Talk:Regular Masonic jurisdictions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Regular Masonic jurisdictions article.
Article policies
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:

Contents

[edit] Old talk

I am confused by this Article... what is it really about? The title says "Regular Masonic Jurisdictions", but no where does it define what "regular" means. In fact, the Intro, and the sections on Minnesota and Prince Hall discuss "recongnition" more than "Regularity". These two terms are not quite the same. The section on Continental Europe and France does not discuss regularity or recognition at all. Why is it in the Article (as written)? I really think we need to do a major re-write.

I would propose the following outline:

  • Start with a definition of the words "jurisdiction" and "regular" (as opposed to irregular). Discuss the difference and similarity between "regularity" and "recognition" (you can use the current UGLE v. RGLE as an exampe) and how one will effect the other.
  • Discuss why recognition issues are important, and why consensus between GLs is needed (for example, if you were visiting a lodge in another juresdition, you need to know that everyone else in the room comes from a lodge or jurisdiction that your GL recognizes.)
  • Include the fact that until recently most Grand Lodges held to the idea of "Exclusive Jurisdiction" (ie there can be only one recognized Grand Lodge in any given jurisdition.) and how this is changing.
  • Use Prince Hall as an example of a "Regular" jurisdiction that was not "Recognized" and then discuss how this has recently changed (except in the southern states)
  • Discuss the issue of Minnesota as an example of how recognition does not always meet with agreement (point out that Minnesota considered GLF to be "regular" but most other GLs did not agree, and so either withdrew recognition from Minnesota or threatened to do so until Minnesota dropped the idea)
  • Discuss the Situation in France in more detail (Grand Orient, GLF, GLNdF) and how this complicates things in Europe.

Any thoughts? Blueboar 16:18, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Along with a major rewrite, I think we need to move it to another title. "Freemasonry and Regularity", maybe? You seem to have a pretty good grasp on what needs to be done here: looking forward to the results.--SarekOfVulcan 17:34, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
This is clearly an artiicle whose purpose is to justify the GLF, and as such, it's not NPOV. For example, the last five paragraphs do nothing but justify how GLF is supposedly regular, although no one else recognizes them. That pretty much needs to go entirely, as it does nothing wrt the title of the article. I would also point out that only some Southern states do not recognize PH, but furthermore, PH does have an exclusive jurisdiction clause. MSJapan 04:59, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
"*Include the fact that until recently most Grand Lodges held to the idea of "Exclusive Jurisdiction" (ie there can be only one recognized Grand Lodge in any given jurisdition.) and how this is changing." Actually, Exclusive Jurisdiction is POSSIBLY an America Centric concept, as, for example, there are multiple GL's in Germany, and, in fact, while many American GL's claim to follow the American Doctrine of Exclusive Territorial Jurisdiction, in the issues with the GLdF and GLNF, a number of American GL's recognised both at the same time. See Paul Bessel's page on French Recognition. Regularity references could also cite from his page as well, as I found his work to be fairly neutral. --Vidkun 14:18, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I edited the page piece by piece in order to give citations why with each summary. Not 3RR-eligible, it wasn't a war. I'm going to stop now, because if I go on much further, there's really not much left. I had to struggle not to delete the UGLE reference, as it's cited in the first paragraph of the above-linked Grand Lodges page. Plus it has that reference to Kilwinning..;-) From here, it pretty much needs a quick re-write to complete the stub. & even with that, citing PH & GLdF make it sound like an anti-PH & -GLdF page. Which sucks. We should also add Masonic usage of "Regular" & "Amity" to their Wiktionary entries, which I will try & look at doing as well, ASAP. Understand, I have NO enmity towards any of the Lodges, left or removed, & this is not in any way an act of animosity. Wow. so many descriptive words beginning with "A"...Grye 07:52, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] RGLE - again! (sigh)

The Regular Grand Lodge of England article has popped up again!

Back in 2005 Aug/Sept my moves to delete this material (see AfD for MHC and AfD for RGLE) were mainly on the grounds that Rui Gabirro was spamming Wikipedia with crude copy-and-pastes from the RGLE website (and goodness knows there is plenty there to copy!). See for example this edit to the Grand Lodge article and all the others listed in User:RHaworth/RGLE (a note to myself).

My feeling is that the present RGLE article should be allowed to survive subject to the addition of a definitive statement as to its recognition by other Grand Lodges. But I am not a mason. My only concern is to keep Wikipedia tidy and authoritative, so I will leave it to bretheren to decide. -- RHaworth 20:13, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Regularity discussion

I've tried to restructure and make the bits about regularity more useful than just saying 'its complicated'

Need to add point about UGLE identifying HFAF etc as freemasonry insamuch as the regularity issues are not acceptable.

Also need to highlight that Masonci interaction does not preculde discussions.

[edit] Prince Hall

I'm uncomfortable with:

The exceptions to these new recognitions are in the states of the former confederacy, where the mainstream Grand Lodges generally do not recognize their Prince Hall counterparts. Ironically, the Prince Hall Grand Lodges in states where they are recognized, also recognize the Prince Hall Lodges in the old confederacy area.

As it is a bit too much of a broad brush statement. Is there anything more specific about which southern GLs do not recognise PH and how they deal with mutual recognition of those GLs which do? ISTR that Texas is one which refuses to recognise that.ALR 08:20, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

It changes from time to time (like Texas, actually!), but I've added a link to Paul Bessel's recognition map, and changed the paragraph accordingly. MSJapan 03:25, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Also, the ironically bit is sort of disingenuous, IMO. Why WOULDN'T all PHA groups recognize other PHA groups, regardless of where they are lcoated?--Vidkun 14:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I fixed that, but it is true that PHA lodges have regularity issues as well, just like UGLE/RGLE. MSJapan 15:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I've lost the reference, but sometime in the 19th century there was a huge schism in Prince Hall Masonry and members in several states split from the recognized lodges and formed their own- resulting in some states having two Grand Lodges, neither of which recognized the other.Saxophobia (talk) 21:46, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

That would be those issues arising from the National Compact era, when PHA GL's united under a National Grand Lodge, temporarily. Some of them broke away from the National Compact, reverting to their own independent GL status. Some Lodges continued to be formed by the Compact, and these are, for the most part, known as PHO not PHA (Prince Hall Origin) and sometimes PHO (Compact). There are some issues over which group uses AFAM vs which use FAM, which leads to a question among many Masons "Are you four letter or three?". Bessel has some interesting bits about it on his site, as well as the Phylaxis Society of PHA.--Vidkun (talk) 14:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dogma

Since the great schism of 1877 freemasonry is divided in two branches, liberal or irregular freemasonry and the dogmatic or regular type of freemasonry

I noticed this line as part of the recent activity and I'm uncomfortable with the characterisation of Oriental masonry being liberal and anglo-saxon masonry as being dogmatic. Checking the reference for that it's a lecture by an Oriental mason which uses the description, so essentially it's a self-characterisation. In this context I see the use of dogmatic as quite pejorative.

At the moment I'm unclear on a more appropriate way to describe it. Any thoughts?

ALR 20:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

It's "regular" and "irregular", which are technical terms. The others are subjective, so we shouldn't use them, because it's really not as simple as Anglo vs. anything; there are differences within the same countries between the branches. MSJapan 03:28, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Heck, there are differences between GLs within the various branches. UGLE isn't the same as GLoNY, which is different from GLMA and so on. It's just that there is more similarity and agreement in the "Anglo" branch. The differences have never risen to the level where one GL feels they have to declair the other "irregular". Dogmatic? Hardly. Blueboar 14:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


I too am uncomfortable with the term "dogmatic". But then, much of the materials on this page reflects its own dogmatism rather than being truly informative.

The concept of "regular" is an internal one, not a cross-Masonic jurisdiction one. "Regularity" and "recognition" are distinct, in that each Masonic GL (and its Lodges) is "regular" from its own perspective (and usually also from its own historical lineage) - including the Co-Masonic jurisdictions. It would be better to keep discussions about inter-GL recognition on a separate page, and stick to the concept of 'regularity' on this one... with the whole notion of "Regular Masonic Jurisdictions" being faulty at best, or indeed dogmatic and parochial at worst.

The article, in that sense, remains one (at this stage) that is bias and cannot be used for general Masonic education.

I have further refrained from further editing the main article as it seems that it would likely be altered to solely reflect the views held by what is perhaps the majority of Masons - but only in the English-speaking world. It's a little like reading what is truly "Christian" from a site based in the Vatican (or, for that matter, Baptist).

Though I am in a masculine-only jurisdiction in amity with UGLE (UGLV, Victoria, Australia), it is clear that the concept of "regularity" when spoken outside of the context of my own GL cannot be so bias-ly presented.

For example, a GL that decides to no longer require a specific belief is not "irregular", but simply may decide that the requirement is unmasonic. Similarly, a GL that sees the 18th century exclusion of women as simply reflecting the social bias of the times, and that this has naught to do with what is characteristically Freemasonic, is not "irregular", but is likely to have made that move based on its own understanding of the fundamental principles as to what would reflect the ideals embodied in Freemasonry.

One of the worse aspect of the concept of "regularity" that has emerged in some (but not all) areas is the taking of the writings of a few enthusiasts as though unquestionable (especially Mackey and a few others) - for in their attempt to 'list' what remain essentially un-listable "Landmarks", confusion between these, 'regularity', 'amity', and Anderson's constitutions (as though this reflected the naissance of FM!) emerges.

As long as the concept of Regularity is described according to is dogmatic interpretation and imposed on other GLs, the Wikipedia entry will remain bias.

Jmdavid (talk) 04:20, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with Jmdavid. It seems to be a point of assertion that continental Freemasonry is 'irregular'. Do members of GOdF describe their own lodges as 'irregular'? If not, then may I suggest we alter the wording to "Since the great schism of 1877 freemasonry is divided in two branches, Continental Freemasonry and Anglo Freemasonry. These two branches are not in mutual regular amity, since Anglo lodges do not consider Continental style lodges to be regular."? WP:NPOV. Fuzzypeg★ 03:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I'd agree, Fuzzy, but for the Anglo issue. I got roundly beat up (here on wikipedia), a few years back, on the term Anglo being used to describe it. I got told it was a racist term, both from the US POV, and from Scottish Masons' POV (one of our more vociferous socks, in fact). So, I don't think Anglo will work. The definition of regual v irregular cannot work, here, as it's not NPOV. I've held that opinion all along, and I belong to a "regular" GL! I'm not sure what term could work, Continental vs English Style? It's a can of worms waiting.--Vidkun (talk) 14:09, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Freemasonry/Archive_11 is where the longest discussion of Anglo occurred.--Vidkun (talk) 14:21, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not particularly worried about the term Anglo. I'm happy to let other editors battle over whether that one stays, goes, changes, whatever. I'll just nip over to the article and whip out the "regular" and "irregular" though. Fuzzypeg★ 22:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)