|
Post by lauderdale on Nov 30, 2007 10:56:23 GMT
I can't see why they shouldn't. Is not Freemasonry "Universally spread over the four quarters of the Globe" Perhaps the Brethren of st John's Lodge approached them as others mentioned on this thread approached the Grand Orient of France?
|
|
|
Post by tws on Nov 30, 2007 11:14:10 GMT
"The Grand Lodge at York is the original exponent of genuine Anglo-Saxon Freemasonry and is the governing body for Freemasonry in England, Wales, the Channel Islands and its Districts and Lodges Overseas."
Seems a bit grandiose. Claiming a lineage back to Athelstan? Can I start my own Grand Lodge? I have a computer and a garage...
|
|
|
Post by lauderdale on Nov 30, 2007 11:36:11 GMT
Well now, Freemasonry does claim to go back to the building of King Solomon's Temple, albeit Allegorically. There are of course many different opinions on the Origin of The Craft. Some claim it started in London in 1717, I have never accepted that version knowing that Lodges as we would recognise them existed in Scotland before that date. I personally tend to favour the Templar Connection although that has no definitive and documentary proof.
So if GLAE wishes to claim its Legendary Origin from the time of King Athelstan they are as welcome to that as any other "Traditional History" in Freemasonry, although in modern times GLAE has been in existence for a few years.
I would add that I am not nor have I ever been a member of GLAE but do wish to see them given a fair hearing and not brushed aside.
|
|
|
Post by penfold on Nov 30, 2007 12:27:54 GMT
I can't see why they shouldn't. Is not Freemasonry "Universally spread over the four quarters of the Globe" Perhaps the Brethren of st John's Lodge approached them as others mentioned on this thread approached the Grand Orient of France? True, but I would have thought it would have been an ideal opportunity for GLAE to foster a closer working relationship with one of the many other GL's in the US that are outside of the mainstream.
|
|
|
Post by lauderdale on Nov 30, 2007 12:36:46 GMT
Perhaps the US Brethren in question wanted a form of Freemasonry of the Anglo-Saxon type rather than French Grand Orient variety? There is room in "Freemasonry Universal" for many variations of Masonic practice.
|
|
|
Post by devoutfreemason on Nov 30, 2007 19:27:47 GMT
Perhaps the US Brethren in question wanted a form of Freemasonry of the Anglo-Saxon type rather than French Grand Orient variety? There is room in "Freemasonry Universal" for many variations of Masonic practice. I believe you hit the nail on the head Brother. I wish them well.
|
|