You're already wrong in your first assertion that the Grand Orient of France is the Mother Grand Lodge of "Modern" Masonry. You're also incorrect in the assertion that the requirement of a belief in a Supreme being was something new that came up. That's completely incorrect - A belief in a Supreme being was, right from beginning, an essential component in both Grand Lodges.
Bro. John1234, it's usually better to explain why one's own set of facts are right instead of simply stating someone else's facts are wrong. Perhaps you could state, from your perspective, which Grand Lodge is the "mother grand lodge" of all Masonry and the history of Freemasonry's requirement of belief in a supreme being. Might actually get a good, light-filled conversation going. I'm all for that.
Bro. Emeth1, this is the Internet. Anonymous posting on public online forums is a long-established practice and there are a number of very good reasons for it. Not everyone is comfortable posting their full name and other personal information and those who do feel that comfortable are in no way more credible than those who don't. Implying you are more right because you are more open is false and, quite frankly, in online forums, is very bad manners. Please don't do it again.
I do have one question for you, Emeth1: I've been a Freemason for approaching two years and I have yet to be asked the difference between Antient and Modern. H'come you get asked so often?
--Bro. Karen, 3° DISCLAIMER: I am not authorized to speak for my Obedience but am happy to offer personal opinions and observations. An authorized spokesperson for my Obedience may be contacted at the offices in Larkspur, CO.
Bro. Karen, the only people I have seen that bring up the "Antient v.s. Moderns" canard are members of GOoUSA and those in sympathy with thier positions. It was, as far as I can determine, Jeff Peace who started this distinction. It is an argument that means nothing in the wider scheme of things, really.
I bed to differ, Bro Maximus. In England until 1813 when they joined to become UGLE there were some quite emphatic differences between the Moderns and the Antients. In particular the Antients , who came into being after the Moderns, objected to the Moderns changing round the Words and Modes of Recognition between the First and Second Degrees and their dispensing with the use of the Deacons. There was also the very contentious issue of the Royal Arch and its status. These matters were resolved by compromises, especially as regards HRA when UGLE came into being in 1813.
There is also a school of thought that holds that the Moderns were pro Hanoverian and the Antients pro Jacobite (Stuart) but this may be conjectural or as we have in our Third Verdict in Scotland "Not Proven".
Bernard E Jones, in his "Freemasons Guide and Compendium" gives a very good account of the Moderns and Antients up to the foundation of UGLE in 1813.