Talk:Grand Lodge/Archive 1

Archive 1

[Untitled]

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)

Orient

It is EXTREMELY POV to state that Grand Orients are ALL atheist, or that the defintion of GO is a GL that is atheist. Grand Orient actually refers to a type of governance, usually one where the GM is appointed by a Council, and the Council appoints its own members, thus creating a self perpetutaiing oligarchy (source: Kent Henderson's Masonic World Guide, Lewsi Masonic, 1984, pg 23. This is, ironically, very similar to how the GL of Massachusetts gets its Grand Officers, as they are nominated BY the permanent members of GL, and, though voted on by the represented Lodges and sitting members of GL, a clear favourite is known beforehand. The "loser" in such an election is encouraged that, were he to be nominated the next year, he would do well in the election. --Vidkun 14:03, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

It is NPOV to state Grand Orients are all atheist, if it is true. To prove POV you must cite one or more Grand Orients for which it is not true - then alter the statement. Millennium Sentinel 15:05, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Grand Orient of Brazil, currently in amity with UGLE. I highly DOUBT UGLE would currently recognise a Grand Body that does not use a VSL, or was Atheist.--Vidkun 19:00, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Vidkun, I just tried to clean up the POV a bit -- how's it read to you now?--SarekOfVulcan 17:15, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I concur with SarekOfVulcan’s edits of the main page article Grand Lodge from 17:07, 23 December 2005 to 17:18, 23 December 2005 Millennium Sentinel 17:28, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, we're just going to need to remove "Orient" entirely from the article, then. AFAIK, every jurisdiction that has an Orient as opposed to a Lodge does not have VSL present. Are there any exceptions that would make the statement not a fact? MSJapan 17:43, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I was just wondering that. As far as I know, the [only?] use of Orient in the USA is for Scottish Rite bodies. Take it out. Grye 08:41, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Grye, the only use for Orient in the US being in AASR has nothing to do with the fact that there are Grand Orients, some of which are NOT atheist. A Grand Orient IS an actual Grand Lodge level body, and the term Orient should stay in the article. In his book, Masonic World Guide Kent Henderson gives the definition of Grand Orient. If the users here want to ignore it, and state that all Grand Orients are atheist, and that being atheist is THE defining item for a GO, well, I don't need to name that walking, talking, quacking item, do I?--Vidkun 19:00, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

From a cursory search, the Grand Orients I found make no claims regarding Deity at all in their Landmarks. So, at least on the surface, the claim is correct (I haven't actually heard the term used with respect to AASR, though - that's quite interesting). Atheism may not the be THE defining term, but it's a big and obvious one. However, if you could cite an example showing that there are at least some GOs that follow the VSL rules, we can certainly change it. However, there is also a legitimate point of contention that the GL is not necessarily the same as the GO (otherwise, why not call it a GL?), so the Henderson definition would be very useful if you could c/p it under a new discussion topic. MSJapan 18:56, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I was thinking more along the lines of "an Orient is an Orient. A Grand Lodge is a Grand Lodge. What's all the talk about SR & GOs doing on this page, "Grand Lodge". A dog is much like a wolf, & an GO may be much like a GL, but they are distinct of eachother. But whatevs..;-) Grye 06:46, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

In the AASR in the Southern Jurisdiction of the US (clearing up the AASR and GO issue, sort of) the local body (that has all four bodies under it - Lodge, Chapter, Council, Consistory) is called a Valley. The next larger body, or location (sometimes) is called the Orient. For example, I am a member of the Valley of Washington in the Orient of the District of Columbia. In the NMJ, it may be similar, thus, Valley of Boston, Orient of Massachusetts. Not sure.--Vidkun 20:30, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

It's all Valley in MA, and we don't have anything above that besides the Supreme HQ in Lexington. However, Freemasonry for Dummies explains the difference between a GO and a GL. I'll summarize it when I get a chance later today. MSJapan 15:00, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Is it similar to what Henderson refers to, ie. the oligarchical structure?--Vidkun 15:17, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

The structure is part of it, but there's more. Paraphrase from p. 114 of Freemasons for Dummies (as a note, I may be able to get usage on this, as I can contact the author):

• A Grand Orient considers itself to be a federation of lodges (thus ritual can vary)
• comprised of GM and GM-appointed council. The council appoints the GM, so it is self-perpetuating.

Apparently, those are the only differences. However, the Orient of France in particular violates the Landmarks thusly:

• No required belief in Supreme Being
• No VSL
• Members can visit co-ed or female lodges
• It has constituted lodges in jurisdictions where another GL already operates.

That should answer both major questions we've had so far. MSJapan 23:38, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

UGLE and mutual recognition

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)

It is their absolute official policy to do as the quote states, but you are right Vidkun, they often do not. Change it, especially after a statement like that on the discussion page! Grye 06:41, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

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)

Here's a link to UGLE's Constitutions, But I didn't see a reference specifically to "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." in scanning quickly (an hour).

Actually, you are right, I think. My understanding, from what I've read somewhere from their publications, is that: When UGLE holds a Lodge as irregular, etc any other Lodge that specifically recognizes that irregular Lodge is also deemed irregular. BUT... Again, It seems weeks away from being citable (by me). With that, I'll strike out until then...;~) Thanks for keeping me level, V. PS sorry about the misspell

• Grye 19:08, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

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)

Grand Orient definition

Kent Henderson's definition: pg 21, Masonic World Guide 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)

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)

name this article contest

The above, especially def of GO, would seem to indicate the title of this article should either:

1. remain GL & another named GO be made,
2. Changed to "Masonic Government" or somesuch
3. 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Grand Orients that are not Atheistic

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)

Understanding that this is an old and dead discussion, I was rather suprised that nobody seemed to notice the Grand Orient of Italy, the Grand East of the Netherlands, etc.Pepe Oats (talk) 18:21, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Orient De Cannan

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)

A little bit more of information, please

I've unsourced-tagged this entry, as I was looking for general information. I only found stuff for insiders, and as Wikipedia is not the the place for POV, let us have some reliable dates &c. --RPD 01:13, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure what sort of information you were looking for (if info on Masonry in general, perhaps you really wanted to see Freemasonry). How is this only "stuff for insiders" and POV? Blueboar 12:21, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

If this is an encyclopedia, it has to supply appropriate links to main pages and references to more specific topics: If I learn from a link to grand orient that this deals somehow with an important aspect of free-masonry, and I need some clicks to get along, my conclusion is that there is a certain amount of misarrangement. And if this article does supply references, I cannot continue to search for the information I'm looking for. That is the point! --RPD 19:44, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

You will notice that in the very first sentence, the word Freemasonry is highlighted in blue. This is called a wikilink. If you click on that blue word, it will direct you to the Freemasonry article. This is how Wikipedia works. There are links to other articles as well, but that one relates the most.

However, I can see that someone who is not familiar with how Wikipedia works might want a more explicit link to the main Freemasonry article. I will add such a link. Blueboar 22:42, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Also... which information do you think needs to be referenced. I can definitely add references and citations but it would help to know where to start. Blueboar 22:47, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

When are we going to see some citations when they are asked for rather than wild claims that cannot be substantiated, such as The Premier Grand Lodge of England started in 1717. This is wholly untrue and I challege you to provide the proof. Here is one atributed source for you. "... the first Annual Assembly of the four London Lodges that came together on 24th June 1717 did not constitute in any sense a regulatory body." (SOURCE: Jeremy Pemberton, President of the Board of General Purposes of the United Grand Lodge of England, at the Centenary Conference of the Grand Lodge of Adelaide, June 1984)

This entire section is just propoganda.

Peter Clatworthy, Grand Secretary, Grand Lodge of All England. comment added by 86.136.157.238 (talk) 15:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Peter. You have fact-tagged items that do not agree with your perception of things, not items that are factually incorrect. All the sources we were able to locate said those things. I can source to a different book or site, but the content is going to be the same, because that's what the historical documentation shows.

If you disagree, I assume you have proof of your own to dispute the statement. Therefore, if you have an objective historical source not originating with or from a group attempting to make an antiquity claim contrary to UGLE that states otherwise, we can discuss it here, keeping in mind that we have a policy on fringe theories. Until then, please refrain from making direct changes to the article. MSJapan (talk) 17:33, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Followup - seems to be likely related to activities noted here and elsewhere. MSJapan (talk) 19:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

You are NOT correct. This potentially wonderful facility (Wikipedia) is nothing to do with opinion, it is to do with historical and reliable evidential fact and you have not attributed ANY of your stements to ANY reloiable sources as you well know.

The Grand Lodge at York provides proofs every day on its website, in articles, papers and contributions to Forums all over the world that, beyond all historical doubt, and by any measure of historical rigour, that the UGLE did not come into being until 1813, and that its predecessor, the self-styled Grand Lodge of London only came into being by Book of Constitution in 1723. Furthermore it is quite ridiculous, and wholly unproveable to claim that it was the "Premier Grand Lodge" of Freemasonry in England.

Here is another attribution (we have hundreds of them) all from reliable sources: "Edward was succeeded, in 924, by his son, Athelstan, whose brother, Edwin, procured from the king a charter for masons, by which they were empowered to meet annually in a general assembly, and to have power to regulate their own order. And, according to this charter, the first grand lodge of England met at York, in 926. But here it is to be remarked that the grand lodge is not to be understood as the same in those times that it is now; it was not then restricted to the masters and wardens of private lodges, but was open to as many of the fraternity as could attend: for, until late years, the grand lodge as now constituted did not exist, but there was but one family of masons; and any sufficient number of masons met together, with the consent of the civil magistrate, to practice the rites of masonry, without warrant of constitution as a lodge.

  "On the death of Prince Edwin, Athelstan himself presided over the lodges; but after his decease, we know little of the state of the masons in Britain, except that they were governed by Dunstan, Archbishop of Canterbury, in 960, and Edward the Confessor in 1041.  But in 1066, William the Conqueror appointed Gondulph, Bishop of Rochester, to preside over the society.  In 1100, Henry the First patronised them; and in 1135, during the reign of Stephen, the society was under the command of Gilbert de Clare, Marquess of Pembroke.

  "From the year 1155 to 1199, the fraternity was under the command of the grand master of the knights templars.

  "In 1199, Peter de Colechurch was appointed grand master; and the society continued to increase and flourish in the successive reigns of Henry III., Edward I., Edward II., and Edward III.  This last prince revised the constitutions of the order, and appointed deputies to superintend the fraternity, one of whom was William à Wykeham, afterwards Bishop of Winchester.  He continued grand master under the reign of Richard II.; was succeeded by Thomas Fitz Allen, Earl of Surrey, in Henry IV.’s reign; and on Henry V.’s accession, Chichely, Archbishop of Canterbury, presided over the society.  We have records of a lodge held at Canterbury, under his patronage, where Thos. Stapylton was master, and the names of the wardens and other brethren are given.  This was in 1429, four years after an act of parliament, passed early in the reign of Henry VI., against the meetings of the society, which was caused by the enmity of Cardinal Beaufort, Bishop of Winchester, towards Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester, the king’s uncle, a great patron of the craft.  But this act was never enforced, and in 1442 the king was himself initiated, and he patronised the society."

(SOURCE: The Freemasons' Pocket Companion - Apollo Lodge, Oxford, United Grand Lodge of England, independently reported by The Mirror of Literature, Amusement and Instruction, Vol. 17, Issue 491, May 28 1831)

Here is another: "After the establishment of the Kilwinning and York Lodges (the jurisdiction and antiquity of the Grand Lodge of York over other English Lodges has invariably been acknowledged by the whole Fraternity), the principles of Freemasonry rapidly spread throughout both Kingdoms and several Lodges were erected in different parts of the island."

(SOURCE: A Brief History of Lodge Mother Kilwinning No. 0, Grand Lodge of Scotland, June 1944)

It is a historical fact that speculative freemasonry has existed since time immemorial in the form of The Grand Lodge at York and that prioir to 1717, in the reign of Queen Anne there were recorded a total of "... 129 lodges—eighty-six in London, thirty-six in provincial cities, and seven abroad. Many of the oldest lodges in London are in the neighbourhood of St. Paul's."

From: 'St Paul's: The churchyard', Old and New London: Volume 1 (1878), pp. 262-274. URL: http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=45041. Date accessed: 02 September 2008.

I can assure you that we will no longer sit quiet and allow anyone to get away with this UGLE propoganda in the guise of historical fact.

So we can work together, and I am happy to do so, and to be scrupulously fair in order to put together a page about Grabd Lodges that we can all agree upon. Otherwise I can spend the next 20 years or so countering your "opinions".

I hope that we can do the former. You must know how well we have been received around the world and you must, therefore, realise that we are here to stay.

Now I challenge you to provide a non-UGLE source which proves that the Premier Grand Lodge of England was formed at The Goose and Gridiron in London on the 24th September 1717, knowing that yu cannot do so.

  "The date of the earliest entries in the existing minutes of "Grand Lodge", and the first "Book of Constitutions" - it must be as frankly admitted, that the evidence forthcoming, upon which alone any determinate conclusion can be based, is of too vague and uncertain a character to afford a sure foot-hold to the historical inquirer."

(SOURCE: Robert Freke Gould, Ars Quatuor Coronati Lodge, London)

 "It is to be regretted that the records of the "Four Old Lodges" do not antedate those of the 'Grand Lodge', they brought into existence, as fortunately happens in the case of the single lodge which blossomed into the 'Grand Lodge of all England, held at York,' ...

(SOURCE: The History of Freemasonry, Vol. IV - Robert Freke Gould, 1884)

  "It admits of little doubt, that in its inception the Grand Lodge of England was intended merely as a governing body for the Masons of the Metropolis (London).  The minutes of the Grand Lodge sufficiently attest to this ...". 

(SOURCE: Four Old Lodges by Robert Freke Gould, 1879)

  "Many learned Brethren believe that Freemasonry with its Three Degrees was created by Bros. Anderson and Desaguliers out of a crude operative Rite of One Degree from 1717 - 1723 - 1728.  " The 1717 Theory " is no longer tenable in view of the evidence that the Elizabethan Brethren "moralised on Tools and spiritualised Temples" in 1589.

(SOURCE: Shakespeare Creator of Freemasonry - Alfred Dodd. London: Rider & Co, 1933.)

 "The Books of Anderson, however, are almost universally accepted by the Masonic fraternity as containing a true history of Freemasonry, at least from the time our review commences [1567], and the Ancient Charges, especially those contained in the 1723 edition, are as generally adopted as the fundamental law and basis of Masonic principles.  But notwithstanding Anderson's Books of Constitutions were published by order of the London Grand Lodge, with its approval and sanction, yet no more untrustworthy, unreliable books were ever printed under the direction of any organised association.  We affirm that Anderson is not to be credited.  The Books of Constitutions were written purposely to deceive, to mislead and misrepresent facts as they existed; and if his reports of Grand Lodge Proceedings are true copies of Grand Lodge Records, then the records were corrupted with the design to mislead the reader."

(SOURCE: Freemasonry in England from 1567 to 1813 by Leon Hyneman, 1871)

 "Whosoever doubts the truth hereof, let him examine Dr. Anderson's Constitutions (printed in 1738) page 109, where it is written, "that four lodges;" that is to say, some persons who were wont to meet "At the Goose and Gridiron ale-house, in St. Paul's church-yard, "At the Crown ale-house, in Parker's Lane, "At the Apple-tree in Charles-street, Covent Garden. "And at the Rummer and Grapes, in Channel-Row, Westminster, did meet at the Apple-tree aforesaid, in the year 1716, or rather 17, and having chosen (the nameless person before hinted) a Chairman, they constituted themselves a Grand Lodge.  Such are the words of the most authentic history amongst Modern Masons, and beyond contradiction prove the origin of their supremacy to be a self-created assembly."

(SOURCE: Ahiman Rezon published by Laurence Dermott, Grand Secretary of the "Antients" Grand Lodge of Free and Accepted Masons According to the Old Institution, published by James Bedford, at London, 1756)

"Bro. Anderson, having acquitted himself of the task, in 1722 submitted his work to the commission, who approved it, and caused it to be sanctioned by the Grand Lodge on the 25th March, 1723.  This constitution is entitled 'The Book of Constitutions of Freemasons, containing the History, Charges, and Regulations, etc., of that Most Ancient and Right Worshipful Fraternity, for the use of the Lodges.

  "This Constitution is based upon the charter of York, which, of all others, has served as a guide for all those which have been established since A.D. 926.  Into this constitution were carried otherwise the changes and the developments which were rendered indispensable by the new object of the society, and properly above all was caused to predominate the supremacy of the Grand Lodge of London.  This last tendency, so much to be, in this our own day, deprecated, but proves that the authors were not penetrated by the true spirit of the Charter of York."

(SOURCE: A General History of Freemasonry in Europe, Page 96, translated and compiled from the Masonic Histories of Emmanuel Rebold, M.D., by J. Fletcher Brennan, Editor of The American Freemasons Magazine, 1869)

"Further it is very clear from the Grand Lodge minutes that the appearance of the book caused a good deal of dissension in Grand Lodge itself, and it brought the Craft into ridicule from outside;"

(SOURCE: Anderson's Constitutions of 1723 by Lionel Vibert, published in The Builder Magazine, August 1923)

"In 1738 Anderson brought out a second edition which was intended to replace the earlier one altogether, but it was a slovenly performance and the regulations were printed in so confused a manner, being all mixed up with notes and endorsements (many inaccurately stated), that it was difficult to make head or tail of them and to ascertain what was the law of the Craft.  He also re-wrote the history entirely and greatly expanded it, introducing so many absurdities that Gould has suggested that he was deliberately fooling the Grand Lodge, or in the alternative he was in himself in his dotage.  He died very shortly after.  But this same ridiculous history has done duty in all seriousness till comparatively recent years, being brought up to date by Preston and others who were apparently quite unconscious of its true value.  Unfortunately that portion of the history which professed to give an account of the proceedings of Grand Lodge and for which the official minutes were at Anderson's disposal is full of what one must consider wilful inaccuracies and misstatements."

(SOURCE: Anderson's Constitutions of 1723 by Lionel Vibert)

Come on now, let's get to work and stop pulling the wool over te eyes of the general public.

Peter Clatworthy, Grand Secretary, Grand Lodge of All England, at York. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.157.238 (talk) 20:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

That is why I would ask you to desist. You are not here to provide information, but rather to further your own agenda. If you were so "scrupulously fair", you wouldn't be referring to anything not supporting your claim as "propaganda", which you have done twice so far in this thread. I have come across your own statements in plenty of other places, and I do not believe that you are in a position to provide information impartially - you have a stake in the matter, or you wouldn't have started out by immediately jumping on UGLE propaganda. This isn't a matter of you or i not agreeing; it is a matter of adherence to Wikipedia policy. MSJapan (talk) 20:21, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I see by your inappropriate comments that I was correct in my assessment. MSJapan (talk) 20:25, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Not at all. You CANNOT find any independent proof WHATSOEVER that the United Grand Lodge of England was formed in 1717 and that it was the Premier Grand Lodge of England. The Idiots Guide to Freemasonry indeed! Now, are you prepared to work in the interests of the history of Freemasonry and its Grand Lodge or are you determined to continue your Walt Disney version?

  "It is worth noting again, as remarked earlier, that the Lodge records that are dated from 1705 are unquestionably regarded as being those of a Grand Lodge.  Moreover they are nowhere referred to as being the first or early minutes and accounts.  They are simply the earliest extant.

(SOURCE: York Mysteries Revealed, Page 354 - Revd Neville Barker Cryer, 2006) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.136.157.238 (talk) 20:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

What happened to the Wikipedia article Grand Orient???

What happened to the Wikipedia article Grand Orient??? Under no circumstances should Grand Orient be merged with Grand Lodge unless two different sections are included that describe the differences between the two Freemasonic bodies. French Freemasonry (Grand Orient) has a completely different and distinct history and philosophy to Grand Lodge (England). Grand Lodge (UK) has always been of a Protestant Background whilst Grand Orient (France) began as being Jacobite, changed to atheist, was suspected of being part of the Jewish World Conspiracy by the French Far-Right when it dropped from its Constitution the necessity to believe in a Supreme Being, was demolished by Marshal Petain when he came to power in 1941, and when it re-emerged following the second world war retained its agnostic position. This, in a simplified nutshell is the difference between the two and under no circumstances should the two Freemasonic bodies be clumped together. Wikipedia should have seperate articles on Freemasonic Bodies that exist in different countries because Freemasonry is NOT a "unified" body existing under a "uniformity of belief" and "uniformity of history". Different Freemasonic bodies in different countries should and must have their own seperate articles. ie. American Freemasonry; Spanish Freemasonry; French Freemasonry; English Freemasonry; Italian Freemasonry; etc...Wfgh66 (talk) 14:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

There is a flaw in your argument ... you are making an incorrect generalization. While it is common for Franco/Continental/Irregular Masonry to use "Orient" and for Anglo/US/Regular Masonry to use "Lodge"... it is not a clear cut distinction. There are Grand Orients that follow the "Anglo" tradtion, require a belief in Deity, and are recognized by UGLE and the various US Grand Lodges. And there are Grand Lodges that admit Atheists and women, get involved in Politics, follow the French tradition, and are recognized by GOdF and the other "Continental" bodies.

I agree that this all needs to be better explained... but it should be done in one single article... for the exact reasons you outline: to properly explain that there is no uniformity of belief, practice, and history. If we have seperate articles, the reader may only read one of them, and come away with incomplete information. Blueboar (talk) 14:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

The current Wikipedia article Grand Orient is misleading and oversimplified. Yes, there are other Freemasonic bodies in France, but the largest of them and the most influential with the largest membership remains Grand Orient, being the mainstream. Here is an example in relation to the split between church and state in 1905:

From The Political Situation in France by A. Hamon, H. Hamon, [The American Journal of Sociology, Vol. 11, No. 1 (Jul., 1905), pp. 107-128]

Every year the Radical and Socialist Radical parties hold a general congress, where all the delegates of the groups that follow Radicalism meet. Frequently these groups are electoral committees which live only during the period of the election. They have but a small number of members, and sometimes the delegate appoints himself. The Radical and Socialist Radical congress appoints from among its members an executive committee. Recently the president of this committee was M. Bertaux, a deputy who served as minister of war in the Combes cabinet [Emile Combes: Prime Minister of France 1902-5; who was also a Freemason and a Spiritualist]. Its president is now Jean Bourrat, a deputy. The difference between the Socialist Radicals and the Radicals lies in the varying degree of emphasis which they place upon democratic reform.

As we have already seen, French conservatism has a live organ in the "Third Order". Radicalism possesses a similar organ in Freemasonry, represented especially by the "Grand Orient of France". It is difficult to ascertain the numbers in this secret association. It is known that they are divided into lodges, each of which has a president, who is styled "Venerable", and several other officers. There may be several lodges in the same town, according to its importance. The Freemasons of the Grand Orient of France hold an annual convention. Though secret, this convention was freely discussed in the press this year. It appoints a permanent council, which is charged with the direction of French Masonic affairs. This council is called the "Council of Order". Its president is M. Lafferre, a deputy and a barrister. Besides the Grand Orient of France, and in friendly relations with it, there are the "Grand Lodge of France" and the "Supreme Council" for France and its dependencies. These constitute what is commonly called the "Scottish Rite". It appears that the influence of the Scottish Rite Masons is less than that of the Grand Orient, whose lodges cover the whole country.

Republicans of all shades of opinion live harmoniously side by side in these Masonic lodges. M. Bonnet, the orator of the last convention, said in his speech, as reported by the newspapers: "We are the only association - and we are proud and happy to say so - where moderate but true Republicans, Radicals, Socialists, and Libertarians discusss together all the political, economic, and social problems." It seems, however, from what is known in the lodges, that the great majority of Freemasons are Radicals, with a Socialist minority in Paris, Marseilles, and other large cities. As for Libertarians and Anarchists, their number is very small.

The tendencies and program of Freemasonry may be considered as those of the Radical and Socialist Radical parties. The Grand Orient of France is unanimously anti-clerical. Its members one and all demand the seperation of church and state. Once this goal has been attained - and it has the first place upon its program - it will work for the political "purification" of the state functionaries; that is, the appointment to government positions of such persons only as have proved themselves to be good republicans. It desires a state monopoly of all elementary instruction, thus completely debarring the clergy from teaching. It favours laws increasing the liberty of citizens with respect to divorce, the press, etc. It advocates democratic legislation, improving the condition of the working classes in city and country, making taxes weigh more heavily upon the rich than upon the poor, providing for old-age pensions, introducing an inheritance and an income tax, fixing a weekly holiday, etc. Aside from the question of the seperation of church and state, and the destruction of the last remnant of the political power of the church, the Freemasons are, however, not entirely agreed on all of these points, some favoring a more thoroughgoing scheme of democratic reform than others.

Wfgh66 (talk) 15:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes... the Grand Orient of France is very much involved with French politics, and advocate a very strict seperation of Church and State (to the point of being called "anti-clerical" and even anti-Catholic). However, the same is not true of all Grand Orients. In the long run, none of this is really important to what this article is about, which is explaining what a Grand Lodge or Grand Orient is.

But there is still a difference between a Grand Lodge and a Grand Orient that is not explained in the said article. Wfgh66 (talk) 05:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Such as? Blueboar (talk) 12:36, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Such as this [1].--Vidkun (talk) 14:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

OK... so add it. Blueboar (talk) 14:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Are we being "Masono-centric"?

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)

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)

We're missing something....

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)

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)

Requested move 9 June 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved.(non-admin closure) Eventhorizon51 ^(talk) 01:14, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

---

Grand Lodge → Grand lodge – Whether or not the institution in Freemasonry is to be considered a noun or a name, this article clearly covers the noun, including grand lodges of other associations than Freemasonry. An article Grand Lodge (Freemasonry) or similar may perhaps be an idea, but this very article should clearly consider the noun - thus the proposal of renaming it. Chicbyaccident (talk) 17:18, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose - Capitalization of "Lodge" in "Grand Lodge" is routine throughout fraternalism... It's not just the Freemasons. Many fraternal orders use the term "Lodge" for their local units and "Grand Lodge" (with Lodge capitalized) for their state or national supervisory bodies... do a google search for the Elks, Moose, and Oddfellows, for examples... all use Grand Lodge (with "L" in "Lodge" capitalized as a proper noun).

In fact, if you examine usage by most fraternal groups, a common pattern can be seen: the local units will be styled "X" and the state or national supervisory body will be styled "Grand X" (or sometimes "Supreme X")... whether "X" is Lodge, Council, Commandery, Chapter... or even something unique like Aeirie) the state or national supervisory bodies will be Grand Lodges, Grand Councils, Grand Commanderies, Grand Chapters, Grand Aeiries, (etc)... and the "X" will be capitalized.

The Fraternal orders copied this from the religious "military" orders of the middle ages... which had Grand Priories, Grand Comanderies, etc. ... note that the modern decedents of these orders continue to capitalize in this way... for example: the Sovereign Military Order of Malta has Priories... and a "Grand Priory" (with Priory capitalized). Blueboar (talk) 18:04, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Addendum: I did an n-gram search for "a Grand Lodge" vs. "a Grand lodge".... see the results here... I also tried an n-gram search for "attended Grand Lodge" vs "attended Grand lodge" (see here... in both searches the lower case "Grand lodge" got NO hits.

I also ran an ngram search on "a Grand Council" vs "a Grand council" (here), "a Grand Chapter" vs "a Grand chapter": (here), and "a Grand Priory" vs. "a Grand priory" (here) in each case the results were overwhelmingly in favor of "Grand Council", "Grand Chapter" and "Grand Priory"... in two out of three the lower case verison did not get any hits.

What do I take away from this... when you add the word "Grand" to organizational terms like "Lodge", "Chapter", "Priory", etc. you should capitalize both words. Blueboar (talk) 21:50, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose - The term is always capitalized. Grammatically speaking, it is a proper noun, and a proper noun is capitalized because it refers to a "unique entity" (which is not necessarily singular). Grammatical misunderstanding or a lack of precision is not a reason to retitle a page. 407,000 Google hits and I can't get a single one that doesn't capitalize "Lodge." MSJapan (talk) 20:09, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - Aside from the above valid reasons, this is bizarre, jobsworth pettifogging of the worst sort. The editor argues with standard usage while clearly having WP:Competence issues with previous contributions to articles on Freemasonry. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 22:59, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose, per MSJapan and others. Any other way removes the meaning, and in sentence case it would read "grand lodge" within the article (see "manifest destiny") which almost completely undercuts its meaning both within the various organizations and the related historical and cultural understanding of the organizations. Lower-caseness overreach (i.e. Montgomery bus boycott, now just another everyday bus boycott). Randy Kryn 17:10, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

can I get a phone # to talk to somebody from Lynn, Mass.

olivet commander sword 2600:1700:D4C4:7410:C9BB:7A4A:3FF1:FCDA (talk) 20:08, 23 April 2023 (UTC)