution in its present form and organization. …
“… No greater honor could accrue to any man than that of having been the founder of a new school of Masonic history, in which the fictions and loose statements of former writers would be rejected, and in which the rule would be adopted that has been laid down as a vital maxim of all inductive science, — in words that have been chosen as his motto by a recent powerful investigator of historical truth:
'Not to exceed and not to fall short of facts — not to add and not to take away. To state the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.'"
– Bro. Albert C. Mackey 33° (History of Freemasonry; Encyclopedia of Freemasonry, 1917 edition)\
​

Even in his time it was clear that the nonsense parading as Masonic Lore was nothing more than fanciful fantasies fabricated for the enjoyment of the membership. Historians from day one have dismissed the scripts and literature as fabrications. Yet, because so many people join wanting to believe that it is more than entertainment, they would rather embrace the fantasy rather than the reality behind the curtain.

So, your statement is incorrect. They didn't rewrite Masonic History in any way, shape or form! They fabricate Freemasonic History and called it "Masonic!"

 

[Mike Martin]

So would you like to explain how a 5 year old lodge is time immemorial?

There are a couple of difficulties with your question that once addressed should help you find your own answer to the conundrum.

1) Time Immemorial is not an actual amount of time, it means a period of time that is outside the "living memory" of the people or person using the phrase. It is a truism to say that something that is 100 years old or older can be described as "time Immemorial" but that the amount of time can be considerably shorter. If all those originally involved are dead and someone is revisiting a subject it can be described as having existed since time immemorial or if the person talking about an institution is 25 years old and the institution is 50 years old to him it has existed since time immemorial as far as he is concerned. It is a language device that has been used to make Appendant bodies appear to be as old as Freemasonry.

2) The first List of Lodges that actually includes dates of Constitution is that from 1729 and several of the original four Lodges (namely 1. Goose & Gridiron, 2. Crown Ale-house, 3. Apple Tree Tavern, 4. Rummer and Grapes) that founded the Premier Grand Lodge do not appear on it. In fact several of them don't appear on the earlier 1723 list. This is due to the fact that the life span of Lodges has always been varied.

3) However, the Four Old Lodges as they are usually known only really became known as "Time immemorial" at about the time when the Premier Grand Lodge (that they were founding members of) set to numbering the Lodges that had chosen to align themselves with it. As they had existed before Grand Lodge itself they became known as TI Lodges.

Sadly the actual history of the founding of the Premier Grand Lodge tends to be made to seem much more or less depending on a particular Author's agenda, however, I suspect that (due to the interest you have shown) you would enjoy this book: http://www.hourofthetime.com/1-LF/October2012/Hour_Of_The_Time_10242012-The_Four_Old_Lodges-1879.pdf

 

[Mike Martin]

Although I agree with you, there exists a group of Brothers who claim that another lodge was operating in the "capacity" of a GL a few years before the PGL, issuing charters and such. This eventually led to the war between the Antient and Modern GLs. As much as I share facts, they hang on to the illusion. The PGL was the one that actually got the ball rolling and did so successfully enough for us to have this discussion.

Once again this is not historically accurate and actually throws together two distinct and separate events in early English Freemasonry that became entwined in the later 1700s.

The Old Lodge at York was well known to the southern brethren who founded the Premier Grand Lodge and vice versa, hence there was little or no strife between the two groups when it declared itself to be the Grand Lodge of All England at York in 1725. All England at that time stipulated the old Danelaw England.

The Grand Lodge that formed itself in London in 1756 was not connected to the GLoAE. Its founders were members under the Grand Lodge of Ireland and working in the Irish way. They were disgruntled and formed themselves into a rival due to having found themselves barred from English Lodges (unless introduced by a known Brother) due to the Premier Grand Lodge's response to men being irregularly made Masons (using the exposures on the streets) who then claimed charity from its Lodges.

I would heartily recommend the book "Masonic Facts and Fictions" published in 1877 by Henry Sadler (sadly not available on-line) who was a Librarian here at Grand Lodge for some years and who went through all the Minutes and information to identify who the players were. He also clears up the "legendary" tale of how the UGLE disowned the Mark Degree although that is all common knowledge know since the GL of MMMs of England's 150th celebrations

 

[Mike Martin]

The new Grand Lodge just rewrote Masonic history to justify its own existence.

It didn't! It published the accepted Masonic history of the time and added itself onto the end of it.

 

[coachn]

Once again this is not historically accurate and actually throws together two distinct and separate events in early English Freemasonry that became entwined in the later 1700s.

The Old Lodge at York was well known to the southern brethren who founded the Premier Grand Lodge and vice versa, hence there was little or no strife between the two groups when it declared itself to be the Grand Lodge of All England at York in 1725. All England at that time stipulated the old Danelaw England.

The Grand Lodge that formed itself in London in 1756 was not connected to the GLoAE. Its founders were members under the Grand Lodge of Ireland and working in the Irish way. They were disgruntled and formed themselves into a rival due to having found themselves barred from English Lodges (unless introduced by a known Brother) due to the Premier Grand Lodge's response to men being irregularly made Masons (using the exposures on the streets) who then claimed charity from its Lodges.

I would heartily recommend the book "Masonic Facts and Fictions" published in 1877 by Henry Sadler (sadly not available on-line) who was a Librarian here at Grand Lodge for some years and who went through all the Minutes and information to identify who the players were. He also clears up the "legendary" tale of how the UGLE disowned the Mark Degree although that is all common knowledge know since the GL of MMMs of England's 150th celebrations

yep. I don't argue with them. Waste of time.