The Freemasons - Commission on Information for Recognition Bashes the UGLofA

TBL Staff · 05-28-2006, 02:48 AM

The following notice is posted on the Commission on Information for Recognition's Web Site.

"Grand Lodges that do not meet the standards for recognition are being formed and promoted at an alarming rate. There are several of which you should be aware. The Regular Grand Lodge of England is creating lodges in many European and South American countries. There have been reports that plans are to create lodges in America as well. There is a movement called the United Grand Lodge of America of Accepted Free Masons that is also trying gain a foothold on this country. Another group calling itself the Grand Lodge of All England is attempting to create lodges in England. The Grand Orient of France has also created several lodges in this country. With the renewed interest in Masonry brought on by recent books and movies, it appears numerous clandestine groups are trying to capitalize on this situation. Beware!"

The following is a statement about who they are, from their web site.

"The Commission on Information for Recognition was organized in 1951 as a facility to gather, collate, and from time to time, revise information on Grand Lodges in other lands, as a service to the Grand Lodges of this Conference.

The Commission neither advises nor recommends that recognition be given to any Grand Lodges, but merely indicates whether or not it considers that a Grand Lodge in question satisfies the conditions of regularity.

Until 2003, the Commission had consisted of six members selected from a wide geographical distribution. One new member, usually a Deputy Grand Master, was selected each year and served for six years. In 2003, the Conferene of Grand Masters expanded the Commission to seven members, with each to serve a term of seven years. This will eventually assure that each of the seven Regional Masonic Conferences will be represented on the Commission.

After each Annual Meeting of the Conference of Grand Masters, the report, given to and adopted by the Conference, is printed and copies mailed to the Grand Secretaries and to the Chairmen of the Committees on Fraternal Relations of the Grand Lodges of the Conference. Copies are mailed to many interested Grand Lodges who are not members of the Conference. This report is based upon the most recent information available, and, in some cases, after a presentation by representatives of the Grand Lodges mentioned in the report."

What bothers this author about this commission is the following statement:

"The Commission neither advises nor recommends that recognition be given to any Grand Lodges, but merely indicates whether or not it considers that a Grand Lodge in question satisfies the conditions of regularity."

"Regularity" is defined as:

In conformity with a fixed procedure, principle, or discipline.
Well-ordered; methodical: regular habits.

In this author's opinion, the Commission's statement about the new Grand Lodges seem to be bias in their opinions. We have found nothing to date that places these Grand Lodges outside the definition of "Regularity". We have asked the Commission to comment on their meaning but have not received a response as of yet.

D. W. Brown · 05-28-2006, 02:57 AM

I really don't know what to say here personally as I'm not sure what to think of this whole clandestine thing with the Grand Lodges. How does any mason get to decide if another mason is clandestine or not? The UGLofA seems to be legitimate to me from what I have read about the history of the Moderns and Antients.

AlabamaFreeMason · 05-28-2006, 09:06 AM

The definition of clandestine is being perverted by those who "claim" Masonry is their's.

"Clandestine Free-Masonry is composed of groups claiming to be Free-Masons who meet in secret for some nefarious purpose such as political or religious subversion. These groups are not Masonic and have the potential to be dangerous. Clandestine Masonry is also irregular by definition, because it is a violation of Masonic tradition and law to discuss religion or politics in Lodge."

The only group that is meeting secretly is the Conference of Grand Masters of North America. No one can attend this meeting unless you are a GL Officer or an SGIG. Who gives them authority to claim who is or is not clandestine when they rule by each jurisdiction?

Anyway who needs their recognition to exsit?
The way these several GL's rule by fear why would anyone want to stay part of these GL's whose tyrannical reign is un-democractic? Anytime a Master Mason of these jurisdictions ask the arong question these "brothers" attempt to ruin that Master Masons character they go into self-protect mode. What type of brotherhood is that??

G. David Cooksey PM
Provisional Master
Temple of Regulus
Birmingham, Al
UNGLofA

Old Baldy · 05-28-2006, 06:23 PM

These "new" GLs that are springing up of late have questionable legitimacy for being considered "Regular" since they are "self-chartering".
In the jurisdiction in which I live, and to which my Lodge belongs, the Grand Lodge is actually established by an Act of Government in 1908 (three years after it was chartered by it's parent GL, to which it owes no subservience).
That act names the Grand Master of our GL as "the Grand Master of All MASONS in the Province of Alberta". Thus any other person(s) who attempt to operate as a Grand Master of masons in Alberta is technically breaking the law!
How's that for protecting the status quo?
For what it is worth, the Grand Masters of the ten Canadian Grand Lodges as well as the Provincial GM of the Grand Lodge of Scotland in Newfoundland are all members of the Conference of Grand Masters of North America.
Finally, why fracture Freemasonry any further than already is the case. We are only now healing the rifts between most GLs and Prince Hall GLs.
In peace and harmony,
Stuart Hellis
IPM Baseline Lodge #198 Grand Registry of Alberta

D. W. Brown · 05-28-2006, 08:33 PM

Well, about this self-chartering thing it is kind of like the chicken and the egg, someone had to charter the first Grand Lodge.

It is my understanding that in the old days a Master Mason living in an area where their was no lodge existing could on the spot make other masons by obligating them himself. Once he had enough for ritual work then the normal process was conducted. It is my firm belief that the Grand Lodges should go away as they exist today and only be there to support the needs of the local lodes and not govern over them.

AlabamaFreeMason · 05-28-2006, 08:58 PM

The Conference of Grand Masters of North America by the actions of the the 51 GL jurisdictions is a governing body over the 51 jurisdictions.

The CGMNA meet once a year the Grand Officers of the 51 jurisdictions attend and are the make up of the governing body of the CGMNA. This meeting only allows the Grand Officers, the SGIG'S, and Shrine Potentates to attend.
If a regular MM were to try to attend he would be barred.

As for the comment that the GL'S are healing over recognition of PH's there's still 10 jurisdictions that do not recognize PH's or allow African Americans to join. Yet they state the UGLofA is not regular when they recognize PH's and allow African Americans to join. While there are 10 jurisdiction members who refuse to do the same. Alabama, Georgia. Mississippi, and South Carolina will NEVER admit PH's or African Americans to join. How can the members of the CGMNA keep looking the other way?????????
I have a REAL problem with GL's stating their is no authority above a jurisdiction when PALINLY there is. What goes on at these meetings and why are they secret? Who gives them authority to speak for Free-Masons?