|
Post by antoninus9 on Sept 4, 2007 16:39:02 GMT
JMD,
Your words express my thoughts far more clearly and eloquently than I have managed to do. Thank you.
Jeff
|
|
|
Post by wayseer on Sept 5, 2007 1:02:26 GMT
Bro JMD - well said. The day fast approaches were the various GLs will have to listen to their Lodges.
|
|
|
Post by thedixiemason on Sept 5, 2007 6:46:29 GMT
Russell, Read that degree, and the previous degree.
Do you see the connection?
We entered the 7th dispensation on 1/31/71
|
|
|
Post by penfold on Sept 5, 2007 10:45:54 GMT
interesting post JMD, I guess that the people of the world today have far more variety of thought than we used to.
|
|
|
Post by hollandr on Sept 5, 2007 11:57:19 GMT
>Read that degree, and the previous degree.
Dixie
I have yet to find those rituals
Do you have an online reference?
Russell
|
|
|
Post by negredo on Oct 10, 2007 0:32:25 GMT
Which irregular obedience would that be??
I think it's less what you said than the fact that the Grand Orient at Franklin's time was still considered regular. It was not de-recognized until 1877.
In all of my study have I never come across a statement that would confirm that Franklin sat with "irregular" masons to ensure a free America. Can you provide a reference for this so that it may be substantiated? Or, were you simply making reference to the GOdF, which it must be remembered, rejected the idea of professing belief in a god in 1877, thereby causing several other obediences to de-recognize it.
This was a long time after Franklin.
|
|
|
Post by devoutfreemason on Oct 10, 2007 14:31:40 GMT
Which irregular obedience would that be?? I think it's less what you said than the fact that the Grand Orient at Franklin's time was still considered regular. It was not de-recognized until 1877. In all of my study have I never come across a statement that would confirm that Franklin sat with "irregular" masons to ensure a free America. Can you provide a reference for this so that it may be substantiated? Or, were you simply making reference to the GOdF, which it must be remembered, rejected the idea of professing belief in a god in 1877, thereby causing several other obediences to de-recognize it. This was a long time after Franklin. Can that rubbish stop here and now, PLEASE? The declaration of "irregularity" by USA GL's did not stem from any such thing. The ball started rolling when the GOdF issued a charter to a mixed race lodge in Louisianna. The GL of LA got miffed and they removed their recognition from the GOdF as a result and they applied pressure to the rest of the GL's in the US. I am so sick and tired of reading the myth of 1877 stated as fact, I really have had enough of it.
|
|
|
Post by lauderdale on Oct 10, 2007 15:19:17 GMT
I cannot speak about American Lodges of course but I think the UGLE removed its Recognition of GOdF over their dispensing with the need to declare a Belief in a Supreme Being. I'm not sure if that happened back in 1877 or some years later bearing in mind that they did not have all the instant electronic communciation we now have and communciations between these two bodies would have taken weeks by letter.
|
|
|
Post by devoutfreemason on Oct 10, 2007 15:43:42 GMT
I cannot speak about American Lodges of course but I think the UGLE removed its Recognition of GOdF over their dispensing with the need to declare a Belief in a Supreme Being. I'm not sure if that happened back in 1877 or some years later bearing in mind that they did not have all the instant electronic communciation we now have and communciations between these two bodies would have taken weeks by letter. From Alan Bauer Past Grand Master GOdF In the United States, Grand Lodges did not, in fact, break relations with the Grand Orient de France in 1877, which is the popular but historically unfounded myth. Most of them did continue relations for a long time after 1877. During the 1st World War, for example, we received in our lodges numerous American Masons. And we did the same after our Liberation by the Allies, mostly by courageous American soldiers, in World War II. U.S. Grand Lodges that Recognised or Approved Intervisitations with the Grande Loge of France and/or the Grand Orient de France during the 1900's were : Action Date Alabama recognized GLDF and GODF Dec. 4, 1918. Arkansas recognized GLDF and GODF Nov. 19, 1919 California recognized GLDF Oct. 9, 1918 Colorado intervisitations GLDF & GODF May 1, 1918 Dist. Col. recognized GLDF Dec. 19, 1917 Florida intervisitations with GLDF Jan. 15, 1918 Georgia intervisitations with GLDF May 1, 1918 Indiana intervisitations with GLDF May 29, 1918 Iowa recognized GLDF and GODF June 12, 1918 Kentucky intervisitations GLDF & GODF Oct. 17, 1917 Louisiana recognized GLDF and GODF Feb. 5, 1918 Minnesota recognized GLDF Jan. 21-22, 1919 Nevada recognized GLDF and GODF June 12, 1918 & 1919 New Jersey recognized GLDF and GODF Apr. 17, 1918 New York intervisitations GLDF & GODF Sep. 10, 1917 N. Dakota recognized GLDF and GODF June 17, 1919 Oregon recognized GLDF June 14, 1918 Rhode Isl. recognized GLDF and GODF May 20, 1918 S. Dakota recognized GLDF June 11, 1918 Texas recognized GLDF Dec. 4, 1917 Utah recognized GLDF Jan. 22, 1919 Wisconsin recognized GLDF June 9, 1958 Wyoming intervisitations GLDF & GODF Sep. 11, 1918 I quote an American Mason and scholar Paul Bessel on the general topic. He has written, quote: "It will probably surprise most American masons to find out that during the 1900s the Grande Loge of France was recognized, or mutual visitations by members were approved, by twenty-three -- almost half -- of all United States grand lodges. Since the Grand Orient of France is said to be totally outside the pale of freemasonry and "flagrantly irregular" since the 1870's, it is even more surprising to find that twelve -- more than a quarter -- of United States grand lodges recognized or approved mutual visitations by members with the Grand Orient of France during the twentieth century. Both the Grande Loge of France and the Grand Orient of France were fully recognized by eight grand lodges starting at the time of World War I. This could have been the result of the War and the desire to support strong allies in the war, as that is mentioned in a July 20, 1917, letter from four Grande Loge of France officials to United States grand lodges. In that letter it states the purpose of writing was "to extend to your Grand Lodge an invitation to enter into official relations with us and to cement those relations by an exchange of representatives." However, many American grand lodges considered and rejected recognition, and many that granted recognition did so only after detailed study and careful consideration. It is clear that grand lodges in the United States made thoughtful and serious decisions on this subject. Appropriately, in the early twentieth-century, Louisiana led American grand lodges in recognizing the Grande Loge of France and re-recognizing the Grand Orient of France. Louisiana had caused the other American grand lodges to break their ties with the Grand Orient of France fifty years earlier. In brief, Grand lodges in the United States began to withdraw their recognitions of the Grand Orient after 1868, when thed Orient recognized a Masonic group called the "Supreme Council of the Accepted and Ancient Scottish Rite of the State of Louisiana," which was not recognized by the Grand Lodge of Louisiana. The Louisiana Grand Master called this act a "strange perversion" by the Grand Orient. The Grand Lodge of Louisiana considered this an invasion of its territory, withdrew its recognition of the Grand Orient, and called on other grand lodges in America to do the same. It is very significant, when we remember the historical period in which this action took place (And, I have to add, considering the very special relations between France and Lousiana). The Grand Orient decree and report, as printed in the Louisiana Proceedings, states that one of the reasons the Grand Orient recognised this "Supreme Council of Louisiana" is because that group allowed the initiation of men "without regard to nationality, race, or colour." The Grand Orient report mentioned the significance of "civil and political equality … between the white and coloured races," opposition to slavery, and the necessity of its abolition. The split of French Masonry with that of America actually came in 1869 when the Grand Orient passed a resolution that "neither colour, race, nor religion should disqualify a man for initiation." Since Louisiana had caused other United States grand lodges to sever their relations with the Grand Orient of France in 1868, it was especially significant that the Grand Lodge of Louisiana enthusiastically recognized the GLDF and re-recognised the GODF on February 5, 1918. The adoption of the resolutions restoring fraternal relations with the Grand Orient of France and recognizing the Grand Lodge of France was followed by an outburst of applause, the national colours of the United States and France being displayed, one on each side of the station of the Grand Master, and national airs of each of the countries pealed forth from the Cathedral organ. "
|
|
|
Post by lauderdale on Oct 10, 2007 19:20:05 GMT
My own Masonic Obedience, Le Driot Humain (LDH) recognises and is Recognised by both GOdF and GLdF. Also the Grand Loge Feminine Francaise, but not GLNF.
|
|
|
Post by devoutfreemason on Oct 10, 2007 23:44:29 GMT
My own Masonic Obedience, Le Driot Humain (LDH) recognises and is Recognised by both GOdF and GLdF. Also the Grand Loge Feminine Francaise, but not GLNF. Excellent ;D ;D ;D
|
|
|
Post by negredo on Oct 11, 2007 0:01:00 GMT
Which irregular obedience would that be?? I think it's less what you said than the fact that the Grand Orient at Franklin's time was still considered regular. It was not de-recognized until 1877. In all of my study have I never come across a statement that would confirm that Franklin sat with "irregular" masons to ensure a free America. Can you provide a reference for this so that it may be substantiated? Or, were you simply making reference to the GOdF, which it must be remembered, rejected the idea of professing belief in a god in 1877, thereby causing several other obediences to de-recognize it. This was a long time after Franklin. Can that rubbish stop here and now, PLEASE? The declaration of "irregularity" by USA GL's did not stem from any such thing. The ball started rolling when the GOdF issued a charter to a mixed race lodge in Louisianna. The GL of LA got miffed and they removed their recognition from the GOdF as a result and they applied pressure to the rest of the GL's in the US. I am so sick and tired of reading the myth of 1877 stated as fact, I really have had enough of it. You guys seem to be the ones obsessed by it and altering history to prove your point. So American GLs still recognized GOdF well into the 1900's. So what? It still doesn't prove the prior claim that Franklin sat with "irregulars" to ensure American freedom. Also, if you want something stopped being stated as fact, please reference your own historical statements and stay on topic, not just slippery slopes of logic. Regardless of whether de-recognition was over God or chartering lodges in occupied territory, the fact remains in the article you yourself provided, namely: " In brief, Grand lodges in the United States began to withdraw their recognitions of the Grand Orient after 1868..." So, even if some still had amity after this point let us remember that nothing happens immediately and that all GLs are sovereign. What you have provided says nothing new or proves nothing new, except for this quote: " In brief, Grand lodges in the United States began to withdraw their recognitions of the Grand Orient after 1868. So, the point is what? MY point is the same: they were regular when Franklin sat with them.
|
|
|
Post by devoutfreemason on Oct 11, 2007 0:02:39 GMT
Can that rubbish stop here and now, PLEASE? The declaration of "irregularity" by USA GL's did not stem from any such thing. The ball started rolling when the GOdF issued a charter to a mixed race lodge in Louisianna. The GL of LA got miffed and they removed their recognition from the GOdF as a result and they applied pressure to the rest of the GL's in the US. I am so sick and tired of reading the myth of 1877 stated as fact, I really have had enough of it. You guys seem to be the ones obsessed by it and altering history to prove your point. So American GLs still recognized GOdF well into the 1900's. So what? It still doesn't prove the prior claim that Franklin sat with "irregulars" to ensure American freedom. Also, if you want something stopped being stated as fact, please reference your own historical statements and stay on topic, not just slippery slopes of logic. The reason you stated earlier as to why the GOdF is currently considered "irregular" was false. I simply provided you with the truth.
|
|
|
Post by negredo on Oct 11, 2007 0:07:43 GMT
"The reason you stated earlier as to why the GOdF is currently considered "irregular" was false. I simply provided you with the truth."
So maybe that is my mistake, but your "truth" does not disprove what I stated earlier: Franklin did not sit with irregulars just to ensure American security or freedom (whatever that is supposed to mean anyway).
So, your victory is not really a victory and I never claimed any win. Now we're clear on all fronts. Now, read my response above (funny it seems that some of you choose to never address salient points; just those that may prove some iota of your point) and relax and let it rest.
" I am so sick and tired of reading the myth of 1877 stated as fact, I really have had enough of it."
Funny, from reading your posts I think you need a break. You're too tense and seem prone to proving an as yet undefined point. I was clarifying a misleading statement, that's all. You cleared up yours but it doesn't change the fact that the original statement was still wrong. Now it's clarified. Relax.
|
|
|
Post by devoutfreemason on Oct 11, 2007 0:11:31 GMT
"The reason you stated earlier as to why the GOdF is currently considered "irregular" was false. I simply provided you with the truth." So maybe that is my mistake, but your "truth" does not disprove what I stated earlier: Franklin did not sit with irregulars just to ensure American security or freedom (whatever that is supposed to mean anyway). So, your victory is not really a victory and I never claimed any win. Now we're clear on all fronts. What are you talking about? Are you just trying to start a fight? The fact is that Ben Franklin's lodge is still there. It is still considered one of the most important lodges in Masonic history and yes, according to the mainstream outside of France it is still considered "irregular."
|
|
|
Post by negredo on Oct 11, 2007 0:18:13 GMT
Bro.--the GOdF and its lodges may be irregular now, but it wasn't then. The way the statement reads is that when he was alive he sat with irregulars to ensure "american security" (sic).
If that is not what is meant, then I think a little bone-up on grammar would be more appropriate to clarify that he meant that they are presently considered irregular and not when Franklin was alive. Then you wouldn't have to come flying in to the rescue.
|
|
|
Post by devoutfreemason on Oct 11, 2007 0:23:11 GMT
Bro.--the GOdF and its lodges may be irregular now, but it wasn't then. The way the statement reads is that when he was alive he sat with irregulars to ensure "american security" (sic). If that is not what is meant, then I think a little bone-up on grammar would be more appropriate to clarify that he meant that they are presently considered irregular and not when Franklin was alive. Then you wouldn't have to come flying in to the rescue. So, what was ok then is not ok now because some GL official says so? Nice way to throw around insults BTW. Perhaps you can "bone-up" on that somewhere else?
|
|
|
Post by negredo on Oct 11, 2007 0:36:52 GMT
You do not get it: I am not talking about something being okay then and and not now.
Stating that "Brother Ben Franklin, who sat with "irregular" French masons, did so to ensure a free america." (sic) is patently false by implying that he did so regardless of convention to ensure freedom. He did no such thing because there was nobody calling the GOdF irregular at that time.
"Nice way to throw around insults BTW. Perhaps you can "bone-up" on that somewhere else?"
Insults?! None given or implied. You're a sensitive one, no?
|
|
|
Post by devoutfreemason on Oct 11, 2007 0:44:42 GMT
Those exact same Masons including Brother Franklin if they lived today would be considered irregular. That is the point.
|
|
|
Post by mike on Oct 11, 2007 7:18:03 GMT
Those exact same Masons including Brother Franklin if they lived today would be considered irregular. That is the point. For crying out loud! If you were to actually read negredo's posts you would see that he is not attacking you but quite rightly correcting your mistake. When Ben Franklin (1706 - 1790) became a joining member of the GOdF, in the 1780s, it was not considered irregular by other Grand Lodges. Your very own posts confirms that it was definitely recognised as "regular" until 1868, nearly 70 years after his death. You can't just back-date irregularity because you want to claim that Franklin was somehow irregular. M
|
|