Talk:Regular Masonic jurisdiction

message: I am confused by this Article... what is it really about?  The title says "Regular Masonic Jurisdictions", but no where does it define what "regular" means. In fact, the Intro, and the sections on Minnesota and Prince Hall discuss "recongnition" more than "Regularity".  These two terms are not quite the same.  The section on Continental Europe and France does not discuss regularity or recognition at all. Why is it in the Article (as written)? I really think we need to do a major re-write.
I would propose the following outline:
*Start with a definition of the words "jurisdiction" and "regular" (as opposed to irregular).  Discuss the difference and similarity between "regularity" and "recognition" (you can use the current UGLE v. RGLE as an exampe) and how one will effect the other.  
*Discuss why recognition issues are important, and why consensus between GLs is needed (for example, if you were visiting a lodge in another juresdition, you need to know that everyone else in the room comes from a lodge or jurisdiction that your GL recognizes.)
*Include the fact that until recently most Grand Lodges held to the idea of "Exclusive Jurisdiction" (ie there can be only one recognized Grand Lodge in any given jurisdition.) and how this is changing.
*Use Prince Hall as an example of a "Regular" jurisdiction that was not "Recognized" and then discuss how this has recently changed (except in the southern states)
*Discuss the issue of Minnesota as an example of how recognition does not always meet with agreement (point out that Minnesota considered GLF to be "regular" but most other GLs did not agree, and so either withdrew recognition from Minnesota or threatened to do so until Minnesota dropped the idea)
*Discuss the Situation in France in more detail (Grand Orient, GLF, GLNdF) and how this complicates things in Europe.
Any thoughts?  Blueboar 16:18, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Along with a major rewrite, I think we need to move it to another title. "Freemasonry and Regularity", maybe? You seem to have a pretty good grasp on what needs to be done here: looking forward to the results.--SarekOfVulcan 17:34, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is clearly an artiicle whose purpose is to justify the GLF, and as such, it's not NPOV.  For example, the last five paragraphs do nothing but justify how GLF is supposedly regular, although no one else recognizes them.  That pretty much needs to go entirely, as it does nothing wrt the title of the article.  I would also point out that only some Southern states do not recognize PH, but furthermore, PH does have an exclusive jurisdiction clause. MSJapan 04:59, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

text: "*Include the fact that until recently most Grand Lodges held to the idea of "Exclusive Jurisdiction" (ie there can be only one recognized Grand Lodge in any given jurisdition.) and how this is changing."  Actually, Exclusive Jurisdiction is POSSIBLY an America Centric concept, as, for example, there are multiple GL's in Germany, and, in fact, while many American GL's claim to follow the American Doctrine of Exclusive Territorial Jurisdiction, in the issues with the GLdF and GLNF, a number of American GL's recognised both at the same time.  See Paul Bessel's page on French Recognition.  Regularity references could also cite from his page as well, as I found his work to be fairly neutral.  --Vidkun 14:18, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Old talk

message: I'm uncomfortable with:
The exceptions to these new recognitions are in the states of the former confederacy, where the mainstream Grand Lodges generally do not recognize their Prince Hall counterparts.  Ironically, the Prince Hall Grand Lodges in states where they are recognized, also recognize the Prince Hall Lodges in the old confederacy area.
As it is a bit too much of a broad brush statement.  Is there anything more specific about which southern GLs do not recognise PH and how they deal with mutual recognition of those GLs which do?  ISTR that Texas is one which refuses to recognise that.ALR 08:20, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It changes from time to time (like Texas, actually!), but I've added a link to Paul Bessel's recognition map, and changed the paragraph accordingly. MSJapan 03:25, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, the ironically bit is sort of disingenuous, IMO.  Why WOULDN'T all PHA groups recognize other PHA groups, regardless of where they are lcoated?--Vidkun 14:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I fixed that, but it is true that PHA lodges have regularity issues as well, just like UGLE/RGLE. MSJapan 15:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

text: That would be those issues arising from the National Compact era, when PHA GL's united under a National Grand Lodge, temporarily.  Some of them broke away from the National Compact, reverting to their own independent GL status.  Some Lodges continued to be formed by the Compact, and these are, for the most part, known as PHO not PHA (Prince Hall Origin) and sometimes PHO (Compact).  There are some issues over which group uses AFAM vs which use FAM, which leads to a question among many Masons "Are you four letter or three?".  Bessel has some interesting bits about it on his site, as well as the Phylaxis Society of PHA.--Vidkun (talk) 14:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prince Hall 

message: Since the great schism of 1877 freemasonry is divided in two branches, liberal or irregular freemasonry and the dogmatic or regular type of freemasonry
I noticed this line as part of the recent activity and I'm uncomfortable with the characterisation of Oriental masonry being liberal and anglo-saxon masonry as being dogmatic.  Checking the reference for that it's a lecture by an Oriental mason which uses the description, so essentially it's a self-characterisation.  In this context I see the use of dogmatic as quite pejorative.
At the moment I'm unclear on a more appropriate way to describe it.  Any thoughts?
ALR 20:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's "regular" and "irregular", which are technical terms.  The others are subjective, so we shouldn't use them, because   it's really not as simple as Anglo vs. anything; there are differences within the same countries between the branches. MSJapan 03:28, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Heck, there are differences between GLs within the various branches.  UGLE isn't the same as GLoNY, which is different from GLMA and so on.  It's just that there is more similarity and agreement in the "Anglo" branch.  The differences have never risen to the level where one GL feels they have to declair the other "irregular".  Dogmatic?  Hardly. Blueboar 14:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm in agreement with Jmdavid. It seems to be a point of assertion that continental Freemasonry is 'irregular'. Do members of GOdF describe their own lodges as 'irregular'? If not, then may I suggest we alter the wording to "Since the great schism of 1877 freemasonry is divided in two branches, Continental Freemasonry and Anglo Freemasonry. These two branches are not in mutual regular amity, since Anglo lodges do not consider Continental style lodges to be regular."? WP:NPOV. Fuzzypeg★ 03:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

text: I'd agree, Fuzzy, but for the Anglo issue.  I got roundly beat up (here on wikipedia), a few years back, on the term Anglo being used to describe it.  I got told it was a racist term, both from the US POV, and from Scottish Masons' POV (one of our more vociferous socks, in fact).  So, I don't think Anglo will work.  The definition of regual v irregular cannot work, here, as it's not NPOV.  I've held that opinion all along, and I belong to a "regular" GL!  I'm not sure what term could work, Continental vs English Style?  It's a can of worms waiting.--Vidkun (talk) 14:09, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

text: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Freemasonry/Archive_11 is where the longest discussion of Anglo occurred.--Vidkun (talk) 14:21, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not particularly worried about the term Anglo. I'm happy to let other editors battle over whether that one stays, goes, changes, whatever. I'll just nip over to the article and whip out the "regular" and "irregular" though. Fuzzypeg★ 22:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dogma 

message: "A belief in the Great Architect of the Universe and his revealed will shall be an essential qualification for membership."
I have never understood any sort of belief in so-called "revealed will" to be a qualification for membership. Ever. Svanslyck (talk) 01:39, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Revealed will? Since when?

message: Just FYI, this was removed by another editor, as recognition has apparently been granted:  according to Hodapp's blog, with other outgoing links. MSJapan (talk) 16:20, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kentucky Prince Hall 

message: I think we have to recognise two definitions of regularity.
* The lodge has deacons, and the volume of the sacred law is open while the lodge is in session.
* The lodge is not speaking to the Grand Orient de France, a stance adopted by UGLE and friends. This lumps otherwise regular lodges in with progressive continental style lodges, which is less than helpful. 
This runs to the core of Freemasonry. This might be a useful space to develop a sane nomenclature. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 03:17, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regularity 

message: The tradition definition of exclusive jurisdiction is not "one grand lodge per region". That's an American innovation sometimes called "exclusive territorial jurisdiction". It's "no lodge is subordinate to more than one grand lodge". See: http://bessel.org/exclartl.htm
24.1.126.254 (talk) 00:17, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for that. Can't agree on the "American innovation" bit though. The three original Grand Lodges have always been careful not to tread on each other's turf at home, and we have a letter from the York Grand Lodge of All England in 1767 telling London to back off. There was a bit of a free-for-all in the colonies, where the District GLs of England, Scotland and Ireland pre-date the national Grand Lodges, with France complicating the picture. An attempt to clear it all up at Lausanne in the 1870s led indirectly to the Great Schism. Could have gone better then? Fiddlersmouth (talk) 10:31, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Exclusive jurisdiction 

message: In re the list of Masonic Rites, shouldn't the Swedenborg Rite be added in the list? I am not knowledgeable enough to add it on my own. Just noted that it was missing although Wikipedia does have an entry for it. LAWinans (talk) 15:52, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Masonic Rites