# Across The Atlantic, Masonic History In The Making



## Squire Bentley (Jun 26, 2012)

Across the Atlantic Masonic History In The Making : FmI – Masonic Traveler

Frederic L. Milliken
MWPHGLTX


----------



## NickGarner (Jun 26, 2012)

Thank you for the inspiring article.


----------



## tomasball (Dec 17, 2012)

Did the MWPHGLoT consult with the Grand Lodge of the Cote d'Ivoire before doing this?


----------



## Ecossais (Dec 28, 2012)

According to a letter from the GM of the GL of the Ivory Coast (GLCI), sent out to multiple grand lodges in February 2012, this was an invasion of the territorial jurisdiction of the GLCI.


----------



## Bill Lins (Dec 28, 2012)

Ecossais said:


> According to a letter from the GM of the GL of the Ivory Coast (GLCI), sent out to multiple grand lodges in February 2012, this was an invasion of the territorial jurisdiction of the GLCI.



And it has thrown another obstacle in the way of improving the relationship of GLoT & MWPHAGLoT.  :sad:


----------



## Bro. David F. Hill (Jan 1, 2013)

There will be an obstacle only if a person wants to create one.  A mention was made about the doctrine of territorial but according to this article on the subject http://bessel.org/exclartl.htm that argument is not valid and also at the moment there are four Grand Lodges there that can make that claim (Grande Loge Nationale de CÃ´te d'Ivoire, Grand Lodge of the Ivory Coast, Grand Loge Unie de CÃ´te d'Ivoire, Le droit Humain - Juridiction de la CÃ´te d'Ivoire).  The doctrine means they have exclusive jurisdiction over their constituent lodges not that the first one to establish a lodge in a state or country owns that state or country.


----------



## chrmc (Jan 1, 2013)

PH021211 said:


> There will be an obstacle only if a person wants to create one.  A mention was made about the doctrine of territorial but according to this article on the subject http://bessel.org/exclartl.htm that argument is not valid and also at the moment there are four Grand Lodges there that can make that claim (Grande Loge Nationale de CÃ´te d'Ivoire, Grand Lodge of the Ivory Coast, Grand Loge Unie de CÃ´te d'Ivoire, Le droit Humain - Juridiction de la CÃ´te d'Ivoire).  The doctrine means they have exclusive jurisdiction over their constituent lodges not that the first one to establish a lodge in a state or country owns that state or country.



Thank you for that link. It was a good and enlightening read. 
However, I still do not think it justifies nor explains the present situation in the Ivory Coast. Whether it is technically permissible under Masonic lodge to charter a lodge in another jurisdiction, it must be recognized that it is largely considered poor form today, especially if not done with the current lodges in that areas permission.  
One of the Grand Lodges have complained about the action of the Prince Hall lodge, and I think it would be great to hear an official reply and explanation. 

Again, just because it's technically legal, doesn't make it good style.


----------



## tomasball (Jan 1, 2013)

PH021211 said:


> There will be an obstacle only if a person wants to create one.  A mention was made about the doctrine of territorial but according to this article on the subject http://bessel.org/exclartl.htm that argument is not valid and also at the moment there are four Grand Lodges there that can make that claim (Grande Loge Nationale de CÃ´te d'Ivoire, Grand Lodge of the Ivory Coast, Grand Loge Unie de CÃ´te d'Ivoire, Le droit Humain - Juridiction de la CÃ´te d'Ivoire).  The doctrine means they have exclusive jurisdiction over their constituent lodges not that the first one to establish a lodge in a state or country owns that state or country.



That argument is fine, if you want to be recognized by Paul Bessel.  If you want to be considered regular by the Grand Lodge of Texas, though, you don't set up lodges in the territory of a Grand Lodge with which the Grand Lodge of Texas is in amity.  It's in our constitution.  Simple to understand.  Not subject to personal whim.


----------



## tomasball (Jan 1, 2013)

I would, however like to hear somebody explain what the problem was with the Grand Lodge of the Cote d'Ivoire that caused these masons to split off and seek a charter from the MWPHGLoT.


----------



## Bro. David F. Hill (Jan 1, 2013)

Look at it like a grade school tiff.  I don't like you because my friend doesn't like you.  There are at least six grand lodges here in Texas.  Two are recognized as being legitimate and the rest clandestine.  With the political climate that was in place when the Prince Hall Grand lodge was founded in Texas,  if the Grand Lodge of Texas were to be asked for permission, it would have been a resounding NO!!  All of these factions have been created from issues like this.  Who owns freemasonry?  None of us and all of us.  You can not copyright masonry or none of us can consider our affiliation the ultimate authority and protector of the craft. The issues and social moirÃ©s of 200 years ago have contributed to multiple affiliations with multiple loyalties with no one wanting to share.   Lincoln said "A house divided against itself cannot stand.".  Freemasonry is now that house.  We can not put the genie back in the bottle and have one grand organization but we can look progressively forward instead of hiding behind excuses and contrived controversies. Many states have solved this issue with allowing plural membership and both bodies working together but here in Texas we can't even talk to each other.  I work with two masons hailing from the Grand Lodge of Texas and all I can say to them is "hello".  Does that make any sense to anyone here?  Many years ago I used to hear the statement "I have white friends" or "I have negro friends".  Then you ask if they have eve invited that friend over and they start stuttering and trying to come up with an explanation as to why that friend has never been invited over.  I was there when the lodge from the Ivory coast performed the lodge opening ritual in French and when they were awarded their charter.  It was amazing. Maybe you should be asking why they thought it necessary to petition to the Prince Hall Grand Lodge for a charter.  It was probably something that they did not like about the Grand Lodge of the Ivory Coast[SUP][/SUP] and something that they did like about Prince Hall Masonry that influenced their decision.  We did not go to them, they came to us.


----------



## chrmc (Jan 1, 2013)

PH021211 said:


> ...I was there when the lodge from the Ivory coast performed the lodge opening ritual in French and when they were awarded their charter.  It was amazing. Maybe you should be asking why they thought it necessary to petition to the Prince Hall Grand Lodge for a charter.  It was probably something that they did not like about the Grand Lodge of the Ivory Coast and something that they did like about Prince Hall Masonry that influenced their decision.  We did not go to them, they came to us.



I hear what you are saying, but to be honest I think it's important not to confuse matters in this case. We can all agree that the situation between GLOTX and MWPHGLoT is silly and I think you'll find many people on this board that really wished that we could recognize each other, visit. 
But that's not presently what we are debating. We are talking about why a Grand Lodge decided to go into another jurisdiction and set up "shop" so to speak, and more importantly how MWPHGLoT feel about the complaints that have been lodge. Was it all a misunderstanding? Do they care? Do they wish to expand their territory or?

You make the statement that maybe we should look into why these brethren felt it necessary to petition MWPHGLoT to have a lodge set up, but does that make it right to help in their request? If I'm unhappy with GLOTX can I petition UGLE to set up a jurisdiction in Texas? As I've mentioned earlier the Swedish rite is not being worked in Texas, does that mean that the Grand Lodge of Sweden can start chartering lodges over here?

As I've stated earlier, I fully believe that MWPHGLoT only have done something out of good intentions, but it causes me concern when we hear about formal complaints, especially since these will ultimately have a negative effect on the possibilities of mutual recognition of the lodges in Texas that so many of us desire.


----------



## Bro. David F. Hill (Jan 2, 2013)

The issue is that none of us (GLOTX and MWPHGLoTX) are beholden to the UGLE.  We do not have to seek their permission for anything.   This is from the UGLE website: _"The United Grand Lodge of England currently has over a quarter of a million members meeting in over 8,000 Lodges, which are grouped as follows: Lodges meeting in London (an area generally within a 10-mile radius of Freemasons’ Hall), are administered by the *Metropolitan Grand Lodge of London*, which is headed by the Metropolitan Grand Master. Lodges meeting outside London, and within England, Wales, the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands, are grouped into 47 *Provinces*, whose boundaries often correspond to those of the old Counties, with each headed by a Provincial Grand Master.__Lodges that meet outside England, Wales, the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands are grouped into 33 *Districts*, with each headed by a District Grand Master, five *Groups* (ie: currently too small to make up a District), with each headed by a Grand Inspector, and 12 Lodges abroad which are directly administered by Freemasons’ Hall.".  _Other than recognition and fraternal relations, the UGLE has no bearing or authority outside of those lodges directly under its' control and as long as they follow the tenets listed in the Book of Constitutions (http://www.ugle.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/boc-online-craft-rev-6.pdf). 

As for the Grand Lodge of Ivory Coast, They may lodge a complaint but the UGLE has no jurisdiction over the activities any of the parties.  None of us owe allegiance to them and do not have to ask their permission to do anything.  The only thing any of the lodges has done was to establish fraternal relations with them which does not include giving them control over our affairs. 

We currently have recognition without visitation between the GLOTX and MWPHGLoTX but both sides keep using paper lions like this issue as a excuse not to proceed any further.  There are states in this country where the Grand Lodges on either side recognizes each other but that does not make them any less legitimate.  It just makes them look archaic.   


References: United Grand Lodge of England Book of Constitutions http://www.ugle.org.uk/about-ugle/book-of-constitutions/


----------



## tomasball (Jan 2, 2013)

I'm sure you know this, since you obviously enjoy researching these matters, but this seems a bit similar to the business that got the Grand Lodge "Valle de Mexico" de-recognized a few years ago.  Several of the grand lodges of the various states of Mexico raised a fuss because GLVdM was setting up lodges in their territory without their permission.  The result was that most of the Mexican Grand Lodges, together with the mainstream grand lodges in Arizona, California, and Texas, withdrew recognition of the Grand Lodge Valle de Mexico, and consider it irregular.


----------



## bupton52 (Jan 2, 2013)

Until we have an official stance or POV from the MWPHGLoTX, anything that we discuss here is purely speculation. Unfortunately, we aren't privy to the conversations that were had with the brothers from the Ivory Coast and the MWPGLoTX. Clarification on the matter would be wonderful. I hope that when the time comes we can put as much energy in fixing our (GLoTX and MWPHGLoTX) relationship.


----------



## tomasball (Jan 5, 2013)

If twenty masons in Oklahoma decided they didn't like their grand lodge, and asked the MWPHGLoT for a charter, how would that fare?


----------



## bupton52 (Jan 5, 2013)

tomasball said:


> If twenty masons in Oklahoma decided they didn't like their grand lodge, and asked the MWPHGLoT for a charter, how would that fare?



If the men were members of the GLoOK, the MWPHGLoTX is going to direct them to the already existing PHGL in that state because fortunately, or unfortunately depending on how you look at it, men have a choice of which GL they want to affiliate with. Was that the case with the brothers from the Ivory Coast? Did they have a choice to petition another GL in that jurisdiction outside of the one already there? I'm struggling to see where your analogy is going.


----------



## tomasball (Jan 5, 2013)

...and if the men were members of the Prince Hall Grand Lodge?


----------



## bupton52 (Jan 5, 2013)

tomasball said:


> ...and if the men were members of the Prince Hall Grand Lodge?



Then their only other option would be to petition the other lawfully operating GL in the state, GLoOK, or demit.


----------



## tomasball (Jan 5, 2013)

I would welcome contradiction here, but it's my understanding that the two grand lodges of Oklahoma, like those in Texas, have agreed not to allow each others members to transfer.  So, why shouldn't it be an option to join the MWPHGL of Texas?


----------



## bupton52 (Jan 5, 2013)

As regular members that would be able to petition the MWPHGLoTX. There are stipulations about where they reside and whatnot. If those things were satisfied, then upon demit from their current GL they could join. As far as chartering a lodge, that would be a no. It wouldn't be because the GLoOK is already operating there, but because there is already a PHGL operating there. PHGLoTX and PHGLoCO both chartered lodges in UT. There is no PHGL in that state, but there is a GLoUT. The same thing is true in several other states. Perhaps there was a need to open lodges there just as there was a need to do so in the Ivory Coast.


----------



## tomasball (Jan 6, 2013)

I think you just made my point.


----------



## bupton52 (Jan 6, 2013)

And I believe you are missing mine. Perhaps we should just agree to disagree.


----------



## Raymond Walters (Jan 12, 2013)

I told myself I was not going to proffer any opinion on this topic, but something inside keeps nagging me that I should. 


In my travels as a Freemason, I ended up becoming a member of the Grand Lodge of Texas. I held membership there from October 2000 until October 2011.

What I found while there was a series of hypocrisies by my own Grand Lodge and it's own rules. Grand Lodge of Texas refused to enforce it's own rules that should have protected & safeguarded me and my Masonic rights in it's own jurisdiction against the racism and bigotry I encountered within the State of Texas from lodges chartered under the Grand Lodge of Texas. 

Because the Grand Lodge of Texas refused to enforce it's own rules in Texas, it certainly had no interest in enforcing my Masonic rights outside of it's own jurisdiction. That enforcement was left to then Grand Master Frank Haas in West Virginia in 2005 when I relocated to West Virginia. PGM Frank Haas ended up being expelled without trial, partially due to standing up for my Masonic rights, something my own Grand Lodge of Texas should have been doing on my behalf.

Now, I read about alleged complaints from a Grand Lodge [*made up of elite, wealthy, aristocratic-minded persons*] about invasion of territory. I do not have to have specific details on the matter to know this; in many African countries, where tribal alliances run strong and take precedence, those who petitioned the MW Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Texas may have needed to as they were not being afforded their rights --- legal, Masonic or moral.

And with that being a strong possibility, of rules being enforced for one's own use rather than for what is Moral & Just, the complaint filed is just that --- a complaint. A complaint by a Grand Lodge whose own hands may not be free of blood, or at a minimum, not free of mistreatment of others for no legitimate reason. 

*We were all taught to exercise CAUTION, perhaps that lesson should be first in our minds and in the forefront at this moment*.

What I would like to know is why can't this amount of effort be spent on investigating why my Masonic rights were not enforced and upheld in the jurisdiction of the Grand Lodge of Texas, instead of so much focus placed on a situation that none of us have any real idea of what is going on?

When someone can answer my questions, I 'll be happy to start concerning myself with the business of another Grand Lodge halfway around the world.


----------



## Ecossais (Feb 22, 2013)

Actually, there are about thirteen (13) very small, scattered, irregular grand lodges here in Texas. Many of them were created by scam artists who "sell" regalia, rituals, forms, etc. to religious ministers and instruct them how to set up a grand lodge, with subordinate lodges, with the minister as the "Grand Master" for life. They are a form of pyramid scheme, also known as a Ponzi scheme.

Meanwhile, the two regular grand lodges here in Texas, go on with life and ignore these small insignificant irregular "grand lodges."

The doctrine of exclusive territorial jurisdiction does not foster small irregular grand lodges, but rather, it keeps them down to a minimum. The last thing we want to do is open the door to the proliferation of small irregular grand lodges. 

Paul Bessell, who, by the way, was defeated in his rise through the top four grand lodge offices in the District of Columbia, and never made it to Grand Master, has always exhibited a dismissive attitude toward the traditional standards of regularity. The other grand lodges that he lists in the Ivory Coast are offshoots of irregular grand lodges in France. What he ignores is the fact that the regular grand lodges of the world, all of which share recognition with the United Grand Lodge of England, do not recognize more than one grand lodge per jurisdiction, UNLESS the two or three grand lodges within a jurisdiction agree by treaty or compact to share that particular jurisdiction.

This does not indicate that there is no such thing as exclusive territorial jurisdiction. To the contrary, it states that there must be a treaty or agreement to share the jurisdiction, if more than one grand lodge is to be considered regular in that jurisdiction. In other words, the sharing of a jurisdiction is a PART OF the doctrine of exclusive territorial jurisdiction, and not a contradiction to it.

If you think that it is an "outmoded" or obsolete concept, then try creating a lodge in, say, Arkansas, California, or New York, and find out what happens. Better yet, try creating a lodge in London, England, and see how long it takes the U.G.L. of England to pull recognition from your grand lodge.


----------



## bupton52 (Feb 22, 2013)

Ecossais said:


> Actually, there are about thirteen (13) very small, scattered, irregular grand lodges here in Texas.



There are actually more that 25 grand lodges that are clandestine and not irregular operating in our great state. 



> If you think that it is an "outmoded" or obsolete concept, then try creating a lodge in, say, Arkansas, California, or New York, and find out what happens. Better yet, try creating a lodge in London, England, and see how long it takes the U.G.L. of England to pull recognition from your grand lodge.




How about we just stick to the 9 states in our own country were grand lodges who are very regular still do not have recognition from the "mainstream" grand lodges in their respective states, let alone the UGLE. For that reason, it seems that the concept of ETJ may be a bit flawed.


----------



## Cblack (Feb 27, 2013)

There are 25 Clandestine GLs operating in the city of Houston with United Most Worshipful Scottish Rite GL being the oldest and MW East TX GL (2012) being the youngest...


----------

