Three regular Lodges, not Grand Lodges. Edited the prior post. Apologies.And those three regular GLs are ?
I'm just getting other brother opinions. I've never heard of a GL not using dues cards
It's not clear to me how many lodges formed GL of ND. See http://www.ndmasons.com/history-of-the-grand-lodge/
@LAMason
Just noticed the following section the other day. So I assume that you have issues with the 3 Grand Lodges that were formed with just two lodges and the Grand Lodge of New Jersey as well. Does your grand lodge recognize them? Checking for consistency.
http://bessel.org/masrec/phaugle.htm
COMMENT ON PRINCE HALL MASONRY
3. By the standards of today, the formation of the Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Massachusetts was irregular. In the 18th Century, however, three Grand Lodges in North America were formed by not three but two Lodges, and the Grand Lodge of New Jersey was formed simply by a Grand Convention of Masons. By standards then prevailing, the formation of the Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Massachusetts could have been seen as merely eccentric, and of acceptable regularity.
There is no precedent where a Constituent Lodge Chartered Lodges in two other American Colonies/States and then joined with them to form a Grand Lodge. If a Lodge charters other lodges without authority it becomes an irregular Lodge and the Lodges it charters are irregular, so you had three irregular Lodges forming a Grand Lodge so the formation was irregular. If a Grand Lodge wants to consider that "as merely eccentric" that is is there prerogative, but their decision does not obligate other Grand Lodges to do so. Just because something "could have" does not mean that it would have or should have.
It is obvious that you take this issue personally and are angry about it. I do not take it personally and I am not angry about it. It was not my intention to upset you by stating the conclusion I have drawn from the facts based on my research since 2009. You are certainly entitled to come to whatever conclusion you wish but that does not mean that I have to agree with you.
Angry? Lol. You used that same link to support your arguments but you want to pick and choose what quotes to use. So I did what you did and your arguments are looking weaker and weaker. You cite precedence and yet ignore it when convenient.
I could venture to speculate why you have chosen to make such a big deal out of this but I really don't need to.
Give me another example where three irregular lodges formed a Grand Lodge.
Don't need to. I just gave you examples of grand lodges being formed without three regular lodges which you apparently have no problem with. Grand Lodge of New Jersey was formed by convention. Again no problem with that. Talk about an irregular formation but I bet the Grand Lodge of Louisiana recognizes them.
The Grand Lodges formed by 2 lodges were formed by 2 regular lodges. There were more than 3 regular lodges represented at the New Jersey convention.
If you want to consider those to be similar to a Grand Lodge being formed by 3 irregular lodges that is up to you but I do not have come to the same conclusion.
Let me ask you a simple question. Does your grand lodge have a particular stance on the PHA grand lodge in your state? Clandestine, irregular, or regular but not recognized. If not what is your position?
So does the Grand Lodge of Louisiana recognize any of the aforementioned grand lodges I mentioned above. Yes or no.
Yes. However, as I have pointed out I see a difference between a Grand Lodge being formed by "regular" lodges as opposed to being formed by "irregular" lodges, which is the same position that the UGLE took as late as 1988, and yes I know that they reversed their position in 1994 and decided to choose to ignore the irregular formation of Prince Hall Grand Lodge.