Talk:Grand Lodge

message: This was a perfectly good article up to 2005 August 12 when someone appended a massive copy and paste from the RGLE website. I have recovered the non-copyvio stuff. -- RHaworth 07:50, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [Untitled]

message: The statement:  "Furthermore, any Grand Lodge not recognized by the United Grand Lodge of England (UGLE) is also not recognized by any Lodge in amity with UGLE."  is factually incorrect, as can be shown in many of the cases of US GL's and which South American GL's they recognize, which AREN'T recognized by UGLE.  While, yes, the original definitions of Freemasonry are essentially derived from UGLE, GLoS, and GLoI, UGLE does not get to define to other GL's who they may or may not recognize.  Sure, UGLE may choose to de-recognize certain GL's, and it has, but it is NOT doing so for ALL GL's which recognize GL's UGLE does not.--Vidkun 19:08, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Grye, I would love to see the official policy statement.  I'm not arguing that it doesn't exist, I'm just curious as heck to see it, especially in light of the fact that reality and policy don't match--Vidkun 12:38, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I'll go with the irregular bit . . . although, for a while, UGLE considered PHA Lodges to be Irregular, and nothing changed between irregularity and regularity, on the part of the PH lodges.  It's that whole piece of blah about the difference between regular and Recognised.  It's not so much a matter of keeping you level, it's just that I have felt, for a while, that the GL politics games were "Don't tick off UGLE", and that everyone should follow the "English lead" . . . while England is indeed the source of most of our Masonic traditions, a number of them have changed, back and forth, both in England and in Lodges derivative thereof.  There are those who say "One Day Classes" are an innovation, and GL's doing them should be de-Recognised, and there are those who say that to question a GM's edicts (about, say, one day classes) is unMasonic conduct.  The landmarks do change, and have (Vermont being a case I have pointed out already), and sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worse.  Hop over to my talk page, give me some comments about my GL of Mass history section I am working on. --Vidkun 20:11, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  UGLE and mutual recognition 

message: Kent Henderson's definition: pg 21, Masonic World Guide</i> 1984 edition:  "There are two main types of masonic government - the Grand Lodge and the Grand Orient.  Both have their similarities, and their differences . . . "  pg 23 "The Grand Orient.  This form of masonic government possesses many inherent differences to Grand Lodge-type structures.  A Grand Orient can in many ways be termed as a "substitute" for a Grand Lodge.  It is of French origin, and is in effect, a masonic oligarchy.  The term means Grand East - the east being only part of the lodge.  This terminology is most definitive, as a Grand Orient is usually comprised of a Grand Master and a council.  The Grand Master is always appointed by the council, and the council has the sole power to appoint any member to it, with the result being that it is entirely a self-perpetuating body.  The net result of this Grand system is that it excludes the effective voice of far more than it includes.  The oridinary mason, therefore, has no say whatsoever in Masonic government under a Garnd Orient.  This system, not surprisingly, has historically faced many challenges from within and without.  In terms of regular masonry, those jurisdictions using a Grand Orient system have seen it modified to make it more democratic and representative.
Grand Orients and Supreme Councils.  The prevalent feature of many Grand Orients is that they have often come to be controlled by a Scottish Rite Supreme Council.  This type of masonic body is also a masonic oligarchy, even in Britain and America, although this is not the point of issue here.  Of course, as was explained in the last chapter, such an occurrence is regarded by regular Grand Lodges as being a gross irregularity.  However, there are some Grand Orients wherein this Supreme Council control has not occurred."--Vidkun 20:32, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I would therefore call your attention to what caused the irregularity of the majority of French lodges, which were also based on the French system, and that was the absence of a VSL.  The impression I get is that Henderson assumes the reader knows the difference in systems inherently, which is assuming too much.  Anyhow, the structures are obviously substantially different in practice, so discussion continued below. MSJapan 05:51, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grand Orient definition 

message: The above, especially def of GO, would seem to indicate the title of this article should either:
#remain GL & another named GO be made,
#Changed to "Masonic Government" or somesuch
#put into Freemasonry#Organisational structure.
Freemasonry#Organisational structure already has more actual fact & informative information than this article. Why's it here at all? If it's not cleaned up fast, I'll  propose it for disambiguation Grye 20:49, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Beats me.  I was rather surprised (back when) to see a seperate page for Grand Lodge.  I do believe there is value in a discussion of the two, in a shortened form, in the Freemasonry#Organisational structure section.--Vidkun 20:56, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

text: It shouldn't have more.  I guess we need to port the majority of the Freemasonry article info here, and then shorten the section in the main article to summarize.  We could solve a lot of the trouble that way.  Furthermore, the Orient system does not figure into the majority of Freemasonry (which is what Freemasonry is supposed to be about), so it should probably just get a short mention and a separate article. MSJapan 05:55, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Working on MSJapan's note, it could be ported over here, & worked on, double-checked for content conflict, & then it can stay here or go back there? I'm reluctant to move said content from the main article, but it is a long one, & that is how growth & splits work... So I vote 1000% for something like that. Grye 06:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Any new thoughts on this? My only real concern is that on the main page, it will be watched much more closely. I've (we all have) experienced  articles like this becomming ranting platforms  & very inconsistant, I feel due to Freemasonry's diligant watch & these sub-article's lack thereof. Other than that, I agree completely with all sentiments expressed here. Is there some way to make it distinctly part of the Freemasonry article, but still have it's actual page here? Grye 01:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  name this article contest 

message: I have double checked the fact that UGLE recognizes the Grand Orient of Brazil (one of the 23 Grand Orients in that country!)... it does. A check of their web site here turned up this Q&A ... I don't speak Brazilian portugese, but even I can tell what this section means:
*Para ser Maçom é necessário renunciar à religião a qual se pertence?
*- Não, porque a Maçonaria abriga em seu seio homens de qualquer religião, desde que acreditem em um só Criador, o GRANDE ARQUITETO DO UNIVERSO, que é Deus. Geralmente existe essa crença entre os católicos, mas ilustres prelados tem pertencido à Ordem Maçônica; entre outros, o Cura Hidalgo, Paladino da Liberdade Mexicana; o Padre Calvo, fundador da Maçonaria na América Central; o Arcebispo da Venezuela, Don Ramon Ignácio Mendez; Padre Diogo Antonio Feijó; Cônegos Luiz Vieira, José da Silva de Oliveira Rolin, da Inconfidência Mineira, Frei Miguelino, Frei Caneca e muitos outros.
I hope this clear up any questions about there being at least one Grand Orient that is not Atheistic.  I suppose that this is one of the few exceptions to the rule. Blueboar 13:54, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grand Orients that are not Atheistic 

message: Someone (editing under several annon IPs) seems insistant that we inclued a reference to the Grand Orient De Cannan in this article.  I have been deleting this reference on the grounds that this article does not (and in my mind, should not) go into every individual Grand Lodge and Grand Orient.  One reason for this is that, if we start discussing individual GLs and GOs, we are going to have to get into petty jurisdictional issues that will detract from the article (for example in addition to this GO de Cannan, there is also the District Grand Lodge of Syria and Lebanon which opperates under the jurisdiction of the Grand Lodge of NY... if we mention one, we would have to mention both). Blueboar 18:34, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orient De Cannan  

message: A thought... Freemasonry may be the most prominent organization to use the term "Grand Lodge"... but it isn't the only organization to do so.  The term is used by the Oddfellows, Elks, and dozens of other fraternal orders.  I am wondering whether we ought to create a (short) overview article on the generalized topic of "Grand Lodge", and re-title this (Masonic specific) article to something like Grand Lodge (Freemasonry) as a sub-article. Blueboar (talk) 13:13, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, IIRC, they're all derivative of the Masonic model, so I'd imagine giving them a subsection here would work just as well as trying to break out a new article.  All we will see is a difference in officer titles, perhaps, but I would imagine the duties and such are the same.  MSJapan (talk) 18:23, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Are we being "Masono-centric"? 

message: GLs don't get created from a vacuum, but it occurs to me that we are not addressing formation of a GL in here, and there should be documented process someplace we can use. MSJapan (talk) 06:55, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The best we can hope for, IMO, is to give examples of how a number of GLs (beside the three home GLs) formed, as well as possibly a statement from a few different GLs on what they consider to be their standards for recognitions, which usually include something about regularity of origin.  We have the issue in the US of some GLs having started from 3 Lodges meeting in convention, at least one formed by a general convention of Masons, and then, of course, the two colonial charters in Massachusetts and Pennsylvania.--Vidkun (talk) 19:34, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  We're missing something.... 

message: olivet commander sword 2600:1700:D4C4:7410:C9BB:7A4A:3FF1:FCDA (talk) 20:08, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  can I get a phone # to talk to somebody from Lynn, Mass.