Talk:Grand Lodge

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Freemasonry, a project to improve all Freemasonry-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Freemasonry-related articles, please join the project.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
Freemasonry To-do:

This was a perfectly good article up to 2005 August 12 when someone appended a massive copy and paste from the RGLE website. I have recovered the non-copyvio stuff. -- RHaworth 07:50, 18 September 2005 (UTC)


Contents

[edit] Orient

It is EXTREMELY POV to state that Grand Orients are ALL atheist, or that the defintion of GO is a GL that is atheist. Grand Orient actually refers to a type of governance, usually one where the GM is appointed by a Council, and the Council appoints its own members, thus creating a self perpetutaiing oligarchy (source: Kent Henderson's Masonic World Guide, Lewsi Masonic, 1984, pg 23. This is, ironically, very similar to how the GL of Massachusetts gets its Grand Officers, as they are nominated BY the permanent members of GL, and, though voted on by the represented Lodges and sitting members of GL, a clear favourite is known beforehand. The "loser" in such an election is encouraged that, were he to be nominated the next year, he would do well in the election. --Vidkun 14:03, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

It is NPOV to state Grand Orients are all atheist, if it is true. To prove POV you must cite one or more Grand Orients for which it is not true - then alter the statement. Millennium Sentinel 15:05, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Grand Orient of Brazil, currently in amity with UGLE. I highly DOUBT UGLE would currently recognise a Grand Body that does not use a VSL, or was Atheist.--Vidkun 19:00, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Vidkun, I just tried to clean up the POV a bit -- how's it read to you now?--SarekOfVulcan 17:15, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
I concur with SarekOfVulcan’s edits of the main page article Grand Lodge from 17:07, 23 December 2005 to 17:18, 23 December 2005 Millennium Sentinel 17:28, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Well, we're just going to need to remove "Orient" entirely from the article, then. AFAIK, every jurisdiction that has an Orient as opposed to a Lodge does not have VSL present. Are there any exceptions that would make the statement not a fact? MSJapan 17:43, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Actually, I was just wondering that. As far as I know, the [only?] use of Orient in the USA is for Scottish Rite bodies. Take it out. Grye 08:41, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Grye, the only use for Orient in the US being in AASR has nothing to do with the fact that there are Grand Orients, some of which are NOT atheist. A Grand Orient IS an actual Grand Lodge level body, and the term Orient should stay in the article. In his book, Masonic World Guide Kent Henderson gives the definition of Grand Orient. If the users here want to ignore it, and state that all Grand Orients are atheist, and that being atheist is THE defining item for a GO, well, I don't need to name that walking, talking, quacking item, do I?--Vidkun 19:00, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
From a cursory search, the Grand Orients I found make no claims regarding Deity at all in their Landmarks. So, at least on the surface, the claim is correct (I haven't actually heard the term used with respect to AASR, though - that's quite interesting). Atheism may not the be THE defining term, but it's a big and obvious one. However, if you could cite an example showing that there are at least some GOs that follow the VSL rules, we can certainly change it. However, there is also a legitimate point of contention that the GL is not necessarily the same as the GO (otherwise, why not call it a GL?), so the Henderson definition would be very useful if you could c/p it under a new discussion topic. MSJapan 18:56, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
I was thinking more along the lines of "an Orient is an Orient. A Grand Lodge is a Grand Lodge. What's all the talk about SR & GOs doing on this page, "Grand Lodge". A dog is much like a wolf, & an GO may be much like a GL, but they are distinct of eachother. But whatevs..;-) Grye 06:46, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

In the AASR in the Southern Jurisdiction of the US (clearing up the AASR and GO issue, sort of) the local body (that has all four bodies under it - Lodge, Chapter, Council, Consistory) is called a Valley. The next larger body, or location (sometimes) is called the Orient. For example, I am a member of the Valley of Washington in the Orient of the District of Columbia. In the NMJ, it may be similar, thus, Valley of Boston, Orient of Massachusetts. Not sure.--Vidkun 20:30, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

It's all Valley in MA, and we don't have anything above that besides the Supreme HQ in Lexington. However, Freemasonry for Dummies explains the difference between a GO and a GL. I'll summarize it when I get a chance later today. MSJapan 15:00, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Is it similar to what Henderson refers to, ie. the oligarchical structure?--Vidkun 15:17, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
The structure is part of it, but there's more. Paraphrase from p. 114 of Freemasons for Dummies (as a note, I may be able to get usage on this, as I can contact the author):
  • A Grand Orient considers itself to be a federation of lodges (thus ritual can vary)
  • comprised of GM and GM-appointed council. The council appoints the GM, so it is self-perpetuating.
Apparently, those are the only differences. However, the Orient of France in particular violates the Landmarks thusly:
  • No required belief in Supreme Being
  • No VSL
  • Members can visit co-ed or female lodges
  • It has constituted lodges in jurisdictions where another GL already operates.
That should answer both major questions we've had so far. MSJapan 23:38, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] UGLE and mutual recognition

The statement: "Furthermore, any Grand Lodge not recognized by the United Grand Lodge of England (UGLE) is also not recognized by any Lodge in amity with UGLE." is factually incorrect, as can be shown in many of the cases of US GL's and which South American GL's they recognize, which AREN'T recognized by UGLE. While, yes, the original definitions of Freemasonry are essentially derived from UGLE, GLoS, and GLoI, UGLE does not get to define to other GL's who they may or may not recognize. Sure, UGLE may choose to de-recognize certain GL's, and it has, but it is NOT doing so for ALL GL's which recognize GL's UGLE does not.--Vidkun 19:08, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

It is their absolute official policy to do as the quote states, but you are right Vidkun, they often do not. Change it, especially after a statement like that on the discussion page! Grye 06:41, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Grye, I would love to see the official policy statement. I'm not arguing that it doesn't exist, I'm just curious as heck to see it, especially in light of the fact that reality and policy don't match--Vidkun 12:38, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Here's a link to UGLE's Constitutions, But I didn't see a reference specifically to "Furthermore, any Grand Lodge not recognized by the United Grand Lodge of England (UGLE) is also not recognized by any Lodge in amity with UGLE." in scanning quickly (an hour).

Actually, you are right, I think. My understanding, from what I've read somewhere from their publications, is that: When UGLE holds a Lodge as irregular, etc any other Lodge that specifically recognizes that irregular Lodge is also deemed irregular. BUT... Again, It seems weeks away from being citable (by me). With that, I'll strike out until then...;~) Thanks for keeping me level, V. PS sorry about the misspell

  • Grye 19:08, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
I'll go with the irregular bit . . . although, for a while, UGLE considered PHA Lodges to be Irregular, and nothing changed between irregularity and regularity, on the part of the PH lodges. It's that whole piece of blah about the difference between regular and Recognised. It's not so much a matter of keeping you level, it's just that I have felt, for a while, that the GL politics games were "Don't tick off UGLE", and that everyone should follow the "English lead" . . . while England is indeed the source of most of our Masonic traditions, a number of them have changed, back and forth, both in England and in Lodges derivative thereof. There are those who say "One Day Classes" are an innovation, and GL's doing them should be de-Recognised, and there are those who say that to question a GM's edicts (about, say, one day classes) is unMasonic conduct. The landmarks do change, and have (Vermont being a case I have pointed out already), and sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worse. Hop over to my talk page, give me some comments about my GL of Mass history section I am working on. --Vidkun 20:11, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Grand Orient definition

Kent Henderson's definition: pg 21, Masonic World Guide 1984 edition: "There are two main types of masonic government - the Grand Lodge and the Grand Orient. Both have their similarities, and their differences . . . " pg 23 "The Grand Orient. This form of masonic government possesses many inherent differences to Grand Lodge-type structures. A Grand Orient can in many ways be termed as a "substitute" for a Grand Lodge. It is of French origin, and is in effect, a masonic oligarchy. The term means Grand East - the east being only part of the lodge. This terminology is most definitive, as a Grand Orient is usually comprised of a Grand Master and a council. The Grand Master is always appointed by the council, and the council has the sole power to appoint any member to it, with the result being that it is entirely a self-perpetuating body. The net result of this Grand system is that it excludes the effective voice of far more than it includes. The oridinary mason, therefore, has no say whatsoever in Masonic government under a Garnd Orient. This system, not surprisingly, has historically faced many challenges from within and without. In terms of regular masonry, those jurisdictions using a Grand Orient system have seen it modified to make it more democratic and representative.

Grand Orients and Supreme Councils. The prevalent feature of many Grand Orients is that they have often come to be controlled by a Scottish Rite Supreme Council. This type of masonic body is also a masonic oligarchy, even in Britain and America, although this is not the point of issue here. Of course, as was explained in the last chapter, such an occurrence is regarded by regular Grand Lodges as being a gross irregularity. However, there are some Grand Orients wherein this Supreme Council control has not occurred."--Vidkun 20:32, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I would therefore call your attention to what caused the irregularity of the majority of French lodges, which were also based on the French system, and that was the absence of a VSL. The impression I get is that Henderson assumes the reader knows the difference in systems inherently, which is assuming too much. Anyhow, the structures are obviously substantially different in practice, so discussion continued below. MSJapan 05:51, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] name this article contest

The above, especially def of GO, would seem to indicate the title of this article should either:

  1. remain GL & another named GO be made,
  2. Changed to "Masonic Government" or somesuch
  3. put into Freemasonry#Organisational structure.

Freemasonry#Organisational structure already has more actual fact & informative information than this article. Why's it here at all? If it's not cleaned up fast, I'll propose it for disambiguation Grye 20:49, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Beats me. I was rather surprised (back when) to see a seperate page for Grand Lodge. I do believe there is value in a discussion of the two, in a shortened form, in the Freemasonry#Organisational structure section.--Vidkun 20:56, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
It shouldn't have more. I guess we need to port the majority of the Freemasonry article info here, and then shorten the section in the main article to summarize. We could solve a lot of the trouble that way. Furthermore, the Orient system does not figure into the majority of Freemasonry (which is what Freemasonry is supposed to be about), so it should probably just get a short mention and a separate article. MSJapan 05:55, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Working on MSJapan's note, it could be ported over here, & worked on, double-checked for content conflict, & then it can stay here or go back there? I'm reluctant to move said content from the main article, but it is a long one, & that is how growth & splits work... So I vote 1000% for something like that. Grye 06:01, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
Any new thoughts on this? My only real concern is that on the main page, it will be watched much more closely. I've (we all have) experienced articles like this becomming ranting platforms & very inconsistant, I feel due to Freemasonry's diligant watch & these sub-article's lack thereof. Other than that, I agree completely with all sentiments expressed here. Is there some way to make it distinctly part of the Freemasonry article, but still have it's actual page here? Grye 01:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Grand Orients that are not Atheistic

I have double checked the fact that UGLE recognizes the Grand Orient of Brazil (one of the 23 Grand Orients in that country!)... it does. A check of their web site here turned up this Q&A ... I don't speak Brazilian portugese, but even I can tell what this section means:

  • Para ser Maçom é necessário renunciar à religião a qual se pertence?
  • - Não, porque a Maçonaria abriga em seu seio homens de qualquer religião, desde que acreditem em um só Criador, o GRANDE ARQUITETO DO UNIVERSO, que é Deus. Geralmente existe essa crença entre os católicos, mas ilustres prelados tem pertencido à Ordem Maçônica; entre outros, o Cura Hidalgo, Paladino da Liberdade Mexicana; o Padre Calvo, fundador da Maçonaria na América Central; o Arcebispo da Venezuela, Don Ramon Ignácio Mendez; Padre Diogo Antonio Feijó; Cônegos Luiz Vieira, José da Silva de Oliveira Rolin, da Inconfidência Mineira, Frei Miguelino, Frei Caneca e muitos outros.

I hope this clear up any questions about there being at least one Grand Orient that is not Atheistic. I suppose that this is one of the few exceptions to the rule. Blueboar 13:54, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Orient De Cannan

Someone (editing under several annon IPs) seems insistant that we inclued a reference to the Grand Orient De Cannan in this article. I have been deleting this reference on the grounds that this article does not (and in my mind, should not) go into every individual Grand Lodge and Grand Orient. One reason for this is that, if we start discussing individual GLs and GOs, we are going to have to get into petty jurisdictional issues that will detract from the article (for example in addition to this GO de Cannan, there is also the District Grand Lodge of Syria and Lebanon which opperates under the jurisdiction of the Grand Lodge of NY... if we mention one, we would have to mention both). Blueboar 18:34, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A little bit more of information, please

I've unsourced-tagged this entry, as I was looking for general information. I only found stuff for insiders, and as Wikipedia is not the the place for POV, let us have some reliable dates &c. --RPD 01:13, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure what sort of information you were looking for (if info on Masonry in general, perhaps you really wanted to see Freemasonry). How is this only "stuff for insiders" and POV? Blueboar 12:21, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

If this is an encyclopedia, it has to supply appropriate links to main pages and references to more specific topics: If I learn from a link to grand orient that this deals somehow with an important aspect of free-masonry, and I need some clicks to get along, my conclusion is that there is a certain amount of misarrangement. And if this article does supply references, I cannot continue to search for the information I'm looking for. That is the point! --RPD 19:44, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

You will notice that in the very first sentence, the word Freemasonry is highlighted in blue. This is called a wikilink. If you click on that blue word, it will direct you to the Freemasonry article. This is how Wikipedia works. There are links to other articles as well, but that one relates the most.
However, I can see that someone who is not familiar with how Wikipedia works might want a more explicit link to the main Freemasonry article. I will add such a link. Blueboar 22:42, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Also... which information do you think needs to be referenced. I can definitely add references and citations but it would help to know where to start. Blueboar 22:47, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../g/r/a/Talk%7EGrand_Lodge_9b35.html"