# Basic uncomprehension about Masonic organizing of a Grand Lodge & its constituents.



## BullDozer Harrell (Apr 10, 2017)




----------



## Bro. Stewart P.M. (Apr 10, 2017)

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.


----------



## BullDozer Harrell (Apr 10, 2017)

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.


----------



## Bill Lins (Apr 10, 2017)

"three legally constituted & warranted Lodges..."  My question would be "Constituted and warranted *by whom*?"


----------



## Bro. Stewart P.M. (Apr 10, 2017)

BullDozer Harrell said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



I also agree with you and your key points, all valid.


----------



## Glen Cook (Apr 10, 2017)

BullDozer Harrell said:


> It's not just the year they came into existence that's the only problem.
> 
> ....
> 
> ...



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.


----------



## goomba (Apr 10, 2017)

The Grand Lodge of DC allows its lodges to request numbers and the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts doesn't use numbers.



Glen Cook said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



Here's a question for us USA masons:  are landmarks a sign of regularity?  If so which ones?  If not why?


----------



## Glen Cook (Apr 10, 2017)

goomba said:


> 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?


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/


----------



## Glen Cook (Apr 10, 2017)

Bro. Stewart P.M. said:


> Oh my goodness.
> 
> ...
> Personally, I'd be a bit hesitant to join knowing that they've only been around since 2007. .



As a US GL?  Yeah, that's an issue.


----------



## goomba (Apr 10, 2017)

Glen Cook said:


> 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/



Well dang a good answer right off the bat.


----------



## BullDozer Harrell (Apr 11, 2017)

Glen Cook said:


> 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.
> 
> ...


Duly noted. An overly critical approach to addressing an organization's Masonic status might translate as nitpicking. Thanks for the counsel.


----------



## Bill Lins (Apr 11, 2017)

Glen Cook said:


> Well, three lodges coming together as a grand body and then for the Grand organization to issue charters back is fine.


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.


----------



## Glen Cook (Apr 11, 2017)

Bill Lins said:


> 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 (Apr 12, 2017)

Glen Cook said:


> And Utah, whose three  lodges had charters from three different states.


The three lodges that formed the Grand Lodge of Minnesota had their charters from Ohio, Illinois, and Wisconsin.


----------



## Ripcord22A (Apr 12, 2017)

MarkR said:


> Wiscaaaansin.


There fixed it for ya....lol



Sent from my LG-H918 using My Freemasonry mobile app


----------



## Kenneth Munn (Apr 12, 2017)

BullDozer Harrell said:


>


----------



## Kenneth Munn (Apr 12, 2017)

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 (Apr 12, 2017)

Bro. Stewart P.M. said:


> Sounds much like a group of disgruntled folks who didn't get their way in the mainstream systems.





Bill Lins said:


> " My question would be "Constituted and warranted *by whom*?"





Glen Cook said:


> 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.


Agreed!


----------



## Ripcord22A (Apr 12, 2017)

Kenneth Munn said:


> 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.


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 (Apr 12, 2017)

Ripcord22A said:


> Ill let a PHA brother answer this in depth but my understanding is that it is not legit


My feeling also.


----------



## BullDozer Harrell (Apr 12, 2017)

Kenneth Munn said:


> 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.


Brother Ripcord gave you the simplest Masonic perspective. The bottom view is that they're struggling with legitimacy issues. Right now they're held to be an organization out of line with the rest of Prince Hall Masonry. 

Same as the Prince Hall Grand Lodge of the Virgin Islands.


----------



## Kenneth Munn (Apr 13, 2017)

BullDozer Harrell said:


> Brother Ripcord gave you the simplest Masonic perspective. The bottom view is that they're struggling with legitimacy issues. Right now they're held to be an organization out of line with the rest of Prince Hall Masonry.
> 
> Same as the Prince Hall Grand Lodge of the Virgin Islands.


Greetings Brother, Thank you for the feedback.  My next question is, could we identify this group as BOGUS. If we do then how do we deal with present PHA Grand Masters who support this movement and who influence other brothers from their jurisdiction to be on board with this new movement. I'm sure the Northern nor Southern Jurisdiction (mainstream) Supreme Councils doesn't recognize this body. You made mention about the Virgin Islands and I think you would be referring to the situation where a brother was made a Grand Master over the lodges in that region without the consent of the presiding Grand Bodies governing the lodges in that area.PHA. Please let me know if this information is correct and if so how do we deal with a torn masonic fabric which seeks to not only morally undermine the craft but to input political agendas for numbers and purple crowns. I think that this information should be addressed on a larger platform.


----------



## BullDozer Harrell (Apr 15, 2017)

Kenneth Munn said:


> Greetings Brother, Thank you for the feedback.  My next question is, could we identify this group as BOGUS. If we do then how do we deal with present PHA Grand Masters who support this movement and who influence other brothers from their jurisdiction to be on board with this new movement. I'm sure the Northern nor Southern Jurisdiction (mainstream) Supreme Councils doesn't recognize this body. You made mention about the Virgin Islands and I think you would be referring to the situation where a brother was made a Grand Master over the lodges in that region without the consent of the presiding Grand Bodies governing the lodges in that area.PHA. Please let me know if this information is correct and if so how do we deal with a torn masonic fabric which seeks to not only morally undermine the craft but to input political agendas for numbers and purple crowns. I think that this information should be addressed on a larger platform.


You're very welcome to put yourself into a situation that's personally above my Masonic pay grade. 

I can understand though that awareness is a great thing. 

May you continue to look into these matters with a due diligence, and use prudence before speaking some thoughts out loud.

It's a very small Masonic world.


----------



## Kenneth Munn (Apr 15, 2017)

BullDozer Harrell said:


> You're very welcome to put yourself into a situation that's personally above my Masonic pay grade.
> 
> I can understand though that awareness is a great thing.
> 
> ...





Greetings Bro. Harrell, I think that at some point the craft will be directly or indirectly put into this situation, regardless of how we personally feel about commenting on the issue. I notice that when it comes to certain bogus masonic bodies or non PHA/MS masonic bodies, we tend to go hard at those topics pertaining to their origin, who their members were and are, and then label them as clandestine , bogus , etc. We are now faced with something that has caused friction within the craft and brothers use excuses not to comment on it as if its a hush up situation. We have an imperative obligation which resides at the foundation of our heart/soul. We are taught that truth is a divine attribute and the foundation of every virtue. To practice this attribute in our masonic travels allows us to manifest the virtue of prudence. Now you made mention of a small masonic world, and I would really like to know what is it that you really mean before I comment on that portion of your post.
Peace and Blessings.


----------



## Glen Cook (Apr 16, 2017)

Kenneth Munn said:


> Greetings Bro. Harrell, I think that at some point the craft will be directly or indirectly put into this situation, regardless of how we personally feel about commenting on the issue. I notice that when it comes to certain bogus masonic bodies or non PHA/MS masonic bodies, we tend to go hard at those topics pertaining to their origin, who their members were and are, and then label them as clandestine , bogus , etc. We are now faced with something that has caused friction within the craft and brothers use excuses not to comment on it as if its a hush up situation. We have an imperative obligation which resides at the foundation of our heart/soul. We are taught that truth is a divine attribute and the foundation of every virtue. To practice this attribute in our masonic travels allows us to manifest the virtue of prudence. Now you made mention of a small masonic world, and I would really like to know what is it that you really mean before I comment on that portion of your post.
> Peace and Blessings.


I think your statement  that brothers are using excuses not to comment on the schism as if it were a hush up is unfair. I would commend both the humility demonstrated with the acknowledgment that a matter is not within a particular Mason's area of responsibility, and the "prudence" demonstrated, a trait which you commended.


----------



## BullDozer Harrell (Apr 16, 2017)

Kenneth Munn said:


> Greetings Bro. Harrell, I think that at some point the craft will be directly or indirectly put into this situation, regardless of how we personally feel about commenting on the issue. I notice that when it comes to certain bogus masonic bodies or non PHA/MS masonic bodies, we tend to go hard at those topics pertaining to their origin, who their members were and are, and then label them as clandestine , bogus , etc. We are now faced with something that has caused friction within the craft and brothers use excuses not to comment on it as if its a hush up situation. We have an imperative obligation which resides at the foundation of our heart/soul. We are taught that truth is a divine attribute and the foundation of every virtue. To practice this attribute in our masonic travels allows us to manifest the virtue of prudence. Now you made mention of a small masonic world, and I would really like to know what is it that you really mean before I comment on that portion of your post.
> Peace and Blessings.


What I'm saying is that these matters are delicate. Alot of powerful Prince Hall members are struggling with it.

Before maybe thinking that it's cut & dried, it might surprise you to find out that it's not. 

To speak out prematurely and classify certain powerful Prince Hall leaders clandestine might have some surprising & unintended consequences on people who are better to leave the leaders to sort it out.

This isn't a situation like what we usually are clear about regarding other groups who fail to meet the accepted standards of Regularity. 

These are men who are still movers & shakers in the Masonic world until such time is decided by their peers that they are either in or out. MW Slaughter is still a very powerful Mason.

Take it easy.


----------



## bupton52 (Apr 17, 2017)

BullDozer Harrell said:


> What I'm saying is that these matters are delicate. Alot of powerful Prince Hall members are struggling with it.
> 
> Before maybe thinking that it's cut & dried, it might surprise you to find out that it's not.
> 
> ...



"A very powerful Mason"

What does that mean?  


Sent from my iPhone using My Freemasonry mobile app


----------



## BullDozer Harrell (Apr 17, 2017)

bupton52 said:


> "A very powerful Mason"
> 
> What does that mean?
> 
> ...


A *sitting Grand Master* with alot of friends & supporters in alot of places.


----------



## Warrior1256 (Apr 17, 2017)

BullDozer Harrell said:


> A *sitting Grand Master* with alot of friends & supporters in alot of places.


Works for me, lol!


----------



## goomba (Apr 18, 2017)

The letter of the law is generally clear.  It is black and white.

The spirit of the law is generally not as clear.  Things are black and white they are a myriad of different shades.

I'm sure most people could read and come to a knee jerk reaction on this topic.  However, I  think doing so may "increase the temperature".  Haven't all of us at some point done something that in that instant that action would make us look like horrible people.  But in reality there is always a story, always other facts that can change how it should be viewed.

There will be rights and wrongs on each side.  Let's remember these men going through these troubles are ALL still our brothers.  Let's pray for a peaceful and joyful solution.  Let us remember brotherly love.


----------



## Kenneth Munn (Apr 24, 2017)

BullDozer Harrell said:


> What I'm saying is that these matters are delicate. Alot of powerful Prince Hall members are struggling with it.
> 
> Before maybe thinking that it's cut & dried, it might surprise you to find out that it's not.
> 
> ...





Greetings Brother and thank you for your response. What I would like to say is that I did not direct the hush up comment towards you at all, however its real and its happening quit often. When a brother, no matter who he is and how influential he may be, as a leader he must demonstrate the character of leadership. If we tend to have a disagreement in our house/family, then we must have a sit down to discuss the situation. This brother (GM Slaughter) from the reports I have read, ran for the SG and lost. Once the brother lost he immediately started a SRSC with the support of certain GM.PHA. Please understand that I'm not judging I'm just dealing with the reality of what happen. He is now a SGC , is that wrong, maybe not but to carry the title PHA is what some of  the issues are. Many brothers on the subordinate levels will and are being confused in which way they should go. Now if you or I was to start our own SC Council and use PHA as part of our title would that not be somewhat confusing. If not confusing, what would that be. That's a blatant challenge to the present body who has been carrying that title with a long history. I'm quit sure you know the history. You made a comment in regards to how we should view this situation versus other groups, I really don't see the difference. If its not just my brother its not just. What acceptable standards would justify this. Sincerity and Plain dealing distinguish us as men and masons. No matter how powerful a man may seem in society we never bow down to that man. We humble ourselves to the Creator/GAOUTU. Peace and Blessings,


----------

