We are not all brothers

We are not all brothers

An introduction to Clandestine Freemasonry

Much of the details given in the Power Point has been stated & argued in various discussions on our forum. And, I have many links & references to those facts, but they are cumbersome to sort out when needed.   

....  I think the link needs to be a sticky on the PHA forum section for quick reference by new Masons and forum members.      ... I always though the IF&AM had a row with Mrs. Banks after Banks died, but i was not able to confirm this.  The Power Point link did.   ... My question now, does Mrs. Banks still own the IF&AM (controlling interest anyway)?   ... ie: Does the GM of the IF&AM answer to Mrs. Banks?  She owns or did own the IF&AM.


Edited by edwmax - March/20/2013 at 8:37am

Thanks, Bro. Caution.

This, plus the flow chart you posted earlier, have helped me a lot in trying to figure out who's who and who's clandestine or not recognized.

I suggest that both postings are useful and educational to all, whether mainstream or PHA. Keep up the good work, and again, thanks

Fraternally

Bob Chadwick
Palm Bay#397
Palm Bay, FL

Bro ed,

Caution1010 wrote: Bro ed, In jurisdictions that have mutual recognition, men belonging to clandestine groups have gone as far as sit in their tyled meetings under the ignorance of sitting "ms" brothers who either did not know any better or automatically assumed a bunch of african american men claiming to be masons are "prince hall" I believe it forms good education for all masons, as this is a scourge we can agree we need to tackle in unison. the more informed we are, the more capable we'll be at tackling the issue.

I have to show my current Dues card when visiting Lodges within my GL for the first time, even when wearing a purple & gold apron. And, every Lodge outside of my GL cross checks my dues card & Lodge name against their GL's list of recognized GLs.       ... So what you just claimed wouldn't and couldn't otherwise happen unless a known PHA Mason vouched for the Clandy when visiting.

The clandy masons listed in that article can not produce proper due cards to prove their GL is recognized.

Ed, your GL doesn't have recognition though right?

I think what Caution was saying is that in Jurisdictions with recognition...those MS Lodges are so afraid of the 'race card' that they automatically assume a black man claiming to be a mason is Prince Hall. This wouldn't surprise me that much because even in my lodge when you talk to Brothers about Prince Hall they think it is all the same. Granted we don't have recognition, but I'm willing to bet that in places that do have recognition... The Brothers are largely ignorant.

Also, it would probably seem inappropriate to check dues cards on all the black masons only. I think it is completely conceivable where clandestine PH masons have shown up to MS lodges and the MS lodges are too worried to try them bc they will be labeled racist, or too ignorant to know about clandestine PH organizations.

Here that wouldn't fly because we check everyone's dues cards and such no matter what you look like.

Edwmax, while the practice of checking dues cards and List of Lodges/GL is should be followed to the "t", Caution is 100% correct in saying that members of these clandestine bodies are now attempting to visit lodges within the GLs of State, and they are getting in.  I have seen the proof from not only a picture that was taken but also a member of the lodge who pleaded with the leadership to not allow the visitor because he was from a JGJ GL also confirmed the event took place.

edwmax wrote: Flotown79 wrote: Edwmax, while the practice of checking dues cards and List of Lodges/GL is should be followed to the "t", Caution is 100% correct in saying that members of these clandestine bodies are now attempting to visit lodges within the GLs of State, and they are getting in.  I have seen the proof from not only a picture that was taken but also a member of the lodge who pleaded with the leadership to not allow the visitor because he was from a JGJ GL also confirmed the event took place. Then that Lodge should lose it Charter, for two reasons.  First the Wm & members were on notice the visitor was clandestine; 2nd, a member objected & the WM allowed the visitation anyway.   ... I don't care, there is no reason to violate protocol & Obligations.   ... Was this a PHA Lodge or MS Lodge.   We already know from past PHA Masons on the forum this has happened in their Lodge, but I don't believe a MS lodge knowingly allowed it to happen.

This was a "MS" lodge. 

Thats what happens when you choose being politically correct over being correct.

The clandy is Tony Hawkins a PGM of the John g jones Affiliated gl in California. He deceived the good brothers of La Mesa lodge in California. I will post the pic from my pc today. I'm having trouble with posting from my phone

Flotown79 wrote: Clearly some action needs to be taken concerning that lodge.  If I was GM I don't think I would go as far as revoking the Charter for that hurts members who had no knowledge.  I would suspend and consider expulsion of every member that knew the situation at hand. I don't want it to sound like an "I told you so," however a few years ago on this forum I warned about the day these groups would do such.

I know this is an old post ... 

First,  the members that didn't know about the incident at the time it occurred are not entirely blameless.    They have a duty to report and file a complaint with their Grand Master.   ... If the GM did arrest the Charter, it can be later restored on satisfactory adjudication of the incident.  ... Further, the GM can also issue emergent Dimits to those members not involved in the incident to join other Lodges.    ... Arresting a Charter only stops a Lodge from meeting until the Grand Master is satisfied the Officers and Lodge will comply with all rules and Bylaws of the GL and the bylaws of the Lodge.  The Grand Master can restore a Charter or he can permanently suspend it after further investigation or hearing.

Second, ....   We know clandestine masons will try to visit regular Lodges.  This was the very reason the 'due card' system was started'  ... to stop illegal visitation.    And, because of the required 'Dues Card' attempted visitation by clandestine and suspended masons has become rare in many of our jurisdictions.

Adept? wrote: Are not all lodges that are not recognized by the United Grand Lodge of England for all intents and purposes clandestine?  ....

I am not sure UGLE claims such a power or right except for managing visitation to and from its own lodges.

Also I would tend to distinguish "irregular" from "clandestine"

Irregular seems to mean: not have quite the same rules.  For example I understand that the UGLE recognises at least one order of Masonry that admits women as regular in all respects, except for the admission of women.

This does not seem to me to be the same as clandestine.   I rather think that refers to organisations that keep their existence or perhaps their lineage secret, but from what I have read it is primarily a US problem.

Personally I would prefer if recognition were based on something more than the opinion of Grand Lodge committees.  

For example, if we had access to Masonic Science we could use the working tools in a moral sense to measure how true a brother is to the pattern laid down by the GAOTU.







Edited by Ozzie - October/01/2014 at 10:04pm

Adept? wrote: Are not all lodges that are not recognized by the United Grand Lodge of England for all intents and purposes clandestine?  If they are not recognized and regular, then they are clandestine, and irregular...Right?    ...

Not true .... WELL  ... They are clandestine to the UGLE, but may not be clandestine to another GL.   Each GL maintained their own list of recognized Lodges.  A GL/Lodge must ask other GLs for recognition and then the recognition is rededicated when granted.    ... Recondition can be withdrawn from otherwise 'regular & recognized" GLs.  An example would be West Va & Ohio a couple of years ago.

Adept? wrote: Ok, this is confusing... let me see if i have this right. Grand lodges of a state can choose to recognize lodges and grand lodges from other states even if that lodges home state does not have recognition with it?   ...

 

Yes that is correct and it has to do the 'autonomous' nature of the GL.   ... Next a GL can not recognize a Lodge without recognizing its GL.  Thus, when a GL is recognized ALL Lodges of that GL are reconized.    A GL has a published list of GLs & their Lodges of which they recognize.

The Florida PHA situation is confusing at best due to infighting and splits years ago. This has been a topic on the forum a while back.    My recollection   ... the GL with PHA in its name is not recognized and the "Most Worshipful Union Grand Lodge of Florida" is the recognized PHA affiliated GL.

You said "... even if that lodges home state does not have recognition with it? "  I'm not sure specifically what you mean here.   For a GL to recognized a Lodge of another GL not recognized with the jurisdiction of another 'recognized' GL would certainly be a violated of the 'recognition agreement' between to two GLs.

Adept? wrote:   ... Especialy since all recognized lodges in the US are recognized (and i believe chartered by) the UGLofE. "Please correct me if i'm inacurate in that statement."  ...

Not true.   Only the early colonial Lodges were Charter by the 'Grand Lodge of England' (Moderns: not the same as UGLE), The Ancient Grand Lodge of England (Ancients), The GL of Scotland, the GL of Ireland and may be a couple of Continental GLs. A few 'Time Immemorial' Lodges were also formed.   As the US expanded West new lodges were Charted by GLs from which Masons came.  Then these Lodges with growth formed new GLs. 

Edited by edwmax - October/02/2014 at 9:44am

Regular: Formed by a legitimate lineage of lodges or a competent grand lodge. Practices freemasonry as prescribed by the generally agreed and accepted customs and traditions of freemasonry. E.g all Lodges and Grand Lodges formed from the (Now United) Grand Lodge(s) of England 

Edited by Caution1010 - October/02/2014 at 3:28pm

Indeed

What are u talking about?

>Wren was of the wrong political party and was out of favor when George I became King in 1714.

This is the reason for the 4 lodges breaking away to form their own Grand Lodge that was loyal to the German king of England.  The Scottish lodges tended to be loyal to their own royal line.

The question of legitimacy of those 4 lodges is bypassed in mainstream Masonic histories by deeming them time-immemorial despite their recent formation and the identity of the Grand Lodge that chartered them is not considered.






Edited by Ozzie - October/03/2014 at 11:36pm

>Most (if not ALL) Lodges formed before this period were 'time immemorial'.

That is the official view, but one of the 4 lodges was less than 2 years old and the oldest about 50 years. 

This can be dealt with by defining time-immemorial  as "we don't have the minute books any more".  You may think that a foolish argument but it has been used elsewhere in a post on this topic.

Henry Ford nailed history.




Edited by Ozzie - October/04/2014 at 6:03pm

Actually, may I ask for references or sites were I can read about what you gentlemen are talking about?

Ozzie wrote: You will need to search widely as the prior history of the 4 time immemorial lodges is left largely silent for reasons that may become obvious.  Here is a start: "The second Lodge which originally met at the Crown Ale-house is believed to have originated in 1712." http://www.phoenixmasonry.org/goose_and_gridiron_ale-house.htm

This is simply a history of where these Lodges met after the formation of the GL of England and has nothing to do with the above discussion and you implications.    ... The reason there no known history of these Lodges before 1717 was there were no requirement for Lodges to keep records & minutes.  And, very few exist.   

Now you are trying to infer a single event in 1720 after Lodges started keeping records as being the cause of lost secretes before 1717 and before Lodges keeping records.   ...  Further, the elaborate rituals that we have today did not exist in the 1500 & 1600s thus the secrets you keep referring to did not exist within the operative Lodges.  The candidate was simply read an obligation of which he affirmed.

CanadianPaul wrote:   ... but there is considerable evidence there were speculative masons long before that.

The discussion isn't about whether speculative masons existed before 1717.   The 4 Lodges that formed the GL of England were largely speculative in its membership and certainly existed before 1717.  

... Yes, there were a couple of old Scottish Lodge that maintain their records back to the 1600 & 1500s.  I think only one still have all those intact.    Very few of the Lodges from the 1500 & 1600 survived much less whatever records they may have had.  What little ritual that existed was taught mouth to ear because most masons of that time could not read or write.  The Lodge was their formal vocational education.   Therefore, very little of any ritual was written down from this time period.

It has been shown by Masonic Historians that most Lodges of this period simply gave the new masons an obligation and then read the 'old charges' (Shaw - Regius or similar) to him.   The elaborate ritual that we use today did not exist within those old Lodges.  Therefore, the secretes that Ozzie is trying to imply as being lost did not exist within the old Lodges.

Now that said ... Dr. Anderson and Dr. John Theophilus Desaguliers researched much of Freemasonry from the existing old Scottish Lodges and put together the basics of our modern ritual.   I believe Dr. Desaguliers was actually sued for stealing the ritual from one Lodge. (wish I can find that reference again). So bits and peaces of the ritual were developing in the early 1710 & 20s.




Edited by edwmax - October/06/2014 at 8:54am

I don't think its off topic.