Anti-Masons...What if?

reply to post by Masonic Light

I haven't gone through the Scottish Rite...yet, so my knowledge is somewhat lacking. I'll have to look into that a bit more.

Originally posted by Masonic LightThese accounts are apocryphal, and are generally considered hoaxes. There is no actual Lodge visitor's register with Lenin's signature in it that has ever come to light, despite the above claim being made, not even in one of the Grand Orient's fake lodges.

Originally posted by Masonic Light
The above information is erroneous. None of those listed are known to have been Freemasons, not even fake Masons in the Grand Orient.

I agree that none of the Bolsheviks are known to have been members of the GOdF, however isn't the position of the United Grand Lodge of England that the The Grand Orient of France is regarded as "Irregular" or "Clandestine" Freemasonry and that members of the UGLE's obedience are forbidden to have Masonic Communication (meaning sit together in a tiled meeting)? How do you make the leap from the UGLE's definition of Clandestine Freemasonry to characterize the Lodge's under the GOdF's obedience as "fake"? Benjamin Franklin served as the Master of the Les Neuf Sœurs, a prominent lodge attached to the Grand Orient de France.

Prince Hall Lodges were also regarded as "Irregular" until recently and still are considered Irregular by some Southern Jurisdictions, are they also "fake"

An examination of the rescinding resolution reveals that, in order to maintain the previous good feeling of many other jurisdictions, it was necessary to indicate that if the subject of the Masonry of the (African – American) would disturb the peace and harmony of Masonry in America among the whites, the (African – American) subject must be cast aside. In view of the above fact, does that distinguished Mason still believe that unification of Masonry within this country regardless of race and color is remotely possible? [10] There is another phase of the race question which is not generally talked about and I ask why has it been necessary to erect so many “Jewish” Lodges in certain jurisdictions? It cannot be charged to differences in Language as would be the case with those of non-English tongues. [11] Anent the Massachusetts action of 1947, let us observe what happened to that Grand Lodge: (1) - Although delivered prior to that action, it might be well for our Prince Hall Leaders to read the address of William J. Bundy, Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of North Carolina before the 1947 session of the Conference of Grand Masters of North America as can be found in the proceedings of that body, it was in line with the expressions against Massachusetts. (2) - In 1947, the Grand Lodge of Texas severed fraternal relations, and what now follows is Article XV, page 34, of the Constitution and Laws of this grand body: This Grand Lodge does not recognize as legal or Masonic any body of negroes working under any character of charter in the United States, without regard to the body granting such charter, and they regard all negro lodges as clandestine, illegal and unMasonic, and moreover, they regard as highly censurable the course of any Grand Lodge in the United States which should recognize such bodies of negroes as Masonic Lodges.” While this has no relationship to this subject, the above regulation means that Alpha Lodge, No. 116, at Newark, NJ, is, in the opinion of Texas, a clandestine, illegal and unMasonic organization although New Jersey is recognized by the Texas jurisdiction.[12] (3) - On page 139, of the 1947 proceedings of the Grand Lodge of Kentucky and in Opinion No. 45, Albert C. Hanson, Grand Master stated as follows: Sec. 105, Book of Constitution states: “ a candidate for initiation must be a free-born white man, of the age of twenty-one years or more and of good report.” (4) The Grand Master of Florida issued an Edict severing relations with Massachusetts. (5) The 1947 proceedings of the Grand Lodge of California contains the very uncomplimentary remarks of its Grand Master, John Randall Moore. (6) In 1948, the Grand Lodge of Louisiana adopted a resolution of non-intercourse with Massachusetts but held over tentatively until 1949 for final action. (7) That about the remains of a African-American soldier who had been killed in Korea, and who was denied burial in the segregated section of the cemetery owned by Arizona Lodge, No. 2, at Phoenix, Ariz., which lodge works under the Grand Lodge of that State. (see New York Times, January 6, 1952.) (8) In his address of 1948, Chester H. Tarlow, Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of California very severely condemned the action of Massachusetts and said in part, as follows: “Massachusetts cannot convince any Prince Hall Mason in California that he had not been recognized by the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts (white).” The same Grand Master is quoted further: “We pray that some clear thinkers and some kind friends in some of these Jurisdictions may whisper good counsel, gently admonish Massachusetts of her error, and succeeding in convincing her that she is following a false Messiah, not out of, but into, a Masonic wilderness.” (9) This is rather strange story to relate but it was given me early in 1953 and has reference to a Lodge working under the District Grand Lodge of the Canal Zone which belongs to Massachusetts: “When I was in the Canal Zone a group of Masons in my own Blue Lodge organized a chapter of the Ku Klux Klan and for no reason whatever began prosecuting the Jews in their own Lodge, and the colored people outside of their lodge.” The remainder of the story has been omitted for good reasons but a group of that lodge succeeded in breaking that Klan chapter up. It is cited to illustrate that this feeling of race prejudice in the minds of some folks does not only include the men of color, also, that it is found among those not in official station. [13] (10) It is now impossible for a Prince Hall Mason to visit the Masonic Temple in London, England. (11) The Constitution of the Grand Lodge in the States of Kentucky and North Carolina, both contain a regulation that a candidate must be a white men. In view of the forgoing illustrations all of which are of recent date, I am wondering whether or not that distinguished Mason will really believe there is a “trend” toward a better understanding by his group as a whole, also, will he be able to over come the attitude of those grand bodies which I have mentioned., at least. I might add that following the declaration of the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts in 1947, our Grand Lodges throughout the country added fuel to the flame of prejudice by inserting advertisements in an edition of a Boston African-American newspaper extending congratulations to Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Massachusetts upon “its recognition” by the white grand body therein; copies of that edition were very widely circulated among the other Grand Lodges.[14]

WHITE AMERICAN versus PRINCE HALL MASONRY As Related to THE GRAND ORIENT OF FRANCE

reply to post by no1smootha

Prince Hall Lodges were also regarded as "Irregular" until recently and still are considered Irregular by some Southern Jurisdictions, are they also "fake"

Yes. At least in Florida/Georgia they are indeed "fake." Or clandestine, or irregular, or whatever you want to call them besides "regular."

Which is extremely odd, because I could travel to DC and sit in a "regular" Lodge of Free and Accepted Masons, right next to a Prince Hall Mason, and I would never know the difference, but technically I would be violating my obligation.

My brother recently demitted from Florida to Missouri. They recognize Prince Hall in Missouri, but they don't have "open books" like we have in Florida. The Masons in Missouri cannot believe that all of our degree work is written down, and opened up for perusal every other Saturday. To a Missouri Mason, that is an obvious violation of all of our obligations, but at some point the Grand Lodge of Florida decided it was ok, yet they still refuse to recognize Prince Hall like the majority of the other states? Things certainly are not ideal.

* * *
Personally, I would never discount another Mason's chosen path. I might not be able to sit in Lodge with them, but I wish them all the luck on their journey, and I assume they are learning the same moral lessons as me, and living their life in the same upright and just manner, so they deserve my respect.

reply to post by getreadyalready


when you say everything is opened up every other Saturday, are you referring to the public?
In NC it's all mouth to ear, otherwise the whole I will not part of the second section of the first degree obligation would be completely pointless.

reply to post by network dude


Only open to Masons, but, the Lodge is not open for instruction, and the degrees are spelled out word for word. Also many of the opening and closing ceremonies, and Lodge of Mourning, and Funeral Rites, etc., etc. Pretty much everything our fraternity does is written down in the books.

It used to be one set of books in the state, but now each district has a set. They are kept in a safe except during "open books."

As far as the "mouth to ear," I'm not sure if the actual exchange and word are spelled out, or only described. There is usually a pretty good turnout, and so far I have been too impatient to really sit and read the books, but it is a controversial topic in the lodges.

Originally posted by getreadyalready
Personally, I would never discount another Mason's chosen path. I might not be able to sit in Lodge with them, but I wish them all the luck on their journey, and I assume they are learning the same moral lessons as me, and living their life in the same upright and just manner, so they deserve my respect.

Well said and I concur with these sentiments. Recognition, regularity and the politics of various Grand Lodge jurisdictions are complex topics indeed. I respect your adherence to your obligation of your jurisdiction just as I respect your brother dimiting when he couldn't abide by them. Thank you for your response.

Originally posted by no1smootha

I agree that none of the Bolsheviks are known to have been members of the GOdF, however isn't the position of the United Grand Lodge of England that the The Grand Orient of France is regarded as "Irregular" or "Clandestine" Freemasonry and that members of the UGLE's obedience are forbidden to have Masonic Communication (meaning sit together in a tiled meeting)? How do you make the leap from the UGLE's definition of Clandestine Freemasonry to characterize the Lodge's under the GOdF's obedience as "fake"?

They are "fake" in the sense that they falsely claim to be Masonic. In other words, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, but isn't a duck, it's a fake duck.

Benjamin Franklin served as the Master of the Les Neuf Sœurs, a prominent lodge attached to the Grand Orient de France.

At that point in time, the Grand Orient was regular and Orthodox Freemasonry. When the modernists in the Grand Orient took control of that organization a century later, the orthodox Masons in the Grand Orient formed the traditionalist National Grand Lodge of France, under obedience of the same Ancient Landmarks that Franklin was obligated to. Therefore, it is the National Grand Lodge of France, and not the Grand Orient, that are the true successors of Franklin's French Masonry.

Prince Hall Lodges were also regarded as "Irregular" until recently and still are considered Irregular by some Southern Jurisdictions, are they also "fake"

No. Prince Hall is regular inasmuch as they obey the Ancient Landmarks. The fact that some mainstream GL's hold them as clandestine does not mean that they are not regular in their Work. The Grand Orient of France, however, is not regular in their Work, and no Prince Hall Grand Lodge would say that the Grand Orient is legitimately Masonic.

Originally posted by getreadyalready

Which is extremely odd, because I could travel to DC and sit in a "regular" Lodge of Free and Accepted Masons, right next to a Prince Hall Mason, and I would never know the difference, but technically I would be violating my obligation.

Actually, you wouldn't because Florida recognizes the Grand Lodge of DC. Grand Lodges operate under the agreement of the "Sojourning Mason" rule. While you are "sojourning" in DC, the laws of the Grand Lodge of DC apply to you.

Since Florida does not recognize any PHA Lodges, you could not visit a PHA Lodge in DC. But you can certainly visit a DC Lodge recognized by Florida, regardless of whether there are PHA Masons in there.

Originally posted by Masonic Light

Originally posted by getreadyalready

Which is extremely odd, because I could travel to DC and sit in a "regular" Lodge of Free and Accepted Masons, right next to a Prince Hall Mason, and I would never know the difference, but technically I would be violating my obligation.

Actually, you wouldn't because Florida recognizes the Grand Lodge of DC. Grand Lodges operate under the agreement of the "Sojourning Mason" rule. While you are "sojourning" in DC, the laws of the Grand Lodge of DC apply to you.

Since Florida does not recognize any PHA Lodges, you could not visit a PHA Lodge in DC. But you can certainly visit a DC Lodge recognized by Florida, regardless of whether there are PHA Masons in there.

that answers a question I had but hand't asked yet. Thanks for that.

Originally posted by no1smootha
Benjamin Franklin served as the Master of the Les Neuf Sœurs, a prominent lodge attached to the Grand Orient de France.

I understand you're upset at being called a "fake" Mason, and I don't think this is the place at all for jurisdictional pissing contests, so I'll refrain from such language as best I can. That said, this is kind of a non-sequitur. There was no conflict when Franklin served in a lodge that was then regular, and the legitimacy/regularity of the GOdf isn't really bolstered by Franklin's participation in its fundamentally different earlier phase.

reply to post by Masonic Light


But my obligation prohibits me from sitting in any Lodge with a "clandestinely made Mason."

So, wouldn't it still be a violation of my obligation to sit in a regular Lodge, with a Mason that my jurisdiction claims was "clandestinely made?"

I think Florida will recognize PH within the next 5 years, but for now, I think it would still be a violation.

Originally posted by getreadyalready

But my obligation prohibits me from sitting in any Lodge with a "clandestinely made Mason."

So, wouldn't it still be a violation of my obligation to sit in a regular Lodge, with a Mason that my jurisdiction claims was "clandestinely made?"

I think Florida will recognize PH within the next 5 years, but for now, I think it would still be a violation.

As you know, there are many ritualistic differences from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, and I'm not familiar with a Blue Lodge obligation that specifically states "clandestinely made Mason". Is this actually a direct quote from the Florida ritual?

I ask because there is pretty big difference between "clandestine" and "irregular". "Clandestine" refers to the status of recognition, whereas "regularity" refers to the mode of work and compliance with the Ancient Landmarks.

So, for example, the Grand Orient of France discussed above is both clandestine and irregular. Prince Hall Affiliation, on the other hand, is "clandestine" in the eyes of some GL's, but not "irregular".

Nevertheless, when you're in DC, PHA Masons are not "clandestinely made".

Originally posted by Atlantican
If that was the case I don't think Albert Pike would have been acknowledging "Lucifer" as his savior. When I see a statement condemning Albert Pike's declaration, then I will probably agree that the theory is plausible.

Albert Pike made no such an acknowledment. In fact, Pike was an Episcopalian, i.e., Christian.

Originally posted by no1smootha
Benjamin Franklin served as the Master of the Les Neuf Sœurs, a prominent lodge attached to the Grand Orient de France.

Originally posted by Masonic LightAt that point in time, the Grand Orient was regular and Orthodox Freemasonry. When the modernists in the Grand Orient took control of that organization a century later, the orthodox Masons in the Grand Orient formed the traditionalist National Grand Lodge of France, under obedience of the same Ancient Landmarks that Franklin was obligated to. Therefore, it is the National Grand Lodge of France, and not the Grand Orient, that are the true successors of Franklin's French Masonry.

This is the legacy of Franklin's French Freemasonry?

Major Rebellion Within the National Grand Lodge of France (GLNF)

It seems to have more in common with the colonialism, establishing petty dictators in order to plunder a country's resources at the expense of it's people doesn't seem to fit with Franklin's revolutionary spirit but at least the adhere to the Ancient Landmarks as you say. The Landmarks that are so clearly defined as it were, to restrict some with physical impairment in some Jurisdictions or race in another.

The Ancient Landmarks

Look, I am not trying to make American Freemasons recognize mixed Freemasonry as regular, nor am I trying to force integration upon it's Lodges. I am simply pointing out that recognition and regularity are more complex than you seem to believe. Each Jurisdiction is free to hold amity with Lodges it considers regular or deemed irregular if they are thought fall outside of their idea of Landmarks. Whether those Lodges are to be considered "fake" that is up to the subjective opinion of an individual Mason.

Originally posted by no1smoothaPrince Hall Lodges were also regarded as "Irregular" until recently and still are considered Irregular by some Southern Jurisdictions, are they also "fake"

Originally posted by Masonic LightNo. Prince Hall is regular inasmuch as they obey the Ancient Landmarks. The fact that some mainstream GL's hold them as clandestine does not mean that they are not regular in their Work. The Grand Orient of France, however, is not regular in their Work, and no Prince Hall Grand Lodge would say that the Grand Orient is legitimately Masonic.

Did you read what I had posted? In the Landmarks in some Jurisdictions, membership as defined is limited to free, WHITE men. How do you choose to interpret that?

Originally posted by OnTheLevel213

Originally posted by no1smootha
Benjamin Franklin served as the Master of the Les Neuf Sœurs, a prominent lodge attached to the Grand Orient de France.

I understand you're upset at being called a "fake" Mason, and I don't think this is the place at all for jurisdictional pissing contests, so I'll refrain from such language as best I can. That said, this is kind of a non-sequitur. There was no conflict when Franklin served in a lodge that was then regular, and the legitimacy/regularity of the GOdf isn't really bolstered by Franklin's participation in its fundamentally different earlier phase.

I appreciate your sensitivity to the issue, I didn't make my point very clear about the Lodge of Nine Sisters. I wasn't trying to bolster the Grand Orient of France as legitimate, my objection which was to characterizing Les Neuf Sœurs as "fake" by it's association with GOdF. Perhaps, I should start a thread for the Jurisdictions that aren't recognized as regular by United Grand Lodge of England on ATS to address the issues that come up from time to time. I make it very clear that my branch of Freemasonry isn't regarded as regular by the mainstream but the language that some use dismiss it is offensive. I can completely understand characterizing GOUSA or 1613 as "fake" as they have no charter whatsoever, but I do take offense when chartered Lodges in Jurisdictions that hold a place in Masonic history are so easily dismissed as such for no other idea than that they have a different idea of what the Landmarks are.

I will do my best to refrain from "Jurisdictional pissing contests" but I will not sit idly by while another makes claims that I object to either.

Double post

Originally posted by Masonic Light
As you know, there are many ritualistic differences from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, and I'm not familiar with a Blue Lodge obligation that specifically states "clandestinely made Mason".

In the Master Mason obligation in my jurisdiction their is a portion which the candidate promises, "Nor will I sit in a clandestine lodge, nor hold Masonic communication with a clandestine....Mason, I knowing him to be such."

reply to post by Masonic Light

Nevertheless, when you're in DC, PHA Masons are not "clandestinely made".

That is a good point. At least that point is good enough to ease my guilt, should I decide to visit a Lodge in another jurisdiction that does recognize PHA.

AugustusMasonicus spelled out the part of the obligation, and it is very close to the one we use.

Originally posted by no1smootha

This is the legacy of Franklin's French Freemasonry?

Yes, it is. The fact the year-old article you linked to shows disagreements in that country's Masonic politics is irrelevant to the fact that it is the orthodox Masonry in the French Republic. If it's members are unhappy with their leadership, they'll vote them out.

It seems to have more in common with the colonialism, establishing petty dictators in order to plunder a country's resources at the expense of it's people

Funny, I didn't see anything in that article about colonialism, dictators, and plundering resources.

Look, I am not trying to make American Freemasons recognize mixed Freemasonry as regular, nor am I trying to force integration upon it's Lodges. I am simply pointing out that recognition and regularity are more complex than you seem to believe.

Having served on the Jurisprudence Committee of my Grand Lodge, I am aware of such complexity.

Each Jurisdiction is free to hold amity with Lodges it considers regular or deemed irregular if they are thought fall outside of their idea of Landmarks. Whether those Lodges are to be considered "fake" that is up to the subjective opinion of an individual Mason.

It's not quite that simple. Disregarding for the moment any claims of regularity, an organization is either Masonic or it's not. The pertinent question is, what makes a particular organization "Masonic"?

Obviously, if we say that wearing ceremonial aprons and calling each other "Masons" makes an organization "Masonic", then we would have to say that the Grand Orient of France is Masonic, as well as the Le Droit Humaine, and countless others. But is that all that qualifies for an organization to be "Masonic"? As far as that goes, even the anti-Masons on this forum, if they so desired, could buy some regalia, print off Duncan's Ritual from some website, then set up a lodge and call themselves Masons.

In reality, there are certain specific criteria required for an organization to actually be Masonic. If such criteria is met, then those organizations may request fraternal recognition from other legititimate Masonic bodies. If the criteria is not met, then they are not Freemasons, regardless of what they may call themselves.

Did you read what I had posted? In the Landmarks in some Jurisdictions, membership as defined is limited to free, WHITE men. How do you choose to interpret that?

There are no Landmarks limiting Freemasonry to "white" men. In the United States, during the era of segregation, some Grand Lodges had this in their constitutions. But it was never one of the Ancient Landmarks, and I am persoanlly aware of no regular Grand Lodge who currently has a such a thing on its books.

reply to post by HellstormRising



awsome post really enjoyed the read