Talk:Grand Lodge of Texas

Untitled

Why is this page even here? While I accept there's some variance between Northern and Southern Jurisdictions in the United States, honestly they don't merit more than a footnote.

There are more differences, sometimes quite radical differences, between ritual, practice and other procedural matters in lodges within ten miles of each other under the Grand Lodge of Scotland than in the whole United States.

Nuttyskin 03:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

The above editor (Nuttyskin) questions the need for a page (article) on the Grand Lodge of Texas, A.F. & A.M. He seems to argue that the "ritual, practice and ... procedural" differences between various U.S. grand lodges are insufficient to warrant separate pages or articles for separate and independent U.S. grand lodges. However, his reference to "variance between Northern and Southern Jurisdictions in the United States" (see above) indicates that he does not understand the difference between a craft grand lodge (like the Grand Lodge of Texas) and the Scottish Rite supreme councils of the northern and southern jurisdictions (which are appendant bodies). The simple (and obvious) answer to his question is that there is a page for the Grand Lodge of Texas, A.F. & A.M., because it is a distinct, separate and independent corporate entity, not to mention an historic entity. Further, it is not a subordinate nor constituent body of any larger organization. As a craft grand lodge it is not a part of either the southern or northern masonic jurisdictions, which are Scottish Rite organizations, and not craft organizations. The question itself betrays the questioners limited understanding of the subject matter.PGNormand 05:10, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

POV Dispute

I have removed the label about a POV dispute. This label was attached to the section on "Freemasons and the Texas Revolution" back in October 2008, but no objection about the POV of the section was ever raised here on this talk page. If no objection about the neutrality of the sections POV is raised here, there should be no label attached to it in the article.

The only objection regarding this page is not one about the neutrality of its POV, but is the objection appearing above that was raised by an editor named "Nuttyskin" back in August 2006. His objection is somewhat confusing. He contends that an article about the Grand Lodge of Texas is not warranted because there are insufficient differences between the "Northern and Southern Jurisdictions in the United States" in regards to "ritual, practice and other procedural matters." However, the "Northern and Southern Jurisdictions" refers to the Supreme Councils of the Scottish Rite of Freemasonry. The Grand Lodge of Texas, on the other hand, like all other mainstream Masonic Grand Lodges in the U.S., is not a Scottish Rite organization, so his reference to the Scottish Rite has no relevance here. As for ritual, practice and other procedural matters, this article is about a separate and distinct Masonic Grand Lodge for the State of Texas. Whether its ritual, practices and procedural matters are different or identical to other Masonic Grand Lodges in other U.S. states or other countries is irrelevant. PGNormand (talk) 17:39, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

It is clear to anyone with any knowledge of Freemasonry in the United States that each and every Grand Lodge in the 51 states IS unique and sovereign. Their constitutions and governance may be superficially similar, but are, in fact completely "local." The 51 Grand Lodges also each have unique history. Certain Grand Lodges, such as the Grand Lodge of Pennsylvania and the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts are the root from which all other US Grand Lodges stem.

William H. Magill 04:21, 11 February 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whmagill (talk • contribs)

Ancient Grand Lodge of England

On March 3, 2021, an anonymous user edited the first sentence in the article, changing the date of 1751 to 1717. This sentence correctly states that the Grand Lodge of Texas, A.F. & A.M., is of "the Ancients' tradition" and descends "from the Ancient Grand Lodge of England, founded in 1751." This is correct, as the Grand Lodge of Texas was formed by three lodges holding charters from the Grand Lodge of Louisiana, founded in 1812 by five lodges that descended from the Grand Lodge of Pennsylvania. The Grand Lodge of Pennsylvania was formed out of the Provincial Grand Lodge of Pennsylvania, which was a provincial grand lodge of the Ancient Grand Lodge of England, founded on July 17, 1751, at the Turk's Head Tavern in Greek Street, Soho, London. The anonymous user was incorrect in assuming that the Ancient Grand Lodge and the Moderns Grand Lodge (founded in 1717) were one and the same. I will change this incorrect edit to read "July 17, 1751," and I will add an endnote to support it. PGNormand (talk) 18:22, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Early Texas Lodges

I removed the addresses that were added for some of the lodges listed here. When I created this article and listed the historic lodges that were organized during the Republic of Texas it was to provide historical information about the original lodges of the Grand Lodge. I felt it important to distinguish between those lodges that had been organized during the Republic of Texas period and those that were established later. As a result, a lodge that had demised, but had its chartered restored in a different location at a later time, was still considered demised simply because the lodge in that historic location no longer existed. An obvious distinction is made between the charter of Holland Lodge No. 1, which never demised but was simply moved from its original location of Brazoria to Houston in 1836 or 1837, as opposed to some other lodge charter which was surrendered to the Grand Lodge because the lodge demised in the 1800s but was restored in an entirely different location a century later. That cannot be considered the same Lodge. By the same token, to attempt to list the "street address" of each of these historic lodges is to miss the point of including a list of lodges organized before 1846. PGNormand (talk) 17:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The list of "Early Texas Lodges" has grown to include several lodges that were NOT organized during the Republic of Texas period. When I first compiled this list, it included only lodges that were organized on or before 19 February 1846. Some of those lodges were not chartered until after that date, but they were organized by dispensation and set to labor before that date. However, now, I see that the following lodges have been added to the list. Perfect Union No. 10, which was not issued a dispensation or set to labor until the 20th century. Someone has added it to this list solely because it has the number "10." But it was not organized during the Republic of Texas. Santa Fe Lodge No. 15 was never organized, and was never set to labor. It should be removed from the list. Alamo Lodge No. 44 was not organized during the Republic of Texas and does not belong on this list. In the two-volume Proceedings of the Grand Lodge of Texas (1837 to 1857), the earliest mention of Alamo Lodge in San Antonio appears in Volume 1, p. 245, where, in an excerpt from the Grand Lodge minutes for 14 January 1848, it states that the Committee on Subordinate Lodges examined the minutes for Alamo Lodge U.D., and recommended that the "new lodge" be granted a charter. In recommending that the Alamo Lodge dues for 1847 be remitted, W. D. Smith reported that the lodge had "been at work for only a few weeks." This clearly indicates that Alamo Lodge U.D., not yet chartered, had been set to labor "only a few weeks" before mid-January 1848.PGNormand (talk) 19:35, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Why on List of Articles Needing Attention?

Hi, I cam across this article because it was listed at . I looks fine to we with the exception of remove the first two sections: Early History of Freemasonry and Freemasonry in America. That information doesn't need to be on this page. Eric Cable  |  Talk  19:48, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Beats heck out of me. Looks like I added that parameter while doing some sort of automated run two years ago. I'll remove it now. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:51, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Possible section deletion?=

This article would flow better were it to begin with "Early Masonry in Texas". The first two paragraphs seem superfluous. Dogface (talk) 22:03, 26 January 2012 (UTC)