Talk:Regular Masonic jurisdiction

Old talk

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)

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)

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)

"*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)

• I edited the page piece by piece in order to give citations why with each summary. Not 3RR-eligible, it wasn't a war. I'm going to stop now, because if I go on much further, there's really not much left. I had to struggle not to delete the UGLE reference, as it's cited in the first paragraph of the above-linked Grand Lodges page. Plus it has that reference to Kilwinning..;-) From here, it pretty much needs a quick re-write to complete the stub. & even with that, citing PH & GLdF make it sound like an anti-PH & -GLdF page. Which sucks. We should also add Masonic usage of "Regular" & "Amity" to their Wiktionary entries, which I will try & look at doing as well, ASAP. Understand, I have NO enmity towards any of the Lodges, left or removed, & this is not in any way an act of animosity. Wow. so many descriptive words beginning with "A"...Grye 07:52, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Regularity discussion

I've tried to restructure and make the bits about regularity more useful than just saying 'its complicated'

Need to add point about UGLE identifying HFAF etc as freemasonry insamuch as the regularity issues are not acceptable.

Also need to highlight that Masonci interaction does not preculde discussions.

Prince Hall

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)

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)

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)

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)

I've lost the reference, but sometime in the 19th century there was a huge schism in Prince Hall Masonry and members in several states split from the recognized lodges and formed their own- resulting in some states having two Grand Lodges, neither of which recognized the other.Saxophobia (talk) 21:46, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

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)

Dogma

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)

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)

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)

I too am uncomfortable with the term "dogmatic". But then, much of the materials on this page reflects its own dogmatism rather than being truly informative.

The concept of "regular" is an internal one, not a cross-Masonic jurisdiction one. "Regularity" and "recognition" are distinct, in that each Masonic GL (and its Lodges) is "regular" from its own perspective (and usually also from its own historical lineage) - including the Co-Masonic jurisdictions. It would be better to keep discussions about inter-GL recognition on a separate page, and stick to the concept of 'regularity' on this one... with the whole notion of "Regular Masonic Jurisdictions" being faulty at best, or indeed dogmatic and parochial at worst.

The article, in that sense, remains one (at this stage) that is bias and cannot be used for general Masonic education.

I have further refrained from further editing the main article as it seems that it would likely be altered to solely reflect the views held by what is perhaps the majority of Masons - but only in the English-speaking world. It's a little like reading what is truly "Christian" from a site based in the Vatican (or, for that matter, Baptist).

Though I am in a masculine-only jurisdiction in amity with UGLE (UGLV, Victoria, Australia), it is clear that the concept of "regularity" when spoken outside of the context of my own GL cannot be so bias-ly presented.

For example, a GL that decides to no longer require a specific belief is not "irregular", but simply may decide that the requirement is unmasonic. Similarly, a GL that sees the 18th century exclusion of women as simply reflecting the social bias of the times, and that this has naught to do with what is characteristically Freemasonic, is not "irregular", but is likely to have made that move based on its own understanding of the fundamental principles as to what would reflect the ideals embodied in Freemasonry.

One of the worse aspect of the concept of "regularity" that has emerged in some (but not all) areas is the taking of the writings of a few enthusiasts as though unquestionable (especially Mackey and a few others) - for in their attempt to 'list' what remain essentially un-listable "Landmarks", confusion between these, 'regularity', 'amity', and Anderson's constitutions (as though this reflected the naissance of FM!) emerges.

As long as the concept of Regularity is described according to is dogmatic interpretation and imposed on other GLs, the Wikipedia entry will remain bias.

Jmdavid (talk) 04:20, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Conflicts between Grand Lodges and Grand Orients

It would be interesting if we could have valuable information detailing the history of socio-political conflicts between Grand Lodges and Grand Orients since the original 1877 schism. There are reports that several wars in South America and Africa were somewhow related to internal opposition between various factions of Masons. For instance, during the 1920s Mexican Civil War, there were essentially two or three groups of Masons that were literally figting each other for control over the Mexican government. In the 1980s, several CIA-sponsored coup d'états were thought to have been related to a fight for control between lodges. The First World War itself was the first major conflict involving opposing Masonic factions. Other possible conflicts include wars in the Congo and Burundi-Rwanda that involved opposing groups of American and French masons. ADM (talk) 05:57, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Everything you're saying is "reported" or "thought to be". That's a pretty good red flag there. Without proof from reliable (and especially in this case, objective) sources, all of the above is mere speculation and not encyclopedically appropriate. I also don't see what your point is - there were Masons on both sides of the Revolutionary and American Civil Wars, too, and there's a well-known story of Jonathan Maynard being rescued by another Mason, Chief Joseph Brant during one of the Indian Wars. Basically what you're trying to say is that one group of Masons (probably 40 or less, even) got mad at another group (of probably 40 or less), took up arms, and incited a country-wide civil war for control of what, exactly? When put that way, does it even sound plausible? MSJapan (talk) 06:06, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

The revolutionary wars and the US civil war occured before the 1877 schism, so that is not the point at all. What I am saying is that there have probably been secretive Masonic wars of religion, in a similar way that Catholics and Protestants or Sunnis and Shiites have fought each other for control of their respective territories. One one hand, you have an ideology that is called atlantism, which is centered on the Scottish Rite cities of Washington, London and Ottawa, and on the other hand you have these anti-Atlantist Grand Orient types who operate from Brussels, Paris, Rome, Madrid and Istanbul. So there is clearly a history of political conflicts between different factions of Masons. ADM (talk) 06:21, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

ADM... to put it bluntly... that is Bullshit... you are mearly speculating that there might be such a history (without any sources to back up that speculation). This is what Wikipedia calls Original Research and it is not allowed.

You have done this on other pages relating to Freemasonry in the past ... and it is getting to the point of being disruptive. Saying, "it would be interesting if..." and then spouting unsupported speculation (usually something negative about the fraternity) is not productive. Please stop. Blueboar (talk) 11:49, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Revealed will? Since when?

"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)

Kentucky Prince Hall

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)

Regularity

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)

Exclusive jurisdiction

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)

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)

Requested move 20 March 2020

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No consensus — Wug·a·po·des​ 23:52, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

---

• Regular Masonic jurisdiction → Regular Freemasonry
• List of Masonic rites → List of rites in Freemasonry
• Continental Freemasonry → Liberal Freemasonry
• Co-Freemasonry → Liberal Co-Freemasonry
• Continental Freemasonry in North America → Liberal Freemasonry in North America
• Grand Master (Masonic) → Grand Master in Freemasonry
• List of Masonic Abbreviations → List of abbreviations in Freemasonry
• History of Freemasonry in Russia → Freemasonry in Russia
• List of Masonic Grand Lodges → List of grand lodges in Freemasonry

– WP:CONCISE, WP:NATURAL, WP:PRECISION (slightly broader scope), WP:CONSISTENCY. PPEMES (talk) 19:52, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose - The requested moves are far to diverse to be considered as a group. While I might be talked around to supporting one or two if presented as individual page moves, I would definitely oppose one or two others. I see two distinct questions underlying the requests: 1) the use of the term “Continental” vs the term “Liberal”... and 2) the use of the term “Masonic”. Each is a distinct issue, although both are probably resolved by applying WP:COMMONNAME. Blueboar (talk) 16:00, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Would you mind presenting an alternave solution? PPEMES (talk) 16:38, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Sure... suggest you cancel this multi-move RM and go one at a time. But honestly, I think they are all fine where they are. Willing to be convinced otherwise, but skeptical. Blueboar (talk) 17:08, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

WikiProject

Marking this talk page with Wikipedia:WikiProject Men's Issues shouldn't be regarded as marking the article topic as such as an "issue" or whatever. It is simply a name designated for topics pertaining to Men on Wikipedia. Which Regular Masonic jurisdiction qualify as insofar as it by definition comprises men. PPEMES (talk) 16:08, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Um... No. The into to the WP:MEN wikiproject page explicitly states that it is for articles about Men’s movement. While the bulk of Freemasonry may be male only in membership, it is not a “men’s issues” society. The link is inappropriate. Blueboar (talk) 16:25, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Men's movement may be the redirect, but I don't see that that's what the WikiProject is about at all. Yet, if can show that that is the case, I'll agree with you. If you can't, I don't know what good to make of your reaction. PPEMES (talk) 16:32, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

It says it right on the Project’s main page. First paragraph. You can’t get more explicit than that.

So no, it goes the other way. If you want to add it to things that are not related to the men’s movement, You are the one who will have to demonstrate that what the project itself says it is about... ISN’T actually what it is about. Blueboar (talk) 17:00, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

The full lead section of Wikipedia:WikiProject Men's Issues states: "Welcome to WikiProject Men's Issues. This group is dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of men's issues. If you would like to help, please join the project, participate in the talk page and see the to-do list below." I have redirected Men's issues to Man (Men's movement being another topic). In other words Wikipedia:WikiProject Men's Issues is about anything that relates to men - not more, not less. Any other comments before we reintroduce this article into Wikipedia:WikiProject Men's Issues? PPEMES (talk) 17:15, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

And I have reverted your redirect. Please don’t change long standing redirects without discussion. If you want to change the target of a redirect, start an RM and gain consensus. If you want to change the scope of a wikiproject, raise the issue on the project’s talk page and gain consensus. Blueboar (talk) 19:26, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Masonic Rites

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)

I went to bee member

Hi Please I went be members 154.161.169.98 (talk) 09:57, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, you went to the wrong place. Blueboar (talk) 10:20, 22 June 2024 (UTC)