# Who gives GL charters



## mrpierce17 (Aug 18, 2015)

Is every GL of state chartered directly from the UGLE OR GL of Scotland or have some been chartered by way of dispensation from another GL of state


----------



## Companion Joe (Aug 18, 2015)

Most states west of the Appalachians have had their GLs chartered from GLs from the original 13 colonies. (This isn't absolute and 100 percent; I say "for the most part.")

For example, the GL of Tennessee was begat by the GL of North Carolina. In turn, the GL of Tennessee granted life to a few GLs west of us.


----------



## mrpierce17 (Aug 18, 2015)

Ok thanks you have answered my question makes sense


----------



## Glen Cook (Aug 18, 2015)

And some, such as Utah, were not chartered, but founded by three regular lodges.


----------



## BroBook (Aug 18, 2015)

Interesting!!!


----------



## Bill Lins (Aug 19, 2015)

Glen Cook said:


> And some, such as Utah, were not chartered, but founded by three regular lodges.


And the Grand Lodge of Texas.


----------



## MarkR (Aug 19, 2015)

I don't know of any Grand Lodges that were "chartered" by other Grand Lodges.  I could be wrong, but that's not my understanding of how it works.  Lodges receive charters.  In the case of the United States, lodges that had been chartered by England, Ireland, or Scotland, either directly or via Provincial Grand lodges, met and formed state Grand Lodges after the Revolution.  Then, as expansion occurred, these new state Grand Lodges would charter lodges in territories that didn't have a Grand Lodge.  Eventually, there were enough lodges operating in these new territories that they met and formed their own Grand Lodges, surrendering their original charters back to the states that had issued them.

For example, my state of Minnesota had the first three lodges chartered by Illinois, Ohio, and Wisconsin.  Those three lodges met and formed the Grand Lodge of Minnesota and surrendered their original charters back to the respective states, receiving new charters as Lodges 1, 2, and 3 of the new Grand Lodge of Minnesota.  So, the Grand Lodge of Minnesota was not "chartered" by Illinois, Ohio, or Wisconsin; it was created by three lodges that had originally been chartered by those states.


----------



## Pscyclepath (Aug 19, 2015)

Individual lodges in territorial Arkansas were chartered by existing grand lodges, from Kentucky, Tennessee, Louisiana, and Alabama.  Once we had four lodges in the area, they met in Little Rock in November 1838 and formed themselves into the Grand Lodge of Arkansas.  Only two of the original 4 lodges are still active, Washington #1 in Fayetteville, and Western Star #2 in Little Rock.


----------



## Erickson Ybarra (Aug 19, 2015)

Pscyclepath said:


> Individual lodges in territorial Arkansas were chartered by existing grand lodges, from Kentucky, Tennessee, Louisiana, and Alabama.  Once we had four lodges in the area, they met in Little Rock in November 1838 and formed themselves into the Grand Lodge of Arkansas.  Only two of the original 4 lodges are still active, Washington #1 in Fayetteville, and Western Star #2 in Little Rock.



Similar situation in Texas. Three lodges were chartered by the Grand Lodge of Louisiana, which then met under Sam Houston and created the Grand Lodge of the Republic of Texas...later changed to The Grand Lodge of Texas when we gained statehood.


----------



## dfreybur (Aug 19, 2015)

Grand lodges issue charters to lodges, not to grand lodges.  Regular grand lodges do not have *charters* as such.  Grand lodges organize themselves from regular and recognized lodges in their territory and then apply for *recognition* from other grand lodges.  At the formation those lodges surrender their charters to their original jurisdictions and receive new charters from their new grand lodge.

If your grand lodges lists a charter for any reason other than declaring itself a non-profit corporation in its own state *after* having been recognized by other grand lodges, that's a hint its formation was not regular.  It may well have a declaration adopting its initial constitution and bylaws, but calling such a historical document a charter is a tactical error at best, an admission of clandestine origin at worst.


----------



## Brother JC (Aug 19, 2015)

GLNM was founded by three military lodges originally chartered by GLMO. The three met, made the decision, and changed the numbers on the lodges.


----------



## Dontrell Stroman (Aug 19, 2015)

I know there are a lot of clandestine lodges that broke away from Prince Hall, but are there any clandestine lodges that are offshoots of of "mainstream" masonry ? I hate to use mainstream because we are all brothers, but I will use it for the sake of this question.


----------



## Companion Joe (Aug 19, 2015)

Verbiage aside ("chartered" or "approved"), it's safe to say that most state GLs were given the green light by an existing GL to form. If they didn't, most likely they would have never been recognized.

In my example for Tennessee, there were nine lodges west of the Appalachians. My particular lodge was chartered as No. 43 of North Carolina/No. 3 of Tennessee in 1801. (We actually never gave up that charter and still have it in the safe). In 1813, those lodges petitioned the GLofNC for permission to break free and form the GLofT. They didn't just say "This is happening" or something similar. My fourth great grandfather was a member of my lodge and chairman of the committee that got it done. Reps from the GLofNC were on hand at the official formation ceremony in Knoxville to pass the torch, so to speak.

The trickle down later happened when lodges chartered by the GLofT in a couple of other states requested permission to form their own GLs. Whether or not GLs are "chartered," there was some kind of blessing given and a traceable family tree, so to speak.


----------



## Glen Cook (Aug 19, 2015)

Travelling Man91 said:


> I know there are a lot of clandestine lodges that broke away from Prince Hall, but are there any clandestine lodges that are offshoots of of "mainstream" masonry ? I hate to use mainstream because we are all brothers, but I will use it for the sake of this question.


Very few in the U.S.  More common in Europe.


----------



## Glen Cook (Aug 19, 2015)

Re: TN

http://www.grandlodge-tn.org/main/GLTN-page.asp?p=24


And
https://books.google.com/books?id=H...ed jurisdiction grand lodge tennessee&f=false


----------



## Companion Joe (Aug 19, 2015)

Bro. Cook,
I guess you posted those links to back up what I was saying. I earlier said nine lodges, but it was actually eight because by the time of the formation of the GL, Nashville No. 1 had folded.


----------



## Glen Cook (Aug 19, 2015)

I hadn't even noticed the difference in numbers. I was typing and so I couldn't count on my fingers.


----------



## MarkR (Aug 20, 2015)

Travelling Man91 said:


> I know there are a lot of clandestine lodges that broke away from Prince Hall, but are there any clandestine lodges that are offshoots of of "mainstream" masonry ? I hate to use mainstream because we are all brothers, but I will use it for the sake of this question.


Halcyon Lodge in Ohio broke off and became part of the clandestine Grand Orient of the United States.


----------



## dfreybur (Aug 20, 2015)

Travelling Man91 said:


> I hate to use mainstream because we are all brothers, but I will use it for the sake of this question.



Join me in using the unofficial term George Washington.  Also join me in having no interest in making it official.  Of course both branches of our family in this country are mainstream.


----------



## Glen Cook (Aug 20, 2015)

dfreybur said:


> Join me in using the unofficial term George Washington.  Also join me in having no interest in making it official.  Of course both branches of our family in this country are mainstream.


I say CGMNA GLs.


----------



## Bill Lins (Aug 20, 2015)

Or "Grand Lodges of _States" _as opposed to "PHA Grand Lodges".


----------



## MRichard (Aug 20, 2015)

Erickson Ybarra said:


> Similar situation in Texas. Three lodges were chartered by the Grand Lodge of Louisiana, which then met under Sam Houston and created the Grand Lodge of the Republic of Texas...later changed to The Grand Lodge of Texas when we gained statehood.



You are an EA? http://www.myfreemasonry.com/threads/three-lesser-lights.25785/#post-148261 
Someone should have talked to you about using the symbols of the craft until after you were raised. An avatar counts.


----------



## MarkR (Aug 21, 2015)

Bill_Lins77488 said:


> Or "Grand Lodges of _States" _as opposed to "PHA Grand Lodges".


GLOS and PHA.


----------



## Erickson Ybarra (Aug 21, 2015)

MRichard said:


> You are an EA? http://www.myfreemasonry.com/threads/three-lesser-lights.25785/#post-148261
> Someone should have talked to you about using the symbols of the craft until after you were raised. An avatar counts.



You're right. Changed.


----------



## Glen Cook (Aug 21, 2015)

MarkR said:


> GLOS and PHA.


GLoS often is used for Scotlland. State GLs? SGL?


----------



## MarkR (Aug 22, 2015)

Glen Cook said:


> GLoS often is used for Scotlland.


Good point.  I thought it looked familiar!


----------



## Warrior1256 (Oct 18, 2015)

dfreybur said:


> Join me in using the unofficial term George Washington.  Also join me in having no interest in making it official.  Of course both branches of our family in this country are mainstream.


Agreed.


----------



## wwinger (Nov 2, 2015)

dfreybur said:


> Grand lodges issue charters to lodges, not to grand lodges.  Regular grand lodges do not have *charters* as such.  Grand lodges organize themselves from regular and recognized lodges in their territory and then apply for *recognition* from other grand lodges.  At the formation those lodges surrender their charters to their original jurisdictions and receive new charters from their new grand lodge.
> 
> If your grand lodges lists a charter for any reason other than declaring itself a non-profit corporation in its own state *after* having been recognized by other grand lodges, that's a hint its formation was not regular.  It may well have a declaration adopting its initial constitution and bylaws, but calling such a historical document a charter is a tactical error at best, an admission of clandestine origin at worst.


That's my understanding of how it works.


----------



## Glen Cook (Nov 2, 2015)

wwinger said:


> That's my understanding of how it works.


But see, UGLE's statement regarding standards of recognition:

1. Regularity of origin; i.e. each Grand Lodge shall have been established lawfully
by a duly recognised Grand Lodge or by three or more regularly constituted Lodges.


----------



## wwinger (Nov 2, 2015)

Glen Cook said:


> But see, UGLE's statement regarding standards of recognition:
> 
> 1. Regularity of origin; i.e. each Grand Lodge shall have been established lawfully
> by a duly recognised Grand Lodge or by three or more regularly constituted Lodges.



Point taken. Thanks for the info.


----------



## Bloke (Nov 15, 2015)

dfreybur said:


> Grand lodges issue charters to lodges, not to grand lodges.  Regular grand lodges do not have *charters* as such.  *Grand lodges organize themselves from regular and recognized lodges in their territory and then apply for *recognition* from other grand lodges*.  At the formation those lodges surrender their charters to their original jurisdictions and receive new charters from their new grand lodge.



Yep, that's it in a nutshell.


----------



## chrmc (Nov 16, 2015)

And just for info in the US we have a cimmission that actually handle all the recommendations. 
http://www.recognitioncommission.org/


----------



## Glen Cook (Nov 16, 2015)

But see, UGLE's statement regarding standards of recognition:

1. Regularity of origin; i.e. each Grand Lodge shall have been established lawfully
by a duly recognised Grand Lodge or by three or more regularly constituted Lodges.


The recent dispute between the GLs of Russia and Ukraine over the GL of Georgia would be an example of where it is unclear whether it was three Lodges or a GL which established the GL of GA



Bloke said:


> Yep, that's it in a nutshell.


----------



## Glen Cook (Nov 16, 2015)

chrmc said:


> And just for info in the US we have a cimmission that actually handle all the recommendations.
> http://www.recognitioncommission.org/


Just to clarify, the Commission makes recommendation to the members of CGMNA regarding recognition of GLs


----------



## Bloke (Nov 16, 2015)

Glen Cook said:


> But see, UGLE's statement regarding standards of recognition:
> 
> 1. Regularity of origin; i.e. each Grand Lodge shall have been
> Grand Lodge or by three or more regularly constituted Lodges....



Interesting. I googled and got this legit link https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&...aQxA7E&usg=AFQjCNFf8Xtuks5bPIIZVLM13ppXpL8_2g

Thanks to those who pointed the above out...

Mind you, while UGLE is old and venerable, it has no jurisdiction over any other Sovereign GL.... including mine  I wonder if  " established lawfully by a duly recognised" GL was written with District GLs in mind.

Do we have an example of a regular GL charted by another regular GL ? An example would give me a daily advancement in masonic knowledge...

Interestingly, the original GL lodges (like Premier GL England and the Irish GL) would have been formed by lodges considered 'irregular' today.... while the ancients and moderns were not in amity. For me, this still means masons form their own GL then seek recognition if they so choose....


----------



## Glen Cook (Nov 16, 2015)

GL of TN. See http://www.grandlodge-tn.org/main/GLTN-page.asp?p=24


----------



## Bloke (Nov 17, 2015)

JamestheJust said:


> ....The youngest of the 4 lodges of 1717 was 5 years old at that time but it was declared time-immemorial to avoid admitting that it had a charter....



Yep. Love the way people see 1717 as the birth of freemasonry. All it was was the birth of the modern grand lodge system.... which sees GLs by their nature as controlling enties. I also like the way people often miss ugle was founded in 1813 when the schism was resolved ... but do recognise its a direct continuation of the ancients and moderns

On the goldfield in victoria in the 1850's freemasonry was active and growing.... then it was noted it was misram rite (the french one, not sure if i've spelt it correctly). When members discovered it was 'irregular' and what that meant, they just swapped to a recognised GL ( not researched it myself but assume they were reinitiated)

If i was marooned  on a desert island with 500 men, 10 of them masons with little hope of rescue, i'd be making masons as done in "time immemorial"..... if rescued, i'm pretty sure a reasonable GL would take me and my 500 new members in  debating that might make a fun thread


----------



## Bloke (Nov 17, 2015)

Glen Cook said:


> GL of TN. See http://www.grandlodge-tn.org/main/GLTN-page.asp?p=24


And thanks to Glen for that link describing a GL charted by another GL


----------



## chrmc (Nov 17, 2015)

Bloke said:


> And thanks to Glen for that link describing a GL charted by another GL



I'm pretty sure that GLoTX got chartered by the GL of Louisiana. Think that you'll probably see most of the US GLs outside of the East coast being chartered by another GL in the US.


----------



## Glen Cook (Nov 17, 2015)

Bloke said:


> Yep. Love the way people see 1717 as the birth of freemasonry. All it was was the birth of the modern grand lodge system.... which sees GLs by their nature as controlling enties. I also like the way people often miss ugle was founded in 1813 when the schism was resolved ... but do recognise its a direct continuation of the ancients and moderns
> 
> On the goldfield in victoria in the 1850's freemasonry was active and growing.... then it was noted it was misram rite (the french one, not sure if i've spelt it correctly). When members discovered it was 'irregular' and what that meant, they just swapped to a recognised GL ( not researched it myself but assume they were reinitiated)
> 
> If i was marooned  on a desert island with 500 men, 10 of them masons with little hope of rescue, i'd be making masons as done in "time immemorial"..... if rescued, i'm pretty sure a reasonable GL would take me and my 500 new members in  debating that might make a fun thread


I guess I'm not reasonable. I had the opportunity to bring a clandestine lodge of Masons into my mother GL.  I explained to them the petition process


----------



## Glen Cook (Nov 17, 2015)

chrmc said:


> I'm pretty sure that GLoTX got chartered by the GL of Louisiana. Think that you'll probably see most of the US GLs outside of the East coast being chartered by another GL in the US.



The individual TX lodges were chartered out of LA. The lodges then formed their own GL. 

My impression is that most GLs off the East Coast were not formed by another GL, though I admit I have not counted either. See the links at https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Masonic_Grand_Lodges_in_North_America


----------



## dfreybur (Nov 17, 2015)

Glen Cook said:


> The individual TX lodges were chartered out of LA. The lodges then formed their own GL.
> 
> My impression is that most GLs off the East Coast were not formed by another GL, though I admit I have not counted either. See the links at https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Masonic_Grand_Lodges_in_North_America



Here's the link on the GLofTX web site - http://grandlodgeoftexas.org/content/masonic-oak

_"Here on a day in March 1835 Brothers Anson Jones, John A. Wharton, Asa Brigham, J.A.E. Phelps, Alex Russell and J. P. Caldwell met and resolved to petition the Grand Lodge of Louisiana for a dispensation to form a Lodge of Freemasons.  Their prayer was granted and Holland Lodge began work.  Lodges were later formed at Nacogdoches and San Augustine, and on December 20th, 1837, these three Lodges created the Grand Lodge of the Republic of Texas with M.W. Anson Jones as the first Grand Master of Masons in Texas."_

So Texas followed the usual pattern of being organized by 3+ regular lodges declaring their sovereignty.  In the case of Texas all of the founding lodges were from the same jurisdiction so Louisiana is very much our parent jurisdiction.

When I read about Illinois both GLs seem to come from Pennsylvania only - http://go.masonicconnections.com/Site/GrandLodgeIllinois/Information/IllinoisMasonry.aspx

GL of  California's 3 founding lodges apparently held charters from DC, MO and CT - http://beaconofmasoniclight.blogspot.com/2007/12/masonic-history-of-grand-lodge-of.html


----------



## Bloke (Nov 17, 2015)

MRichard said:


> Someone should have talked to you about using the symbols of the craft until after you were raised. An avatar counts.


Interesting.... i didnt see the avatar, but there are no rules here about  that stuff. Obviously you should not hold yourself out as what you are not though. I was going to take this to a new thread but you might not see it... I'd be interested in understanding what this bro did that was "wrong". Obviously about a local law or convention ?


----------



## Bloke (Nov 17, 2015)

JamestheJust said:


> While those lodges are considered irregular today, at the time they were regular.



You know, that's a key concept in this discussion - the concept of 'regularity' evolved, especially the 1700's and i guess especially after UGLE was formed in 1813.


----------



## MRichard (Nov 17, 2015)

Bloke said:


> Interesting.... i didnt see the avatar, but there are no rules here about  that stuff. Obviously you should not hold yourself out as what you are not though. I was going to take this to a new thread but you might not see it... I'd be interested in understanding what this bro did that was "wrong". Obviously about a local law or convention ?



It is accepted custom here that only master masons use the symbols of craft. I believe he was an EA at the time. He changed it so it was not an issue.


----------



## Bloke (Nov 17, 2015)

MRichard said:


> It is accepted custom here that only master masons use the symbols of craft. I believe he was an EA at the time. He changed it so it was not an issue.



"Here" as in the forum or 'here' as in your jurisdiction ?


----------



## MRichard (Nov 17, 2015)

Bloke said:


> "Here" as in the forum or 'here' as in your jurisdiction ?



Jurisdiction


----------



## Bloke (Nov 17, 2015)

Thank you for the clarification. Here EAs are presented with a S&C pin and other goodies on the night of initiation. They put the pin on immediately and are encourgaged to wear it in public.


----------



## chrmc (Nov 17, 2015)

Glen Cook said:


> The individual TX lodges were chartered out of LA. The lodges then formed their own GL.



You are correct. A small, but important difference.


----------



## MarkR (Nov 18, 2015)

chrmc said:


> You are correct. A small, but important difference.


Yep.  GL of Minnesota was formed by three lodges that had originally been chartered by Ohio, Illinois, and Wisconsin.  So the original three weren't even chartered by the same GL.


----------



## Glen Cook (Nov 18, 2015)

MarkR said:


> Yep.  GL of Minnesota was formed by three lodges that had originally been chartered by Ohio, Illinois, and Wisconsin.  So the original three weren't even chartered by the same GL.


Nor were they in Utah


----------

