# Irregular Masonic Bodies Operating in Texas



## Bro_Vick (Mar 2, 2012)

From Masonicinfo.com here is the list that Bro King has listed for irregular/clandestine Masonic bodies operating in Texas, are there any that you know of that needs to be added to the list?

St. John's Grand Lodge AF&AM, Inc. (TX) 

Alpha Grand Lodge AF&AM (TX) 

Sunset Grand Lodge AF&AM (TX) 

St. Joseph Grand Lodge (Colored) AF&AM (TX) 

King Solomon Grand Lodge (Colored) AF&AM (TX) 

King Solomon United Grand Lodge AF&AM (TX) 

Dozo Grand Lodge AF&AM (TX) 

United Most Worshipful Scottish Rite Grand Lodge, Inc. (TX) 

Universal Grand Lodge AF&AM (TX) 

Mount Carmel Grand Lodge AF&AM (TX) 

Mount Sinai Grand Lodge AF&AM (TX) 

Hiram Tyrar Grand Lodge AF&AM (TX)


----------



## Bill Lins (Mar 3, 2012)

Any Grand Lodge using the name "Prince Hall" _except _the Prince Hall Affiliated Grand Lodge in Fort Worth.


----------



## towerbuilder7 (Mar 5, 2012)

Let me do some research, and get back to you, Brother Vick.   I can prob add quite a few more "Grand Lodges" that are clandestine to this list.   In the city of Houston alone, there are at LEAST 7-8 Black AF&AM "Grand Lodges" that style themselves as "Scottish Rite" and are referred to as "4 Letter" GL's in the Black community.  I have quite a bit of knowledge on this subject, because I was initiated, passed, and raised in Mt Sinai GL, in 2007.   I left in 2009, after a year's worth of research into Lineage and Recognition of my Lodge.   When I discovered that my Lodge History did not have the documentation proving its Lineage could be traced back to the UGLE, I left and petitioned a Prince Hall Affiliated Lodge, where I discovered a good friend of mine from College to be a member.  When a Man leaves a clandestine Lodge and petitions to join a Prince Hall Affiliated Lodge here in Texas, he has to be "healed", which basically means the Brother is properly investigated, voted on, and if given the vote, tested for proficiency.  He may then be re-affiliated with a Regular Body of Masonry working under the PHGLoTx, and must conform to all of the By Laws and Constitution of the Most Worshipful Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Texas. At the will of that particular WM, the petitioner's level of proficiency as well as his progress on acquisition of knowledge on how affairs are conducted in a PHA Lodge will determine how quickly he is allowed to matriculate into the Lodge.  I was one of the Brothers who was humble and open minded enough to recognize that I needed to make a change, so I could begin doing the right thing in the right way.  I was also one who took this seriously enough to make sure that my level of proficiency matched my desire to be affiliated with a regular and recognized Prince Hall Affiliated Lodge.  For those of you who choose to read it, I entered some historical insight into this issue on another thread titled, "Who Is A Mason", under the General Discussion Topics.  The rift among Black Masons regarding the Prince Hall Affiliated (F & AM) vs the Black Ancient Free and Accepted Masons (AF & AM), dates back to 1869, and involves a Man by the name of John G Jones,  33rd Degree Prince Hall Mason from Chicago, Illinois, that began making Men "Ancient Free and Accepted Masons" in Wash DC in April of 1869.  Some records indicate that he traveled to Europe, and reportedly received a Charter from Romania, but never received permission from either the Prince Hall Affiliated GL of Dist of Columbia, nor the FAAM GL of Dist of Columbia, the Mainstream Body of Masonry in DC, to practice Masonry in this jurisdiction under this Charter.  Any and ALL charters issued under this lineage are considered by Prince Hall Affiliated Masons to be clandestine, due to the absence of ANY link or lineage traced to UGLE.  This "raising and degree work" performed by Jones in DC was termed a "Masonic Invasion", and he was eventually expelled from The Craft in Oct 1895.   For more information on Bogus or Clandestine Masonry regarding Black Freemasonry, see the website www.phylaxis.org.    The Phylaxis Society was founded by deceased Bro Joseph A Walkes,  preeminent Prince Hall Masonic author and scholar.   It is the research arm of Prince Hall Affiliated Free and Accepted Masonry.             Bro. Vincent C. Jones, Sr., Bayou City Lodge #228, PHA, F & AM, Houston, Texas


----------



## ezeelivin (Mar 6, 2012)

Well spoken my brother, that's what you call being square in your actions, Eric Richardson, Danville Royal #104, Danville, Va but I presently live in Baltimore, Md


----------



## towerbuilder7 (Mar 6, 2012)

Yes sir.........I appreciate that, Brother Richardson......greetings.......it is always good to meet a Square..........I enjoy reading the threads on this site, and I have learned quite a bit........Things are most certainly BRIGHTER on this regular and recognized Prince Hall Affiliated side of Masonry.......In the Lodge in which I was raised, (Mount Sinai Grand Lodge, AF &AM) there were some really good Men, who were surprisingly knowledgable about the Craft and Ritual which we read at the time. (Lester's Look To The East--Ralph P. Lester)   But, I was still very RESTLESS in that Lodge, because there were questions that I had that COULD NOT BE ANSWERED, regarding *lineage* and *ties to the UGLE*, and also more information about WHY John G. Jones felt the need to do what he did by creating Black AF&AM Masonry in 1869, when Prince Hall Affiliated FREE and ACCEPTED Masonry was already well established for almost 100 years at THAT TIME.   The biggest issue I had was regarding recognition and LINEAGE.  I was getting NO conversation from co-workers of mine who were Prince Hall masons, and at the time, I didnt' understand why.    No matter how much I read, researched, or asked the Elder Brethren in that Lodge, I was not finding what I needed to see.   Brothers were always very defensive, and easily angered, because they felt that a Younger Brother challenging their "history" was disrespectful.   So, I made what turned out to be the hardest decision in my young Masonic career, but it was the BEST decision for ME.  Of course, Brothers were not happy, and were telling me that "I'd be back", once I "discovered that it was all the same" here in Prince Hall Affiliated Masonry.   Well, it is NOT ALL THE SAME, and I am quite pleased with my decision to leave, and have no regrets.   I miss the fellowship of the good men that were there, but I cannot live my life paying dues and giving my time to a Lodge that does not afford me what EVERY REGULAR MASON enjoys----Rights, Lights, and Benefits of the proper affiliation.  In that Lodge, all I would ever be able to enjoy would be the camaraderie of the Brothers in THAT Lodge......I needed to know that my affiliation would provide me with the proper recognition and lineage, because I also want to pass this on to both of my Sons, when they are of age, should they express an interest in becoming Brothers.      Keep in touch, my Brother..........my email is towerbuilder7@gmail.com                               Bro. Vincent C. Jones, Sr., Bayou City Lodge #228, PHA, F & AM, Houston, Texas


----------



## PHA TRAVELER (Mar 28, 2012)

Bro Vick please add Hiram KingTyre Grandlodge to your list!


----------



## Bro_Vick (Mar 29, 2012)

PHA TRAVELER said:


> Bro Vick please add Hiram KingTyre Grandlodge to your list!



Does it actually have a membership or is it a couple of guys meeting at a coffee house?  I ask this, because the 3 guys and a coffee house thing is actually pretty common for a lot of these "grand lodges".

S&F,
-Bro Vick


----------



## PHA TRAVELER (Mar 29, 2012)

no actually i was a memeber with them before i healed over to PHA! they have about 40 or 50 brothers and 40 sisters! I think they suppose to be apart of the *General Grand Masonic Congress*


----------



## Bro_Vick (Mar 29, 2012)

PHA TRAVELER said:


> no actually i was a memeber with them before i healed over to PHA! they have about 40 or 50 brothers and 40 sisters! I think they suppose to be apart of the *General Grand Masonic Congress*



Where did their charter come from?  Grand Orient of France?  I was wondering since you mentioned that women were allowed.

S&F,
-Bro Vick


----------



## PHA TRAVELER (Mar 29, 2012)

the women i was talking about is the OES


----------



## JTM (Mar 29, 2012)

do you have locations of all of these?


----------



## Bro_Vick (Mar 29, 2012)

Some of them I do, I will go and dig them up.  The "location" is also suspect, as confirmation of a meeting place can be difficult.

S&F,
-Bro Vick


----------



## towerbuilder7 (Mar 29, 2012)

Brother Vick, if you Google "Southern and Western Masonic Jurisdiction", you will see what Brother PHA Traveler is referring to.   Mt Sinai, the Grand Lodge from which I was healed, considers their Symbolic Lodges to be under the governance of what is known as the General Grand Masonic Congress.   I think Kosei's thread touched on this........there are quite a few States from where these Grand Lodges hail.   This Congress presides over the Blue or Symbolic Lodges, and the "Supreme Council of the S and W Jurisdiction" presides over the Higher Houses.........Bro. Jones


----------



## towerbuilder7 (Mar 29, 2012)

Also, check the Phylaxis Society's website at www.phylaxis.org.   They have a link dealing specifically with Bogus Masonry, and Grand Lodges such as these.    They have a few listed, and you can submit more as you find them.......you can add White Lion Grand Lodge, St. Andrews Grand Lodge, Joshua Grand Lodge to this list also....these are a few more located here in Houston............as I get more names, I will forward them to you...........


----------



## bupton52 (Mar 29, 2012)

Please add Elohim GL and EM Hunter GL as well operating out of Houston.


----------



## PHA TRAVELER (Mar 30, 2012)

here is another Bro's, M.W. *Brighter Light* *Grand Lodge* A.F. & A.M. Jurisdiction of *Texas*


----------



## PHA TRAVELER (Mar 30, 2012)

i forgot about this one,i guess there is so many we cant name them all! The Most Worshipful Obadiah Grand Lodge A.F. & A.M. Inc


----------



## Bro_Vick (Mar 30, 2012)

towerbuilder7 said:


> Also, check the Phylaxis Society's website at www.phylaxis.org.   They have a link dealing specifically with Bogus Masonry, and Grand Lodges such as these.    They have a few listed, and you can submit more as you find them.......you can add White Lion Grand Lodge, St. Andrews Grand Lodge, Joshua Grand Lodge to this list also....these are a few more located here in Houston............as I get more names, I will forward them to you...........



Thanks Bro Jones, the number keeps changing, but I know a lot of it has to do with lack of membership, or the Grand Lodge simply not really existing.  Education of these bogus entities is paramount to ensure a potential brother is sucked up into something that makes it so he can't visit lodges across the world.  From the General Grand Masonic Counsel:

" To own Freemasonry is like trying to own the Holy Bible. Universal God & Universal Brotherhood are the thread that runs through all 
Masonic literature, lessons and rites, binding us all as ONE.  Harmony is the strength of All societies most especially OURS."

Spoken like a true bogus Masonic organization. 

S&F,
-Bro Vick


----------



## BryanMaloney (Mar 30, 2012)

In some ways the claims of these groups remind me of the various _episcopoi__ vagantes_ who set up self-styled "Orthodox Church" jurisdictions, then get prickly when one inquires into their specific line of Apostolic Succession.


----------



## Cblack (Aug 19, 2012)

Good evening Brothers, In the case of John G. Jones...It is said that he received a charter from the GL of Romania but that is impossible because the GL of Romania was not formed until 3 yrs after in 1880 yet John G. Jones members claimed their date as 1877...How you received a charter from a non existing GL still baffles me to this day...In most cases GLs that are deemed clandestine founders were members of GLs that were part of a lodge with lineage to John G. Jones...There are two exceptions and they are Modern Free and Accepted masons and International Free and Accepted Modern Masons....To my knowledge there are no Modern Free lodges in Texas but there are two International lodges here..One is in Houston and one is in Dallas...they have not declared a GL here yet but it is good to know that they have invaded Texas...Im in the process of trying to find out were this lodge is so i can get them healed over to a Regular Masonic Jurisdiction...

WM Curtis Black
James E. Carter#157 MWPHGLoTX
https://jamesecarter157.org


----------



## towerbuilder7 (Aug 19, 2012)

I appreciate that Post, Worshipful......Most John G Jones Lodges claim their "Southern and Western Masonic Jurisdiction" was established April 5, 1869, in Wash DC..........and, as you read the History, John G Jones performed MOST of the work HIMSELF; so, it stands to reason why he shoulders the majority of the blame.   He travelled across State Lines, invading States, forming AF&AM Lodges and conferring Degrees without the permission of either the Mainstream GL OR the PHA GL of the affected State.   he also formed a "General Grand Masonic Congress", to oversee the Symbolic Lodges, which mirrored the National Compact debacle that Prince Hall Affiliated Masonry endured in the 1840's.   Hopefully, we can PROTECT Masonry, and get ALL of the Men "healed" over into a proper Masonic affiliation that contains REGULARITY AS WELL AS RECOGNITION AND LINEAGE................Bro. Jones


----------



## Harmon (Aug 20, 2012)

there is a so called mason from one of these bogus gl's that states that PHA grand lodge applied to the GL of Texas to be healed.


----------



## towerbuilder7 (Aug 20, 2012)

Total falsehood, Sir.  No need to apply to be healed if you weren't the one with a questionable lineage, and Lack of formal recognition.   237 years of history behind what we have in PHA Masonry, with an Original Charter from England for African Lodge 459, locked in a vault in Boston, Mass.      John G Jones AF&AM Lodges have NO link to the UGLE, other than the fact that Jones himself is an expelled 33rd Degree Prince Hall Mason. (October 22, 1895)

Jones himself claimed to have gotten a charter from the Grand Lodge of Romania in 1869, before establishing the "Southern and Western Masonic Jurisdiction", and the "General Grand Masonic Congress" for his AF&AM subordinate Lodges and Appendant Bodies, all created by HIM.   Problem is, Grand Lodge of Romania wasnt established until 1880.   I would encourage you to check out the Commission on Bogus Masonry link on the Phylaxis Society website for additional information.     Bro Jones


----------



## towerbuilder7 (Aug 20, 2012)

The one Compact we have made with the GLoTx is the one for Mutual Recognition in 2007, whereby each Masonic Jurisdiction recognizes the other, agrees to maintain Mutual Exclusive Jurisdiction among their subordinate lodges, and did not permit inter visitation or Formal Masonic Discussion.     Bro Jones


----------



## Harmon (Aug 21, 2012)

I am not the questioner what i did was post what someone on a FB group stated that i knew was a complete lie, and i told him he should come to this forum and let's have this discussion, 

PM Harmon Weston
St. John's lodge # 29
MWPHGL of NY


----------



## bupton52 (Aug 21, 2012)

Harmon said:


> I am not the questioner what i did was post what someone on a FB group stated that i knew was a complete lie, and i told him he should come to this forum and let's have this discussion,
> 
> PM Harmon Weston
> St. John's lodge # 29
> MWPHGL of NY


 
I know who you are talking about, and I doubt that he will even come here for that foolishness to be entertained.


----------



## towerbuilder7 (Aug 21, 2012)

I completely understand, PM Weston.  And My District Brother Upton is correct.   He will not come on this site.  And even if he did, I would take the high road.   Again, no NEED to debate when you have 237 years of THE TRUTH on your side.  All of the others have to reach and claw for any piece of an argument they can consider.   I will address them with the TRUTH AND LIGHT they seek.   It's up to them as to whether they will ACCEPT IT.  I WAS MAN ENOUGH TO ACCEPT IT, and petitioned for Healing.   The rest was history!  Now, here I am!!!     Bro Jones


----------



## Txmason32 (Nov 11, 2012)

lots of info here ...thanks Brothers ....


----------



## towerbuilder7 (Nov 12, 2012)

Anytime, Brother.  If there is anything else you desire LIGHT on regarding PHA Masonry, PM me, or shoot me an email at towerbuilder7@gmail.com.       Bro Jones


----------



## Michael Neumann (Apr 8, 2013)

My wife wants to join the OES so I have been researching lately, look what I crossed: "the United Grand Lodge of England  - the oldest Grand Lodge in the world and from whom the majority of recognized Grand Lodges  in the world derive their heritage (_some came from Ireland or  Scotland_) - considers the OES to be 'clandestine' and forbids the Members of the UGLE to attend meetings of the group. Is the Order of the Eastern Star 'clandestine'?" http://www.masonicinfo.com/fakemasonry.htm Has anyone crossed this before?


----------



## dfreybur (Apr 8, 2013)

Michael Neumann said:


> My wife wants to join the OES so I have been researching lately, look what I crossed: "the United Grand Lodge of England  - the oldest Grand Lodge in the world and from whom the majority of recognized Grand Lodges  in the world derive their heritage (_some came from Ireland or  Scotland_) - considers the OES to be 'clandestine' and forbids the Members of the UGLE to attend meetings of the group. Is the Order of the Eastern Star 'clandestine'?" http://www.masonicinfo.com/fakemasonry.htm Has anyone crossed this before?



UGLE tends to not approve of appendent bodies.  It looks like to them there are craft lodges and that's it.  Except they're okay with some of the York Rite degrees.  It doesn't quite add up the way Americans tend to see it but it is a part of a long established pattern.

As far as OES is concerned I don't think boss lady needs to be concerned about it.  It's not like she's going to try to visit the UK and try to pass the tiler at a craft lodge there.


----------



## Scorpionlawz (Apr 8, 2013)

-> tower builder7.   I had the exact same experience in Massachusetts.  These lodges which profess to be masons, they do live by Masonic principles, but they don't enjoy all the rights and privileges of regular Masons. I had to renounce my previous affiliations, but worth it to be a part of regular masonry. 


Bro. Junior A. Knight 
Chicopee Lodge
GL Massachusetts


----------



## rfuller (Jan 31, 2014)

My lodge may be potentially looking at a member of one of these clandestine lodges who wishes to be "healed".  My lodge is AF&AM.  At the Grand Master's conference this year they mentioned healing, but it was in the context of coming from out of state after only completing the FC degree with no demit and no way to test proficiency.  They mentioned healing, so I understand there are provisions for it, but that was clearly not the case we are potentially dealing with.  It seem to me the PHA have a pretty well laid out path for people in that position as Bro. Jones (towerbuilder) pointed out, but I'm not clear on how this would work in an AF&AM lodge.  Any AF&AM - TX brothers have any insight on this?


----------



## dfreybur (Jan 31, 2014)

rfuller said:


> Any AF&AM - TX brothers have any insight on this?



Unless the committee on ritual teaches a specific ritual for healing there is no form shorter than retaking his degrees.  Learning a second set of proficiencies should be similar to learning a second ritual.  He already knows he can do it and how to do it, but relearning isn't as easy as learning was in the first place (been there, done that, got that tee shirt, now relearning a third version of ritual).

My suggestion comes in the form of a rhetorical question - How generous can your lodge be about, ahem, "a foreign accent", when he delivers his proficiencies?  Maybe he has "a foreign accent" and his words were blurred to the point you had trouble hearing them just right.  Just sayin' that generosity in the face of "a foreign accent" might happen if you're careful about arranging it.  He could end up going through his degrees pretty quickly.

When filling a chair my lodges find it humorous when bits of California ritual roll off my tongue by mistake when doing Illinois work.  "Dude!"  Same when I do small parts in Texas ritual and I get certain words wrong.  "DA Bears!"

If he wants to go through the line he's got to learn the entire ritual over anyways.  His hurdle would be earning a ritual certificate as that would entail relearning the proficiencies completely without a foreign accent.


----------



## rfuller (Jan 31, 2014)

dfreybur said:


> Unless the committee on ritual teaches a specific ritual for healing there is no form shorter than retaking his degrees.



Yeah.  The WM and I talked about that last night.  The brother who is in contact with him is contacting the Grand Lodge for direction.  I haven't met the man.  I have only heard that the brother in contact saw his ring, tried him, he passed with flying colors.  They got to talking and everything was kosher until the brother asked which lodge he attended.  We have 4 AF&AM lodges and 1 PHA lodge here, and his lodge wasn't any of those.  The brother approached him about it, the gentleman was surprised, and decided he would like to rectify the situation by joining a regular lodge.  It's certainly not a common occurrence in this medium sized town in West Texas.  I'll be honest, I had no idea we had a clandestine lodge here.  

I guess what I'm saying is I'm not sure about the ritual work at his lodge, but apparently the modes of recognition are the same.


----------



## dfreybur (Jan 31, 2014)

rfuller said:


> I have only heard that the brother in contact saw his ring, tried him, he passed with flying colors ... I guess what I'm saying is I'm not sure about the ritual work at his lodge, but apparently the modes of recognition are the same.



I figure clandestine lodges use one of the published ritual books for their basis, maybe doing the usual small changes we see jurisdiction to jurisdiction.  What they learn should end up nearly identical to what we learn.

If I recited my California proficiencies to you they would not be the exact same that you learned but there would be a ton of overlap.  Texas first is longer than California first.  California third is longer than Texas third.  But as you heard it you would be clear you were hearing a proficiency.


----------



## Txmason32 (Feb 5, 2014)

There was a guy who posted on Fb who was a 99* of the Egyptian rite  and was starting a gl in Texas .... wow 99* 

Sent From My Freemasonry Pro App


----------



## dfreybur (Feb 5, 2014)

Txmason32 said:


> There was a guy who posted on Fb who was a 99* of the Egyptian rite  and was starting a gl in Texas .... wow 99*



Memphis and Misriam has 99 degrees.  Maybe he's a member.  Maybe he just read a book about them.  Making up his own grand lodge maybe he didn't even read a book about them.


----------



## Cblack (Feb 5, 2014)

Most of the clandestine GLs in TX are practicing that right..Abraham GL is the source of it

Sent from my SPH-L710 using My Freemasonry HD mobile app


----------



## Bro. Barnett (Oct 17, 2014)

I have oft heard of  major issues and disdain between AF&AM and F&AM Masons and . I'm wondering is the opinion implicated here that 4 letter black Masons are clandestine?  I was raised in a four letter black lodge, and we were taught to make no discrimination between any brothers whether they were Prince Hall Masons, international Masons, or 4 letter Masons.  It seems that we have so much going on in the world right now that we could move past the feud of PHA versus four letter in the black community.  I'm not making any accusations, I was just wondering because I've always wanted to ask my Prince Hall brethren this question...  
       Sincerely in the light, T. Barnett


----------



## Bill Lins (Oct 17, 2014)

I don't know about elsewhere but, in Texas, "4 letter black lodges" and their members are, indeed, clandestine. Only members of the Grand Lodge of Texas, A.F. & A.M. and members of the Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Texas, F. & A.M. (AKA Prince Hall Affiliated) are considered "regular and recognized".


----------



## RyanC (Oct 18, 2014)

Bro. Barnett said:


> I have oft heard of  major issues and disdain between AF&AM and F&AM Masons and . I'm wondering is the opinion implicated here that 4 letter black Masons are clandestine?  I was raised in a four letter black lodge, and we were taught to make no discrimination between any brothers whether they were Prince Hall Masons, international Masons, or 4 letter Masons.  It seems that we have so much going on in the world right now that we could move past the feud of PHA versus four letter in the black community.  I'm not making any accusations, I was just wondering because I've always wanted to ask my Prince Hall brethren this question...
> Sincerely in the light, T. Barnett


Clandestine has to do with the fact of you can not trace your linage back to the Grand Lodges of England, Scotland, and Ireland or another Grand Body as such ie, Grand Lodge of NY, TX, or a Prince Hall  add State Grand Lodge. As a regular/mainstream Mason we have sworn an obligation that we would not converse masonicly with anyone who is of a clandestine lodge. When a person decides that he no longer like the Grand Lodge he is in and starts the International Grand Lodge of AF&AM that linage is lost and is Clandestine. That does not mean it does not teach Freemasonry, and that its members are not Freemasons but that it is not recognized by the mainstream.


----------



## Glen Cook (Oct 18, 2014)

RyanC said:


> Clandestine has to do with the fact of you can not trace your linage back to the Grand Lodges of England, Scotland, and Ireland or another Grand Body as such ie, Grand Lodge of NY, TX, or a Prince Hall  add State Grand Lodge. ....



The underlying concept is legitimacy of origin.  Just to clarify, not all grand lodges were founded by another grand lodge.  A number were founded by three or more lodges with charters/warrants from regular grand lodges.


----------



## bupton52 (Oct 19, 2014)

Bro. Barnett said:


> I have oft heard of  major issues and disdain between AF&AM and F&AM Masons and . I'm wondering is the opinion implicated here that 4 letter black Masons are clandestine?  I was raised in a four letter black lodge, and we were taught to make no discrimination between any brothers whether they were Prince Hall Masons, international Masons, or 4 letter Masons.  It seems that we have so much going on in the world right now that we could move past the feud of PHA versus four letter in the black community.  I'm not making any accusations, I was just wondering because I've always wanted to ask my Prince Hall brethren this question...
> Sincerely in the light, T. Barnett


That is usually what the clandestine organizations teach. It is very easy to tell who is legitimate and who isn't. There is no feud of PHA vs anyone. It is all about the real masons and making folks understand that there are people assuming the right to call themselves freemasons.


----------



## dfreybur (Oct 20, 2014)

RyanC said:


> That does not mean it does not teach Freemasonry



Bro Nagy makes a distinction between Freemasonry as the organization and Masonry as what we practice.  Using that distinction clandestine lodges do not teach Freemasonry as their jurisdictions gave birth to themselves.  Most men who are members of clandestine lodges have no idea they were tricked so they do practice Masonry in their own actions.


----------



## Warrior1256 (Oct 23, 2014)

dfreybur said:


> Bro Nagy makes a distinction between Freemasonry as the organization and Masonry as what we practice.  Using that distinction clandestine lodges do not teach Freemasonry as their jurisdictions gave birth to themselves.  Most men who are members of clandestine lodges have no idea they were tricked so they do practice Masonry in their own actions.


Makes sense.


----------



## Warrior1256 (Oct 23, 2014)

Glen Cook said:


> The underlying concept is legitimacy of origin.  Just to clarify, not all grand lodges were founded by another grand lodge.  A number were founded by three or more lodges with charters/warrants from regular grand lodges.


I didn't know that. Thanks for the info brother.


----------



## MasterMasonFromNV (Mar 27, 2015)

I did a little research on this topic since it piqued my interest. Some of the major "clandestine and irregular" Lodges is not about where they trace their roots but a difference in Masonic ideology. The Grand Orient of France was at one point recognized and regular by United Grand of Lodge of England. What caused the split and stopped the recognition during the 1860's through the 1870's is that the Grand Orient France dropped the prerequisite of a belief in a Higher Deity. 

This eventually allowed women to join not too long after and thus cemented the rift that goes on into today. All the major Masonic Bodies in France, and I believe there are five of them, are considered clandestine. There was one smaller Grand Lodge that did have recognition by UGLE, but internal turmoil has caused UGLE to sever ties.


----------



## MasterMasonFromNV (Mar 27, 2015)

Since then, many Grand Lodges that are deemed clandestine and irregular have popped up like weeds since the 1860's. This is also has to do with the "secretive nature" of our Craft and others can simply pop up over night and call themselves Freemasons. Since there is no centralized governing body with in Freemasonry, recognition between jurisdictions can be a little tricky.


----------



## Glen Cook (Mar 27, 2015)

GLNF is again in amity with UGLE and I think, now, all the other European regular GLs.

In terms of standards of regularity, both the home GLs and CGMNA set forth the standards. There is largely a consistent pattern of recognition based on these and so it is not that tricky in most cases. I would encourage reading the reports at the Commission on Information for Recognition website. If you are a member of the Rocky Mountain Masonic Conference, I shall be reporting to it this summer. I expect also to hear the subject addressed at the  World Conference of Regular Masonic Grand Lodges in November in California.


----------



## Eastwardbound (Apr 12, 2015)

Can anyone answer the below questions:

Put simply, are there any regular and recognized Grand Lodges in Texas apart from The _Grand Lodge of Texas_ and The Most Worshipful Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Texas?

Secondly, is a blue lodge in Texas required to fall under the jurisdiction of either of the two aforementioned Grand Lodges? If not, can their Grand Lodge be in another state/country?

Third, Can a Supreme Council grant a charter to originate a GL?

Fourth, it has been said that a Warrant/Charter must come from the UGLE or the GL of Ireland or Scotland for a GL to be recognized. If this is so, can someone point me to where I can find this rule in Masonic Jurisprudence or precedent?



Regards,


Houston, Texas
Initiated 06/04/14
Passed 12/18/14
Raised 03/28/15


----------



## Bill Lins (Apr 12, 2015)

Eastwardbound said:


> Can anyone answer the below questions:
> 
> Put simply, are there any regular and recognized Grand Lodges in Texas apart from The _Grand Lodge of Texas_ and The Most Worshipful Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Texas?



No.



Eastwardbound said:


> Secondly, is a blue lodge in Texas required to fall under the jurisdiction of either of the two aforementioned Grand Lodges?



To be regular and recognized, yes.



Eastwardbound said:


> Third, Can a Supreme Council grant a charter to originate a GL?



No.



Eastwardbound said:


> Fourth, it has been said that a Warrant/Charter must come from the UGLE or the GL of Ireland or Scotland for a GL to be recognized.



That is not entirely correct. In order for a Grand Lodge to be recognized, it must be able to trace its lineage back to one of the three original Grand Lodges, but it doesn't need to receive a warrant or charter _directly_ from them.


----------



## Eastwardbound (Apr 13, 2015)

Gentleman,

I am finding that there is disagreement on this issue at best and ambiguity at worst. The process by which a Grand Lodge is originated seems to me very unclear which is the cause of some calling others "clandestine" while those lodges genuinely see themselves as regular and recognized. Calling a lodge clandestine is a serious charge, I feel, and we should have a very clear standard by which that judgement is made. 


Three questions remain: 

1) How does a GL substantiate that their lineage indeed traces back to one of the original three GL's? And to whom do they substantiate this to?

2) If a GL does not need to receive a warrant or charter directly from one of the aforementioned original GL's , who then is legitimately sanctioned to provide them one?

3) Must a GL at least have recognition from one of the original three GL's in order not to be considered clandestine or can that recognition come from elsewhere?

*For example: 

http://rglva.com/recognitions.html*

The Regular Grand Lodge of Virginia has a "Warrant of Constitution" from a Grand Lodge in Italy (Gran Loggia Madre CAMEA) and they also have mutual recognition with a number of Grand Lodges around the world. However,  the GL that issued their warrant is not recognized by any of the three original GL's. Does this make the Regular Grand Lodge of Virginia clandestine despite having a warrant and recognitions?



Regards,


Houston, Texas
Initiated 06/04/14
Passed 12/18/14
Raised 03/28/15


----------



## dfreybur (Apr 13, 2015)

Eastwardbound said:


> Secondly, is a blue lodge in Texas required to fall under the jurisdiction of either of the two aforementioned Grand Lodges? If not, can their Grand Lodge be in another state/country?



In theory some other GL can make a request of those two then once approved grant a charter to a lodge.  In Texas I doubt either would approve.  To charter a lodge in territory occupied by an existing regular and recognized jurisdiction is an invasion and not taken well by other jurisdictions.

I do know an example outside of Texas that happened roughly 1994/5- One of the Mexican GLs requested permission from GLofCA to charter a Spanish speaking lodge inside California near the border.  The delegates in California were generous and granted permission.  The wording of the agreement stated that individual agreements do not set a precedent that invalidates the American doctrine of territorial exclusivity.  The agreement was one of several steps leading to PHA recognition in California.



> Third, Can a Supreme Council grant a charter to originate a GL?



Jurisdictions charter themselves so there is no such thing as a one jurisdiction granting a charter for another jurisdiction.  (Fact check - Is this actually an American only historical practice?)  Jurisdictions *recognize* each other; they do not *charter* each other.

What happens is an unoccupied territory emerges when a land is colonized.  One or more jurisdiction charters lodges within that region - It is the lodges that are chartered.  At some point there are enough lodges in the region to form a quorum and they decide to turn in their charters and form their own jurisdiction.

As such a jurisdiction can have one or several parent jurisdictions. Many US jurisdictions have founding lodges that were chartered from more than one parent jurisdiction.

If a jurisdiction cites a charter from any Supreme Council, in the US this automatically means they are irregular. Outside of the US there exist regular and recognized jurisdictions that have a Supreme Council among their parents but none exist in the US.


----------



## dfreybur (Apr 13, 2015)

Eastwardbound said:


> 1) How does a GL substantiate that their lineage indeed traces back to one of the original three GL's? And to whom do they substantiate this to?



Since a jurisdiction is created by a quorum of lodges from other regular and recognized jurisdictions, you look up the charters of those founding lodges and look up their recognitions at the time the respective charters were issued.  There is always a finite number of generations back to the 3 founding GLs.  There is never a self founding lodge in the list ever since the emergence of the founding GLs.



> 2) If a GL does not need to receive a warrant or charter directly from one of the aforementioned original GL's , who then is legitimately sanctioned to provide them one?



A GL that cites its own charter is automatically to be labelled dubious as that's not how it works.  Jurisdictions have to write their own charters once their founding lodges turn theirs in, but such charters are after the fact not before the fact.

That's a matter of regular origin not of recognition.



> 3) Must a GL at least have recognition from one of the original three GL's in order not to be considered clandestine or can that recognition come from elsewhere?



To be recognized by one of the elder 3 they first look up regularity of origin.  Then they look up local recognition.  Then they recognize.

Let's say GLofTX charters the first lodge on the Moon (this has happened).  Let's say several other jurisdictions (Japan, Brazil, Virginia) charter lodges on the Moon as it is colonized (still in the future).  At some point the lodges there will decide they have a quorum and self organize.  The jurisdictions of Texas, Japan, Brazil and Virginia check that they all recognize each other and that the individual lodges on the Moon have regular origin.  The jurisdictions of Texas, Japan, Brazil and Virginia) vote to recognize their child jurisdiction.  Soon after that the 3 elder jurisdictions vote to recognize.

That's how it works.  First regular origin, second parental recognition, third wider recognition.  As a result there is a very high correlation between recognition by the 3 elder jurisdictions and recognition elsewhere.  If a GL isn't in the UGLE list it might not be worth looking farther (MWPHGLofOK are you brothers listening?)

*



			For example: 

http://rglva.com/recognitions.html

Click to expand...

*


> The Regular Grand Lodge of Virginia has a "Warrant of Constitution" from a Grand Lodge in Italy (Gran Loggia Madre CAMEA) and they also have mutual recognition with a number of Grand Lodges around the world. However,  the GL that issued their warrant is not recognized by any of the three original GL's. Does this make the Regular Grand Lodge of Virginia clandestine despite having a warrant and recognitions?



This is the regular and recognized GL in Italy - http://www.glri.it/  It is not the one you list.  And it's that simple to figure out a clandestine jurisdiction trying to pump it its claims of regularity.

No regular and/or recognized GL in the US uses the word "Regular".  That was all I needed to know its status.  But to learn that I needed to look through the UGLE list plus the Conference of Grand Masters Prince Hall Masons list to learn the names.


----------



## Glen Cook (Apr 13, 2015)

Eastwardbound said:


> Gentleman,
> 
> I am finding that there is disagreement on this issue at best and ambiguity at worst. The process by which a Grand Lodge is originated seems to me very unclear which is the cause of some calling others "clandestine" while those lodges genuinely see themselves as regular and recognized. Calling a lodge clandestine is a serious charge, I feel, and we should have a very clear standard by which that judgement is made.
> 
> ...



Actually, there is no disagreement amongst the Home GL's and the CGMNA GL's on the standards.  The Regular Grand Lodge of Virginia is clandestine.  It's sponsoring GL is clandestine.  This concept is known as legitimacy of origin.  Neither of them were chartered by recognized GL's.  

You may see the CGMNA standards here: http://www.recognitioncommission.org/publish/2004/06/10/the-standards-of-recognition/.  The RGLV violates both legitimacy of origin and the territorial jurisdiction elements.  

If your GL is neither GL of Texas or PHA of Texas, your GL is not regular.  I note the following from the Commission website:

A great many Grand Lodges continue to appear in North America each year which do not meet the standards for recognition. Further, most of these Grand Lodges make no effort to achieve regularity or even establish a relationship with the regular Grand Lodges into whose jurisdiction they have inserted themselves. The Commission urges great vigilance in establishing relationships with new Grand Lodges that do not exist in the List of Lodges-Masonic, published by Pantagraph, in Bloomington, Ill. 

So, whilst you have been a bit coy in failing to disclose your obedience, and you may certainly associate with these individuals, you will not be allowed to communicate with the Home GL's, the CGMNA members, or the recognized GL's of Europe.  I realize this is a bitter pill, and you may decline it, but you will still be barred from regular Masonry.


----------



## dfreybur (Apr 13, 2015)

Hypothetical -

Some jurisdiction on the Moon is regular and recognized.  It charters a lodge on the new Mars and Ceres colonies.  Texas also charters lodges on Ceres.  Japan also charters lodges on Mars.  The Moon charters lodges in L5 construction and space power colony.  The Mars, Ceres and L5 colonies grow and flourish and eventually organize themselves into their own jurisdictions and are uniformly recognized.

The GL of the Moon demonstrates what it means to be a Lunatic by admitting female atheist space aliens.  They exit regularity.

The jurisdictions on Mars and Ceres remain regular through their Texas and Japan lineage.

L5 retains independence and regular practice.  Do they stay recognized?  Earthly parallel would be lodges chartered by the Grand Orient of France before they went irregular.

Hypothetical -

The Lunatic GL charters a lodge in Saturn orbit.  So do Mars and Ceres colonies.  When the Saturn GL is founded, the former Lunatic lodge relents, applies for healing and is allowed to be a founding member of the Saturn GL.  Is the new Saturn GL regular and will it be recognized?

Earthly parallel is some PHO lodge applying to join a new jurisdiction through the healing process.


----------



## Bill Lins (Apr 13, 2015)

Eastwardbound said:


> Gentleman,
> 
> I am finding that there is disagreement on this issue at best and ambiguity at worst. The process by which a Grand Lodge is originated seems to me very unclear which is the cause of some calling others "clandestine" while those lodges genuinely see themselves as regular and recognized. Calling a lodge clandestine is a serious charge, I feel, and we should have a very clear standard by which that judgement is made.




While some do not understand it & others choose to deny it, the standards for regularity & recognition are clear.




Eastwardbound said:


> 1) How does a GL substantiate that their lineage indeed traces back to one of the original three GL's? And to whom do they substantiate this?




Let's take the Grand Lodge of Texas as an example. Originally, before Texas fought for and won independence from Mexico, some Brethren requested permission from the Grand Lodge of Mexico to form Masonic Lodges in Texas, but were unable to obtain such. They then sought & received permission to form Lodges in Texas from the Grand Lodge of Louisiana. This is the proper procedure to form Lodges in an area where no Grand Lodge yet exists.

After three Lodges were formed in Texas, the representatives then met and agreed to form the Grand Lodge of Texas, as was their right. As they had received their authority to operate from the Grand Lodge of Louisiana, which had originally received their authority to operate from the Grand Lodge of Pennsylvania, which had originally received their authority to operate from the Grand Lodge of England, the Grand Lodge of Texas was deemed "regular in _origin_". This is called "lineage".

To be deemed "regular in _practice"_, a Grand Lodge must adhere to the "Landmarks", i.e. requiring belief in a Supreme Being, limiting admission to men only, and so forth. To receive "recognition", which must be applied for and received through a formal procedure, a Grand Lodge must demonstrate that they are "_regular in practice and origin_".

In an area where there is no existing Grand Lodge, application is made to the Grand Lodge from which the applying Grand Lodge's lineage traces- in the case of Texas, the Grand Lodge of England.

In an area where a Grand Lodge is already exercising jurisdiction, a new Grand Lodge must apply for recognition from the existing Grand Lodge, demonstrating their regularity of origin and practice. This is the procedure followed by the Prince Hall Affiliated Grand Lodge of Texas. After our Committee on Fraternal Relations determined that PHA Texas could trace their lineage through African Lodge #459 in Massachusetts to the Grand Lodge of England, thereby being regular in origin, and found that they were also regular in practice, the committee reported favorably to the Grand Communication of the Grand Lodge of Texas, which voted to extend recognition to PHA Texas, which could then request & receive recognition from the United Grand Lodge of England.




Eastwardbound said:


> 2) If a GL does not need to receive a warrant or charter directly from one of the aforementioned original GL's , who then is legitimately sanctioned to provide them one?




They must follow the procedures described above.




Eastwardbound said:


> 3) Must a GL at least have recognition from one of the original three GL's in order not to be considered clandestine




Yes.




Eastwardbound said:


> or can that recognition come from elsewhere?
> 
> *For example: http://rglva.com/recognitions.html*
> 
> The Regular Grand Lodge of Virginia has a "Warrant of Constitution" from a Grand Lodge in Italy (Gran Loggia Madre CAMEA) and they also have mutual recognition with a number of Grand Lodges around the world. However,  the GL that issued their warrant is not recognized by any of the three original GL's. Does this make the Regular Grand Lodge of Virginia clandestine despite having a warrant and recognitions?




None of the organizations listed in your link are regular OR recognized. As they are all clandestine, so is the "Regular Grand Lodge of Virginia", which is anything but "regular". Calling themselves so doesn't make it so.


----------



## Eastwardbound (Apr 13, 2015)

Brothers,

I very much appreciate your informed and insightful responses.








Bill_Lins77488 said:


> While some do not understand it & others choose to deny it, the standards for regularity & recognition are clear.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Warrior1256 (Apr 25, 2015)

I am a new MM, having been raised last August, but I am still amazed when I hear of how many clandestine lodges there are out there.


----------



## Mindovermatter Ace (Jun 24, 2015)

Just to touch a little bit on John G. Jones. It did not begin in 1869 as JGJ did not become a mason allegedly until 1872. He became DGM in 1875. He was expelled from the USC SJ PHA in 1895 for invading the territories of DC,  and founded the USC SWJ in 1896. He was expelled from the craft in 1904. His trial held by his home jurisdiction, the MWPHGLoIL, found him guilty of contumacy. The MWPHGLoMA initially wanted to try him and banned all masons from being associated to him or his followers. The Romanian story is a fallacy and has recently been debunked. JGJ never received a charter from any legitimate body of masonry as he was an expelled mason.


----------



## Mindovermatter Ace (Jun 24, 2015)

The easiest way to spot a Spurious mason is to ask for his travel card or grand lodge name. If it isn't the Grand Lodge of State, or Most Worshipful Prince Hall Grand Lodge of State then its bogus. Florida and Mississippi are the exceptions. Florida is the MWUGLoFL PHA, and MS is MW Stringer GLoMS PHA.


----------



## Joe Ellis (Mar 11, 2016)

Are we are saying that all grand lodges that are not recognised by the UGLE are irregular, and worse, bogus?


----------



## MRichard (Mar 11, 2016)

Joe Ellis said:


> Are we are saying that all grand lodges that are not recognised by the UGLE are irregular, and worse, bogus?



That is certainly not the case. There are several grand lodges in the US that are regular but not recognized because the grand lodges can not find common ground.


----------



## Glen Cook (Mar 11, 2016)

Joe Ellis said:


> Are we are saying that all grand lodges that are not recognised by the UGLE are irregular, and worse, bogus?


No. UGLE is not the arbiter of regularity. 
CGMNA GLs recognize a different GL s in Italy than does UGLE. They don't all recognize the same Paraguayan GL. The issue is whether your GL finds them regular


----------



## Warrior1256 (Mar 13, 2016)

Glen Cook said:


> The issue is whether your GL finds them regular


Well said!


----------



## Joe Ellis (Mar 13, 2016)

Well, I am disappointed with some of the reply posts. Let me explain why.

The UGLE states in their Freemasons guidelines to English Freemasons, that three regular lodges can form a Grand Lodge. That is providing their workings are considered regular, then the Grand Lodge in question can seek UGLE recognition.

Here's my issue:

I have been a UGLE Freemason for over 12 years and went through the Chair of my mother lodge as well as being secretary to a UGLE specialist lodge. Before my year ended, I found no other option by to resign from UGLE freemasonry. This was very upsetting and extremely painful, but a decision that was vital.

As I see it, UGLE do not own the registered trademark for freemasonry. Nobody does. And just because the UGLE are one of the oldest and greatly known globally, does not necessarily mean they are the only body that can govern the craft. Far from it. So why would a grand lodge of any repute want UGLE recognition? I don't get it.

Freemasonry is not about recognition or millions of pounds/dollars being thrown around here, there and everywhere. Charity is not just about money, UGLE seems to forget that. Masonic charity is far more than simply handing out a cheque with lots of media attention.

I am mindful of a discussion I had with a Past Right Worshipful Master when my wife and I had a private tour of the New York Grand Lodge. He said and and I quote: 'UGLE English freemasonry is stuffy and they seem to have lost their way'.

Fraternally, in faith and fidelity,


----------



## Glen Cook (Mar 13, 2016)

Joe Ellis said:


> Well, I am disappointed with some of the reply posts. Let me explain why.
> 
> The UGLE states in their Freemasons guidelines to English Freemasons, that three regular lodges can form a Grand Lodge. That is providing their workings are considered regular, then the Grand Lodge in question can seek UGLE recognition.
> 
> ...



You make, I think, incorrect assumptions, confuse concepts, and appear to have a bias against a your former obedience.

UGLE guidelines are for UGLE Freemasons, not English Freemasons. 

UGLE are not the only governing body. There are many GLs which each govern, each in their own physical jurisdiction and each within their own obedience. UGLE governs recognised Freemasonry in England. There are other GLs, such as yours, which govern their own members  in England but not for instance, in TN.

Your concern that as to any GL wanting recognition from UGLE is without a stated premise.  Simply because they are not the only governing authority  is no reason not to seek recognition. My GL recognized Malta simply so I could attend their communication! 

To clarify, UGLE descends from the oldest _Grand Lodge.  _Many of us believe the oldest Masonic Lodges to be in Scotland.

As to the statement from the NY member (I'm not sure as to the relevance of the private tour, and he was not an RWM) one first would wish to know the basis for his opinion. How long has he been a UGLE Mason?  How many UGLE lodges has he attended and in what provinces? Does he attend festive boards?   I'm a UGLE Mason.  Just like some American and Scottish  Lodges, some UGLE lodges are stuffy. Some are pretty carefree.  I don't recollect a stuffy lodge festive board. PGL and UGL certainly can be organized, but I've  had delightful conversation.

Again, you don't state how UGLE  had supposedly lost its way.

Clearly, you have a grievance against UGLE. That's fine. Your comments above  appear  to show a simple resentment  that they are the big boy on the block, leading you to engage in hearsay ad hominem sniping, i.e., they're stuffy. I was waiting for your next statement to be "And their mother wears army boots."

It might be good to amend your sig line to your current obedience to avoid any misapprehension as to the jurisdiction under which you labour.


----------



## Bloke (Mar 13, 2016)

Joe Ellis said:


> ....I have been a UGLE Freemason for over 12 years and went through the Chair of my mother lodge as well as being secretary to a UGLE specialist lodge. Before my year ended, I found no other option by to resign from UGLE freemasonry. This was very upsetting and extremely painful, but a decision that was vital....



I'm curious on this but decided I am not going to ask about it, also noting the lodge you now record as being a member of is a Co-Masonic Lodge.

At the end of the day, the good Freemasons try to examine and follow his conscious tempered by masonic lessons correcting his actions and thinking. It's kind of ironic that perhaps doing so lead you to resign from lodges under UGLE; but that's not a foreign idea to me.

Good to see different traditions constructively participating in discussion here..


----------



## Joe Ellis (Mar 14, 2016)

Glen Cook said:


> You make, I think, incorrect assumptions, confuse concepts, and appear to have a bias against a your former obedience.
> 
> Interesting reply...!


----------



## Joe Ellis (Mar 14, 2016)

Good to see different traditions constructively participating in discussion here said:
			
		

> I agree with you entirely.


----------



## Joe Ellis (Mar 14, 2016)

Glen Cook said:


> There is no resentment on my part.
> 
> I thought the idea of My Freemasonry network is to engage in conversation. We may or may not agree, but everyone has a view and options. Brothers globally share their experiences on the site, which is can only be a good thing and the creator is to be congratulated on this sites formation.
> 
> I have no intention to amend my 'sig line'.


----------



## Glen Cook (Mar 14, 2016)

You put your reply within the quote box.

Yes, the idea of the Network is to engage in conversation. I did.


----------



## Joe Ellis (Mar 14, 2016)

Glen Cook said:


> You put your reply within the quote box.
> 
> Yes, the idea of the Network is to engage in conversation. I did.



Wow...do you always react like this?


----------



## MRichard (Mar 14, 2016)

Joe Ellis said:


> Wow...do you always react like this?



That was one of his nicer replies. Lol


----------



## Joe Ellis (Mar 14, 2016)

MRichard said:


> That was one of his nicer replies. Lol



Yes, I got that by reading some other postings. Greetings MRichard


----------



## tldubb (Mar 14, 2016)

Glen Cook, in mvho is always ready to give wise counsel and always on point.


----------



## Bloke (Mar 14, 2016)

Joe Ellis said:


> Wow...do you always react like this?



It is kinda annoying Joe and I had the same thought... the problem is it is hard to see when you are quoting another or typing a response which is a distinction the quote tool is supposed to establish...


----------



## MRichard (Mar 14, 2016)

Joe Ellis said:


> Yes, I got that by reading some other postings. Greetings MRichard



Greetings, Mr Ellis.


----------



## MRichard (Mar 14, 2016)

Joe Ellis said:


> Well, I am disappointed with some of the reply posts. Let me explain why.
> 
> The UGLE states in their Freemasons guidelines to English Freemasons, that three regular lodges can form a Grand Lodge. That is providing their workings are considered regular, then the Grand Lodge in question can seek UGLE recognition.
> 
> ...



Your reasons for leaving are unclear. It appears you have joined a "clandestine" co-ed lodge. By definition to regular freemasons, it can be described no other way. Please elaborate on why you left so that we can better understand your reasoning.


----------



## Warrior1256 (Mar 14, 2016)

MRichard said:


> It appears you have joined a "clandestine" co-ed lodge. By definition to regular freemasons, it can be described no other way.


Very true!


----------



## Bloke (Mar 14, 2016)

MRichard said:


> Your reasons for leaving are unclear. It appears you have joined a "clandestine" co-ed lodge. By definition to regular freemasons, it can be described no other way. Please elaborate on why you left so that we can better understand your reasoning.



Respectfully, why should Bro Ellis have to explain himself ? He is a PM of UGLE and although he has left and joined Co-Masonry, he owes us no explanation - I sense there will be no profit nor pleasure in getting into his reasons. He also has PM of "England" which should be a clear hint.

I would point out we are not in lodge with him and on an open public forum.

Over the years, I've learned a lot from such men and women...


----------



## MRichard (Mar 14, 2016)

Bloke said:


> Respectfully, why should Bro Ellis have to explain himself ? He is a PM of UGLE and although he has left and joined Co-Masonry, he owes us no explanation - I sense there will be no profit nor pleasure in getting into his reasons. He also has PM of "England" which should be a clear hint.
> 
> I would point out we are not in lodge with him and on an open public forum.
> 
> Over the years, I've learned a lot from such men and women...



Maybe you didn't notice it but he raised the issue. He doesn't have to explain if he doesn't want to.


----------



## Joe Ellis (Mar 15, 2016)

MRichard said:


> Your reasons for leaving are unclear. It appears you have joined a "clandestine" co-ed lodge. By definition to regular freemasons, it can be described no other way. Please elaborate on why you left so that we can better understand your reasoning.



I understand that, but I don't have an issue with it


----------



## Joe Ellis (Mar 15, 2016)

At the end of the day said:
			
		

> This is really a good reply. I did examine and surely did not take the decision lightly.


----------



## dfreybur (Mar 15, 2016)

MRichard said:


> Your reasons for leaving are unclear. It appears you have joined a "clandestine" co-ed lodge. By definition to regular freemasons, it can be described no other way. Please elaborate on why you left so that we can better understand your reasoning.



The word is "irregular" not "clandestine".  CoMasonry traces its lineage to the meeting in 17171 and is thus not clandestine.  CoMasonry started accepting women and as such exited regularity (among other differences in principle at the time).


----------



## Glen Cook (Mar 15, 2016)

dfreybur said:


> The word is "irregular" not "clandestine".  CoMasonry traces its lineage to the meeting in 17171 and is thus not clandestine.  CoMasonry started accepting women and as such exited regularity (among other differences in principle at the time).


Most GLs disagree and consider this GL and coMasonry in general clandestine.


----------



## MRichard (Mar 15, 2016)

dfreybur said:


> The word is "irregular" not "clandestine".  CoMasonry traces its lineage to the meeting in 17171 and is thus not clandestine.  CoMasonry started accepting women and as such exited regularity (among other differences in principle at the time).



I doubt that the Grand Lodge of Texas considers them irregular. But you never know.


----------



## Bloke (Mar 15, 2016)

For the record, UGLV would consider any co-masonic lodge as irregular.


----------



## Warrior1256 (Mar 16, 2016)

I have only been an MM for 19 months so maybe I am wrong but I would thing that all 51 regular GLs in the United States would view any co-masonic lodge irregular.


----------



## Glen Cook (Mar 16, 2016)

Warrior1256 said:


> I have only been an MM for 19 months so maybe I am wrong but I would thing that all 51 regular GLs in the United States would view any co-masonic lodge irregular.


I think the issue is whether we use the term "irregular" or "clandestine".


----------



## Ripcord22A (Mar 16, 2016)

Glen Cook said:


> I think the issue is whether we use the term "irregular" or "clandestine".


Clandestine=not having valid lineage vs irregular=not following ancient landmarks eg allowing women, athiests ect ect

Sent from my LG-D415 using My Freemasonry Pro mobile app


----------



## Glen Cook (Mar 16, 2016)

jdmadsenCraterlake211 said:


> Clandestine=not having valid lineage vs irregular=not following ancient landmarks eg allowing women, athiests ect ect
> 
> Sent from my LG-D415 using My Freemasonry Pro mobile app


I don't object to those definitions, but they are not universally accepted or consistently used.  For some GLs, if they are not recognized, they are clandestine per se.


----------



## Warrior1256 (Mar 17, 2016)

Glen Cook said:


> I think the issue is whether we use the term "irregular" or "clandestine".


Would you please explain the difference to me brother? This is one of the things that I have not learned yet.


----------



## dfreybur (Mar 17, 2016)

Warrior1256 said:


> Would you please explain the difference to me brother?



Clandestine - Not having a documented lineage to one of the founding jurisdictions.
Irregular - Not following the landmarks.
Jurisdictions can be either, both, neither.

The longer the chain of lineage the more fun it gets - A lodge chartered by an irregular jurisdiction, has it lost the "valid" part of its lineage and thus become clandestine?  Going down that road erodes the usefulness of the words.  That's why I used the word "documented" not the word "valid".  That's why I prefer to be fussy about whether your list of "begats" goes back to 1+ of the founding jurisdictions (who were rebels) or if it stops at some (other) rebel who founded his own jurisdiction.

Bro Glenn points out that certain jurisdictions have decided not to use these terms as such.  After all - Your jurisdiction, your rules.

I point out that global usage matters.  When discussing terms *as applied among jurisdictions* it matters to know the more generally accepted meanings in addition to how your own particular jurisdiction uses the terms.  Think of it as "Comparative Freemasonry", a desire to know enough about the Masonic world enough to know when/where your own jurisdiction diverges from a worldwide standard.

It's important to know your own jurisdiction's terminology so you can follow your own rules.  It's also important to know the more general usage for discussions among jurisdictions.

Does your jurisdiction have a closing prayer for the benefit of all regular Masons?  It appears at one point or another in all 3 of mine.  Isn't it interesting if your jurisdiction uses the word clandestine for both meanings and you may well be praying for the benefit of brothers who are clandestine by your jurisdiction's wording yet the ritual dates from before that rule?


----------



## Dontrell Stroman (Mar 17, 2016)

Glen Cook said:


> I don't object to those definitions, but they are not universally accepted or consistently used.  For some GLs, if they are not recognized, they are clandestine per se.


Which I don't understand because they have valid lineage.


----------



## Glen Cook (Mar 17, 2016)

Travelling Man91 said:


> Which I don't understand because they have valid lineage.


While useful, Br Doug's definitions aren't universally accepted. Many of us simply use not regular or unrecognized and avoid the C word except for the clearly bogus, self founded groups. My rule? If it has the name King in it, the GL is bogus, clandestine, and their mothers wear Army boots


----------



## Dontrell Stroman (Mar 17, 2016)

Glen Cook said:


> While useful, Br Doug's definitions aren't universally accepted. Many of us simply use not regular or unrecognized and avoid the C word except for the clearly bogus, self founded groups. My rule? If it has the name King in it, the GL is bogus, clandestine, and their mothers wear Army boots


Exactly, so PHA is regular just not recognized by some GLS


----------



## dfreybur (Mar 17, 2016)

Glen Cook said:


> ... and their mothers wear Army boots



I thought you were one of us blue guys.  Isn't it for us - Their mothers wear boondockers.


----------



## Glen Cook (Mar 17, 2016)

Travelling Man91 said:


> Exactly, so PHA is regular just not recognized by some GLS


CGMNA long ago made this determination, as did UGLE.  _However,_ some GL's will consider it clandestine, simply because they are not in amity.


----------



## Dontrell Stroman (Mar 17, 2016)

Key word CONSIDER, that doesn't actually mean they are correct ?

Sent from my 831C using My Freemasonry Pro mobile app


----------



## Bloke (Mar 17, 2016)

Glen Cook said:


> ....and their mothers wear Army boots



An old saying, but since women can now be on the front line and die thete; we should probably send it the way of the dodo


----------



## Glen Cook (Mar 17, 2016)

Travelling Man91 said:


> Key word CONSIDER, that doesn't actually mean they are correct ?
> 
> Sent from my 831C using My Freemasonry Pro mobile app


There is no commonly accepted definition of the term "clandestine."  Under their codes (and there are more than one who use this term when not in amity), they are correct.


----------



## Warrior1256 (Mar 18, 2016)

Glen Cook said:


> CGMNA long ago made this determination, as did UGLE.  _However,_ some GL's will consider it clandestine, simply because they are not in amity.


It certainly can get confusing!


----------



## Bloke (Mar 18, 2016)

Really, there is only two things to know;
1 - Can you accept visitors from a Organization into open lodge
2  - Can you visit in the lodge or another Organization.

The nomenclature around the above are secondary..


----------



## Warrior1256 (Mar 20, 2016)

Bloke said:


> Really, there is only two things to know;
> 1 - Can you accept visitors from a Organization into open lodge
> 2  - Can you visit in the lodge or another Organization.
> 
> The nomenclature around the above are secondary..


You're right, this certainly does simplify it.


----------



## Joe Ellis (Mar 26, 2016)

Glen Cook said:


> Most GLs disagree and consider this GL and coMasonry in general clandestine.


"most" not all...!


----------



## Joe Ellis (Mar 26, 2016)

MRichard said:


> Your reasons for leaving are unclear. It appears you have joined a "clandestine" co-ed lodge. By definition to regular freemasons, it can be described no other way. Please elaborate on why you left so that we can better understand your reasoning.



As a former ruler inside a UGLE lodge, I decided, after considerable soul searching, that UGLE Freemasonry is at variants with my my religious, moral and principle beliefs in life. That is all I am prepared to reveal at this time. My reasons will become clear inside an international leading Masonic magazine who are covering my transition from UGLE to another Grand Lodge.

"Clandestine?" As May West once stated; 'frankly my dear I don't give a damn'


----------



## Glen Cook (Mar 26, 2016)

Joe Ellis said:


> "most" not all...!


Yes, that's what I said. ??


Joe Ellis said:


> As a former ruler inside a UGLE lodge, I decided, after considerable soul searching, that UGLE Freemasonry is at variants with my my religious, moral and principle beliefs in life. That is all I am prepared to reveal at this time. My reasons will become clear inside an international leading Masonic magazine who are covering my transition from UGLE to another Grand Lodge.
> 
> "Clandestine?" As May West once stated; 'frankly my dear I don't give a damn'


1.  Ruler. As I remember, you were a Master who felt unable to complete his term. I would not place great emphasis on  having been a "ruler."

2.   Clearly you do care, as shown by this and your many other posts on the subject.

3.   To be clear, I have no problems with people joining unrecognized grand lodges.  Regular Freemasonry is not a good fit for everyone. Indeed, not every regular lodge is a good fit for every regular Mason.


----------



## Joe Ellis (Mar 26, 2016)

Glen Cook said:


> Yes, that's what I said. I could clarify that most regular GLs consider co-ed GLs clandestine, off limits, and a big No-No.
> 
> 1.  Ruler. As I remember, you were a Master who felt unable to complete his term. I would not place great emphasis on  having been a "ruler."
> 
> ...



Dear. Dear Dear....typical UGLE response...!


----------



## MRichard (Mar 26, 2016)

Joe Ellis said:


> Dear. Dear Dear....typical UGLE response...!



Maybe but he made some valid points. You would have probably agreed with them in the past.


----------



## Joe Ellis (Mar 26, 2016)

Joe Ellis said:


> Clandestine





MRichard said:


> Maybe but he made some valid points. You would have probably agreed with them in the past.



I never agreed with them in the past MRichard, but comments like that are generally from those that end with the letters UGLE in their 'sig line'. Live  and let live as my late father used to say.


----------



## Glen Cook (Mar 26, 2016)

Joe Ellis said:


> Dear. Dear Dear....typical UGLE response...!


So, specifically, which parts do you believe are in error?  Are you saying you did complete the office? Are you saying I should have a problem with Co-masonry?


----------



## Glen Cook (Mar 26, 2016)

Joe Ellis said:


> I never agreed with them in the past MRichard, but comments like that are generally from those that end with the letters UGLE in their 'sig line'. Live  and let live as my late father used to say.


Ahh, but that is one of the problems I see in your posts. You can leave UGLE, but you cannot leave it alone. Thus, the biased attacks against the system, rather than explaining specifically perceive errors in others arguments.  Simply saying that one is wrong because one belongs to UGLE is not persuasive.


----------



## MRichard (Mar 26, 2016)

Joe Ellis said:


> I never agreed with them in the past MRichard, but comments like that are generally from those that end with the letters UGLE in their 'sig line'. Live  and let live as my late father used to say.



Yeah but that used to be you whether you had those letters in your sig line or not. You were a representative of the UGLE.


----------



## Warrior1256 (Mar 26, 2016)

Joe Ellis said:


> As May West once stated; 'frankly my dear I don't give a damn'


Actually, that was the character Rhett Butler in "Gone With the Wind".


----------



## Joe Ellis (Mar 26, 2016)

Warrior1256 said:


> Actually, that was the character Rhett Butler in "Gone With the Wind".



Oh yes....should have been 'if you got them, flaunt them'


----------



## Joe Ellis (Mar 26, 2016)

Glen Cook said:


> Ahh, but that is one of the problems I see in your posts. You can leave UGLE, but you cannot leave it alone. Thus, the biased attacks against the system, rather than explaining specifically perceive errors in others arguments.  Simply saying that one is wrong because one belongs to UGLE is not persuasive.



Hmmmmm, my mind postively boggles...!


----------



## Joe Ellis (Mar 26, 2016)

Glen Cook said:


> So, specifically, which parts do you believe are in error?  Are you saying you did complete the office? Are you saying I should have a problem with Co-masonry?



.


----------



## Warrior1256 (Mar 26, 2016)

On this subject my feeling is "To each his own". If someone wants to belong to a clandestine co-mason lodge I have no problem with it, more power to them. But don't try to tell me that regular Masonry is wrong because it does not admit women. One of the main reasons that I joined was that it is a fraternity. If regular Masonry ever decided that it was going to admit women I would demit.


----------



## Joe Ellis (Mar 26, 2016)

Warrior1256 said:


> On this subject my feeling is "To each his own". If someone wants to belong to a clandestine co-mason lodge I have no problem with it, more power to them. But don't try to tell me that regular Masonry is wrong because it does not admit women. One of the main reasons that I joined was that it is a fraternity. If regular Masonry ever decided that it was going to admit women I would demit.



Each to their own. I  'demit' from UGLE. Enjoying freemasonry now more the ever


----------



## MRichard (Mar 26, 2016)

Joe Ellis said:


> My reasons will become clear inside an international leading Masonic magazine who are covering my transition from UGLE to another Grand Lodge



Well, let us know when the magazine publishes the article. Enquiring minds want to know.


----------



## Joe Ellis (Mar 26, 2016)

MRichard said:


> Well, let us know when the magazine publishes the article. Enquiring minds want to know.



Will provide a link to the editorial and photos once published


----------



## Warrior1256 (Mar 26, 2016)

Joe Ellis said:


> Each to their own. I  'demit' from UGLE. Enjoying freemasonry now more the ever


Very good.


----------



## Rob_Eades (May 6, 2016)

Well said Brother Joe, I'm not understanding what part of FRATERNITY these folks don't understand!  If you are Initiated, Passes, and Raised in a Just and Legally Constituted Lodge, you can visit any Just and Legally Constituted Lodge in the World.  BUT, if you're greeted at the door by Brother Lisa you are not in a Just and Legally Constituted Lodge, so please don't attempt to discuss Masonry with a Regular Freemason!


----------



## Joe Ellis (May 7, 2016)

Rob_Eades said:


> Well said Brother Joe, I'm not understanding what part of FRATERNITY these folks don't understand!  If you are Initiated, Passes, and Raised in a Just and Legally Constituted Lodge, you can visit any Just and Legally Constituted Lodge in the World.  BUT, if you're greeted at the door by Brother Lisa you are not in a Just and Legally Constituted Lodge, so please don't attempt to discuss Masonry with a Regular Freemason!


.


----------



## Ripcord22A (May 7, 2016)

Rob_Eades said:


> Well said Brother Joe, I'm not understanding what part of FRATERNITY these folks don't understand!  If you are Initiated, Passes, and Raised in a Just and Legally Constituted Lodge, you can visit any Just and Legally Constituted Lodge in the World.  BUT, if you're greeted at the door by Brother Lisa you are not in a Just and Legally Constituted Lodge, so please don't attempt to discuss Masonry with a Regular Freemason!


Its funny that you made that particular post directed at him as he has demitted from his lodge under the UGLE and is now a member of an irregular lodge.....

Sent from my LG-H811 using My Freemasonry Pro mobile app


----------



## Warrior1256 (May 13, 2016)

Rob_Eades said:


> BUT, if you're greeted at the door by Brother Lisa you are not in a Just and Legally Constituted Lodge, so please don't attempt to discuss Masonry with a Regular Freemason!


Exactly!


----------



## tldubb (May 13, 2016)

" Brother Lisa ", I have to use that!!


Sent from my iPhone using My Freemasonry Pro


----------



## Warrior1256 (May 14, 2016)

tldubb said:


> " Brother Lisa ", I have to use that!!
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using My Freemasonry Pro


Yeah, it was pretty funny!


----------



## acjohnson53 (May 22, 2016)

Is there a reason Texas has all these unchartered Lodges????


----------



## Glen Cook (May 22, 2016)

acjohnson53 said:


> Is there a reason Texas has all these unchartered Lodges????


Well, they may be chartered, just not by a regular GL. 
To your point, I don't know if there are more clandestine lodges in all of TX than in just Chicago


----------



## MRichard (May 23, 2016)

acjohnson53 said:


> Is there a reason Texas has all these unchartered Lodges????



Pretty sure they are quite a few in California as well. New York  & Illinois too.


----------



## dfreybur (May 23, 2016)

acjohnson53 said:


> Is there a reason Texas has all these unchartered Lodges????



The MyFreeMasonry was founded as MasonsOfTexas.  It's not that Texas has more clandestine activity.  It's just that activities in Texas get more attention here for that reasons that are historical to this particular board.


----------



## acjohnson53 (May 23, 2016)

not hating on what y'all do, just curious


----------



## Bro. Landry (Jun 22, 2016)

Warrior1256 said:


> I am a new MM, having been raised last August, but I am still amazed when I hear of how many clandestine lodges there are out there.


I'm in the same shoes. My CT and just had this convo after I came across this post after recently joining. I am truly amazed! I guess that's one reason we were given a new name.....


----------



## Bloke (Jun 22, 2016)

Warrior1256 said:


> Yeah, it was pretty funny!



Not if you're brother Lisa  If that's the case, *we're* the funny ones


----------



## Warrior1256 (Jun 24, 2016)

Bloke said:


> Not if you're brother Lisa  If that's the case, *we're* the funny ones


Lol!


----------



## Capricornguy (Oct 30, 2020)

United Most Worshipful Scottish Rite Grand Lodge, Inc. (TX) - I ran into a "clandestine" mason from this lodge at work in our building. 

I was an FC at the time at a lodge under the GLofTX. I didn't know any better and asked him what lodge he was in because he wore....pretty much everything you could think of that was masonic.

rings,sports necklaces, jackets, shoes, hates etc. You name it. At his lodge he was a 32nd degree scottish rite mason. Talked to me about the benefits of being a mason. Showed me his Dues card. Conversation came up. I forgot what exactly was said but it was something along the lines of "oh yeah my mentor mentioned the scottish rite down the street was the first here". He snapped back saying "No WE were the first." Conversation ended. Went to work on the craft with my mentor and he looked up the lodge.

Low and behold it was small lodge that wasn't in the book of lodges under GLofTX, and I was instructed not to talk to him about masonic stuff, also that doesn't mean he's not a "mason" just not a mason under the GLofTX.

What's interesting to me is that lodges like these exist, and I wonder why they do.


----------



## Glen Cook (Oct 30, 2020)

Capricornguy said:


> United Most Worshipful Scottish Rite Grand Lodge, Inc. (TX) - I ran into a "clandestine" mason from this lodge at work in our building.
> 
> I was an FC at the time at a lodge under the GLofTX. I didn't know any better and asked him what lodge he was in because he wore....pretty much everything you could think of that was masonic.
> 
> ...


In my experience, there are a variety of reasons:

They just didn't know any better. 
Regular Freemasonry didn't offer the companionship and/or community service they were looking for.
They couldn't be admitted to regular Freemasonry in that jurisdiction because of felony convictions.
They have a family relationship in that obedience.  
They want Masonic rank, which can often be bought.
They don't want to give up the masonic rank they have. 
They got mad and left regular Freemasonry.
They got mad and left the prior irregular obedience.
They just don't care.


----------



## Bill Lins (Oct 31, 2020)

Glen Cook said:


> In my experience, there are a variety of reasons:
> 
> They just didn't know any better.
> Regular Freemasonry didn't offer the companionship and/or community service they were looking for.
> ...


OR they got expelled from regular (or other) obedience.


----------



## Glen Cook (Oct 31, 2020)

Bill Lins said:


> OR they got expelled from regular (or other) obedience.


That too. I can think of a specific individual who did so.


----------



## Brother JC (Oct 31, 2020)

“Just start my own dern grand lodge. Charge ‘em by the head and have my house paid off in no time!”


----------



## Winter (Nov 2, 2020)

Any Futurama fans here?


----------



## Glen Cook (Nov 2, 2020)

Winter said:


> Any Futurama fans here?
> View attachment 6795


No need when you have Jesters and the Q.


----------



## Winter (Nov 3, 2020)

Glen Cook said:


> No need when you have Jesters and the Q.


I've heard stories but I've never lived where those two groups were up to their shenanigans. But I saw Shriners cavorting in the hotel in the 80s making assess of themselves. I didn't become a Mason till later but their unMasonic behavior always stuck with me.  

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## Capricornguy (Nov 3, 2020)

Winter said:


> Any Futurama fans here?
> View attachment 6795


Is that an actual episode?


----------



## Winter (Nov 3, 2020)

Capricornguy said:


> Is that an actual episode?



It was actually a theme park.

https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/im-going-to-build-my-own-theme-park-with-blackjack-and-hookers


----------



## Brother JC (Nov 7, 2020)

Glen Cook said:


> No need when you have Jesters and the Q.



Jesters I’m familiar with but I don’t recognize the Q...


----------



## Winter (Nov 7, 2020)

The Order of Quetzalcoatl.

https://enacademic.com/dic.nsf/enwiki/5972289


----------

