Grand Lodge of Minnesota Documents concerning its Recognition of the
GLF and related Masonic recognition issues - 2001-2002
The purpose of this webpage is to provide a place where
everyone can read, copy, or print documents distributed by the
Grand Lodge of Minnesota on May 22, 2002, concerning its recognition of the
Grand Lodge of France and the reaction of some U.S. Grand Lodges -- plus a new
resolution by the GL of Minnesota asking the GLF to provide information about
its visitation policy by June 30, 2002, and stating that the GL of MN might
suspend its recognition of the GLF depending on what this information indicates,
and if it is submitted.
The MLC does
not take any position concerning this subject, but merely provides this space
for the Grand Lodge of Minnesota's documents, which may be of
interest to other Grand Lodges, Masons, and researchers.
The MLC has offered to provide similar webspace to others, such
as the National Grand Lodge of France (GLNF), for any documents they wish to
have seen and read by Grand Lodges, Masons, and researchers. That information
can be found at http://bessel.org/masrec/glnfdocs.htm
The following was distributed by email by the Grand Secretary
of the Grand Lodge of Minnesota on May 22, 2002:
Several pertinent documents are listed below. The documents are separated by a — and
the documents are as follows:
Cover Letter to all Constituent Lodges /PGM, GL Officers, and Appendant Bodies in
Minnesota
Cover letter to North American Grand Lodges and Grand Bodies
MOTION OF MAY 18, 2002 - Corp Board
Question and Answers from the Web
Question and Answers from Rev. Terry L. Tilton, Grand Master, Grand Lodge of Minnesota
White Paper
I have listed all of them in the body of this message so no one needs to deal with
problems of opening attachments, virus messages in the attachments, etc.
Fraternally,
Douglas Campbell
--
Douglas Campbell
Grand Secretary and Webmaster
Grand Lodge of Minnesota
http://mn-mason.org
--
Wednesday, May 22, 2002
TO: THE CONSTITUENT LODGES OF MINNESOTA
RE: Grand Lodge of Minnesota and Recognition of the Grand Lodge of France
Worshipful Master and Brothers;
Enclosed you will please find a series of documents that relate to reconsideration of the
action taken by the Grand Lodge of Minnesota to recognize the Grand Lodge of France
(GLdF) in April 2001. We have completed a "White Paper" to review our position on this
matter and have enclosed it for your consideration. We have also enclosed a motion
adopted at our May 18th, 2002 Corporate Board of Trustees meeting. For your convenience
we have also added a Q&A section to assist with interpretation of our actions.
We are sending this information to you for distribution through your lodge as we now can
sadly report that four Grand Lodges in North America have decided to suspend visitation
with the Grand Lodge of Minnesota and with Minnesota Masons. This means in effect that
Minnesota Masons cannot visit the Masonic lodges in these jurisdictions and they cannot
visit in our lodges. Those jurisdictions which have suspended visitation with us are:
Michigan, New York, Maine and Kentucky.
I want to hasten to add that this situation is fluid and there may be other jurisdictions
who will also take this action in response to our recognition of the Grand Lodge of France.
We have seriously reconsidered our action of the April 2001 Grand Lodge Session and at
this time have determined that it was proper and well-considered.
It would be foolish for me to tell you that the issues of "regularity" and "recognition" are
easy to understand. But the accompanying documents are our best evidence of what the
facts are in this case.
I would remind you that we have not broken our relationship or limited visiting privileges
with any of these four Grand Lodges and from our stand point you are free to visit in these
jurisdictions. However, if you are refused admittance, I humbly request that you withdraw
quietly. The Grand Lodge of Minnesota does not wish to aggravate or cause further
alienation over this issue.
If you ask me, as Grand Master, what will the future hold? I do not know. Time will only
tell if our actions were right and proper. In the meantime we expect that other Grand
Lodges may extend recognition to the Grand Lodge of France in the near future and it will
take the spotlight off the Grand Lodge of Minnesota.
The enclosed documents have been distributed to every Grand Lodge in North America and
we have sincerely appealed to each one to let time and patience win out the truth. We
have asked that those Grand Lodge jurisdictions who have limited their visitation with us
to consider rescinding their action and again participating with us in full recognition and
full amenity.
We promise to keep you appraised of developments on this issue and will put up a special
web-page at our electronic address: mn-mason.org to assist you in understanding what is
happening.
As I am able, I will attempt to answer any questions you might have and assist any of the
our Constituent Lodge members, or those members of our appendant or concordant bodies. Again, I cannot tell you how saddened I am to have to report this news to you.
Please keep us in your prayers as the officers of the Grand Lodge of Minnesota endeavor
to act with integrity and forthrightness under the all-seeing eye of the Great Architect of
the Universe.
Sincerely and fraternally yours,
Terry L. Tilton, Grand Master
The Grand Lodge A.F. & A.M. of Minnesota
CC: All Elected and Appointed Grand Lodge Officers
All Past Grand Masters of Minnesota
All Minnesota Constituent Lodges
All Minnesota Appendant and Concordant Bodies
--
Wednesday, May 22, 2002
TO: THE GRAND LODGES AND OTHER GRAND BODIES OF NORTH AMERICA
RE: Grand Lodge of Minnesota and Recognition of the Grand Lodge of France Most Worshipful Grand Master and Heads of Bodies;
Enclosed you will please find a series of documents that relate to reconsideration of the
action taken by the Grand Lodge of Minnesota to recognize the Grand Lodge of France
(GLdF) in April 2001. We have completed a "White Paper" to review our position on this
matter and have enclosed it for your consideration. We have also enclosed a motion
adopted at our May 18th, 2002 Corporate Board of Trustees meeting. For your convenience
we have added a Q&A section to assist with interpretation of our actions.
It goes without saying that the Grand Lodge of Minnesota has been disturbed over the
rush to judge our actions and force us into conformity with the perceived guidelines of
"regularity" of other Grand Lodges or the North American Conference of Grand Masters’
Committee on Information and Recognition. We believe that the accompanying documents
justify our position for continuing recognition with the Grand Lodge of France or at a
minimum will show the inconsistency of our detractors. If any material statements of error
can be found in this white paper we will reconsider our actions.
Quite frankly we have been appalled at the lobbying, mis-information and dis-information
that has surrounded this issue. We are even more appalled that sister Grand Lodges of
North America would consider limited visitation with Minnesota knowing full-well our
established regularity and our sovereign rights as a Grand Lodge; the same rights that
they assert for themselves. We earnestly, sincerely and humbly appeal for all Masons of
good-will and good-conscience to come back into amity with us and together seek after
truth in love and true brotherhood.
For my part, I can assure you that this is my sincere desire and although we will not lobby
others to come to the same conclusions that we have made, we do ask you to look at the
facts and decide for yourself. Surely truth will ultimately prevail and in time we will reach
consensus on these issues. It simply makes no sense to rip the fabric of Masonry apart
and continue to do damage to our gentle Craft by suspension of visitation privileges or
threats of suspension or non-recognition. Surely Masonry has far better things to do for
good than this. For my part, I pledge that I stand ready to visit with my counterparts
concerning any of these issues at any time. You need only ask.
Most sincerely yours in friendship and fraternal fellowship,
Rev. Terry L. Tilton, Grand Master
The Grand Lodge A.F. & A.M. of Minnesota
--
FROM THE MINUTES
CORPORATE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE
GRAND LODGE A F. & A.M. OF MINNESOTA
Meeting on Saturday, May 18, 2002 at St. Paul, Minnesota
A motion was made by R.W. Neil Neddermeyer, DGM and seconded by M.W. Roger Taylor, PGM, which read as follows:
Moved that the Grand Lodge of Minnesota will continue its recognition of the Grand Lodge of France based upon our understanding of the issues of
territorial jurisdiction, belief in a Supreme Being, and the Volume of Sacred Law being as an article of furniture in their lodges. (Reference the
"White Paper" - Masonic Recognition and the Grand Lodge of France - A Report to the Grand Lodge of Minnesota.)
However, we formally request the Grand Lodge of France to furnish information regarding its policy of visitation by members of other Grand
Lodges which do not require of its members a belief in a Supreme Being. We request such written information to be submitted to us by June 30, 2002. If
the Grand Lodge of France does not provide written proof that it forbids visitation by Masons of Grand Lodges which do not require of its members a
belief in a Supreme Being we shall suspend relations.
Likewise, notice is given that if the Grand Lodge of France is determined by us to continue to be "regular" then we encourage and pray that the GLNF and
GLdF will seek treaty displaying amity and concord.
Motion passed unanimously.
--
Questions and Answers regarding Recognition of Masonic Grand Lodges
Q. What did the Grand Lodge of Minnesota do that has upset some other Grand Lodges?
A. In April 2001, the Grand Lodge of Minnesota recognized the Grand Lodge of France
(GLF). In April 2002, the Grand Lodge of Minnesota did nothing further, leaving this recognition in place. Some other Grand
Lodges are upset about this.
Q. Why are some other Grand Lodges upset about this?
A. Some Masons in some of these Grand Lodges have said that the GLF is "irregular," so the Grand Lodge of Minnesota should not have recognized
the GLF. Some have said the Grand Lodge of Minnesota violated some universally recognized Masonic recognition principles. Some have said
the Grand Lodge of Minnesota should have first asked the National Grand Lodge of France (GLNF) whether the Grand Lodge of Minnesota should have
recognized the GLF, before doing it. Some have said the Grand Lodge of Minnesota created unrest among Grand Lodges, and should have waited
until other U.S. Grand Lodges agreed to do this, or else the Grand Lodge of Minnesota should not have done it.
Q. Are any of these statements valid?
A. No. Read on to find out why.
Q. If the GLF is irregular, why did the Grand Lodge of Minnesota recognize it?
A. Who says the GLF is irregular? The Grand Lodge of Minnesota, and many others, are convinced that the GLF is regular. Their lodges all have the
Bible on their altars, just as ours do, and they begin their meetings with prayers and readings from the Bible. All their candidates are
required to express a belief in a Supreme Being, just as ours are. They prohibit women in their lodges, just as we do. Their history goes back
to the 1700s, just as ours does. The Grand Lodge of Minnesota has checked these facts, and they are true facts.
Q. Did the Grand Lodge of Minnesota violate universal Masonic recognition principles when it recognized the GLF?
A. No. There are no universal Masonic principles concerning which Grand Lodges any Grand Lodge can recognize. The Conference of Grand Masters,
and its Commission on Information for Recognition, have said over and over that each and every Grand Lodge is completely free to recognize any
Grand Lodges it wishes. The Commission does not tell any Grand Lodge whom to recognize or not recognize, and they say this over and over. All
they do is supply information, as their name implies. Each Grand Lodge decides what to do with that information, and additional information
each one accumulates.
Q. But aren't there some Masonic recognition traditions that each Grand Lodge should follow?
A. No. Every Masonic official, including the Conference of Grand Masters and the Commission on Information for Recognition, agrees and says that
each Grand Lodge is sovereign. This means that each Grand Lodge can set whatever rules it wishes for itself in deciding whom to recognize, and
can recognize whichever Grand Lodges it wishes.
Q. Should the Grand Lodge of Minnesota have consulted with the GLNF before voting on whether to recognize the GLF?
A. No. Each Grand Lodge votes just about every year on recognition of additional Grand Lodges, and none is ever required by any Masonic rules
or traditions to consult with anyone. Even as a matter of politeness, this would be impractical. In any case, members of the Grand Lodge of
Minnesota did consult with representatives of the GLNF before voting on whether to recognize the GLF. On many occasions the GLNF representatives
told the Grand Lodge of Minnesota representatives that no Grand Lodge should recognize the GLF, and gave reasons for that recommendation. The
Grand Lodge of Minnesota listened politely to what the GLNF representatives said, and then investigated the facts for itself, and
decided that the facts proved that the Grand Lodge of Minnesota should recognize the GLF, in addition to the GLNF.
Q. Wait a minute. Isn't there a rule that only one Grand Lodge can be recognized in any state or country?
A. No. Each Grand Lodge decides for itself whether it will recognize one or many Grand Lodges in any state or country. Many U.S. Grand Lodges
said that they chose to recognize only one Grand Lodge in each territory, but that is up to each one to follow or not. Several U.S.
Grand Lodges have stated they no longer use this rule, and even those that say they follow this rule often do not really follow it. One clear
example is that 35 U.S. Grand Lodges recognize Prince Hall Grand Lodges in the same states as "mainstream" Grand Lodges. And specifically
dealing with France, many Grand Lodges have recognized both the GLF and the GLNF simultaneously, often for many years. The Grand Lodge of
Minnesota is following a practice that many other U.S. Grand Lodges have already done in the past and present.
Q. Didn't the Grand Lodge of Minnesota create unrest among U.S. Grand Lodges?
A. The Grand Lodge of Minnesota did NOT create any unrest among U.S. Grand Lodges. It simply took an action it felt was right for it. The
Grand Lodge of Minnesota did not and does not ask any other Grand Lodge
to follow its lead on this or anything else. The Grand Lodge of Minnesota will not bring GLF members into any other Grand Lodge's
jurisdiction. The Grand Lodge of Minnesota has not and will not interfere with any other Grand Lodge in any way.
Q. Why didn't the Grand Lodge of Minnesota wait to consult with other Grand Lodges before voting on whether to recognize the GLF?
A. Once again, every Grand Lodge and every Masonic group says that each Grand Lodge is sovereign and independent, and can and should make its
own decisions without having to follow others, or even consult with others. In any case, the Commission on Information for Recognition of
the Conference of Grand Masters did give its opinion to the Grand Lodge of Minnesota, saying it felt the GLF did not deserve to be recognized.
The Grand Lodge of Minnesota politely listened to this advice, and then did its own investigation, obtained additional facts, and determined for
itself that the GLF deserved to be recognized by the Grand Lodge of Minnesota. Everyone agrees that the Grand Lodge of Minnesota had every
right to do this, as a sovereign Grand Lodge.
Q. What would happen if every Grand Lodge recognized different Grand Lodges? Wouldn't there be chaos?
A. Every Grand Lodge in the world, including all in the United States, already recognizes a different set of Grand Lodges, and no one complains
about chaos. For example, the Grand Lodge of Michigan currently recognized the Grand Lodge of Mali, even though only 3 other U.S. Grand
Lodges recognize that Grand Lodge – 47 do not. The Grand Lodge of New York recognizes the Grand Lodge of Poland, even though only 7 other U.S.
Grand Lodges do – 43 do not. The Grand Lodge of Maine recognized the Grand Lodge of Haiti, even though 30 of the U.S. Grand Lodges, a
majority, do not. This happens all the time, and there is no chaos.
Q. Has any other Grand Lodge ever recognized the GLF, or does the Grand Lodge of Minnesota think it knows more than every other Grand Lodge?
A. Many U.S. Grand Lodges have recognized the GLF, and/or permitted their members to visit lodges under the GLF, including the Grand Lodges
of Alabama, Arkansas, California, Colorado, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Minnesota, Nevada,
New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. That's 23 U.S. Grand Lodges. They
later derecognized the GLF, but the Grand Lodge of Minnesota decided that the reasons for derecognition, in the case of the Grand Lodge of
Minnesota, were not valid. So the Grand Lodge of Minnesota decided to rerecognize the GLF, without affecting any other Grand Lodge in any way.
Q. Doesn't the GLF recognize the Grand Orient of France (GOF), which is irregular? Isn't that enough reason for the Grand Lodge of Minnesota not
to recognize the GLF?
A. No. The GLF does not recognize the GOF, any more than the GLNF recognizes the GOF. Both the GLF and the GLNF have signed agreements
allowing some type of communications with the GOF, such as exchanging lists of rejected candidates. Neither the GLF nor the GLNF has
recognized the GOF, and neither intends to. In any case, every Grand Lodge in the world, and in the U.S., recognizes Grand Lodges that in
turn recognize other Grand Lodges that are not recognized by the first one. For example, every U.S. Grand Lodge recognizes the United Grand
Lodge of England (UGLE), even though the UGLE recognizes a Grand Lodge in Italy that every U.S. Grand Lodge considers clandestine and
irregular. Still, no one accuses the UGLE of being irregular for doing this. And remember, the GLF has not even been accused of recognizing the
GOF, while the UGLE fully recognizes the Grand Lodge in Italy that every U.S. Grand Lodge does not recognize.
Q. If all this is true, why is anyone upset with the Grand Lodge of Minnesota?
A. We don't know, and we wish those who are upset would stop. The Grand Lodge of Minnesota has not done anything improper or wrong. It has
exercised the right, recognized by everyone, to recognize whichever Grand Lodges it wishes, just as every other Grand Lodge does. The Grand
Lodge of Minnesota has not asked any other Grand Lodge to follow its lead, or change in any way, or accept anything the Grand Lodge of
Minnesota has done. All the Grand Lodge of Minnesota is asking is for other Grand Lodges not to try to force the Grand Lodge of Minnesota to
change its policy, just as the Grand Lodge of Minnesota is not asking any other Grand Lodge to change any of their policies.
Q. So, is there any reason for any Grand Lodge to suspend Masonic relations with the Grand Lodge of Minnesota?
A. No. Everyone agrees that the Grand Lodge of Minnesota meets all the standards of Masonic regularity as set by any Grand Lodge. Nothing has
changed in the Grand Lodge of Minnesota. What Freemasonry needs is unity and brotherly love. Instead of anyone attacking the Grand Lodge of
Minnesota, anyone who wishes can present any evidence they have that the Grand Lodge of Minnesota may have made a mistake. The Grand Lodge of
Minnesota will be happy to review any such evidence. In the meantime, everyone can and should go on with Freemasonry just as they did before,
without suspending Masonic relations with the Grand Lodge of Minnesota.
Q. How can someone know if the information being distributed by the Grand Lodge of Minnesota is accurate, when others are saying different things?
A. The Grand Lodge of Minnesota has evidence to prove every statement in this paper. We would be delighted to provide detailed, precise citations to
prove all our statements, and encourage everyone who hears anything different to ask for similar citations and proof of any contrary allegations you might hear.
--
Additional Questions and Answers in light of the actions the Grand Lodge of Minnesota
on May 18, 2002
as prepared by the Rev. Terry L. Tilton, Grand Master
Q. What is the effective meaning of the action taken by the Grand Lodge of Minnesota
Corporate Board on Saturday, May 18, 2002?
A. The Grand Lodge of Minnesota believes that its recognition of the Grand Lodge of
France in April 2001 was well-considered and well-reasoned on the basis of the "White
Paper" titled "Masonic Recognition and the Grand Lodge of France- A Report to the Grand
Lodge of Minnesota" received on May 18, 2002. We challenge anyone to find falsehood in
any material statement made in that paper and to present us with written evidence that
can collaborate that claim. If such evidence is given and proven we will reconsider this
issue. Until that time we consider this issue closed on the basis of the charges
investigated to date.
Q. The second paragraph of your motion asks for written evidence of the policy of the
Grand Lodge of France concerning the charge of visitation by Masons who do not believe in
a Supreme Deity from other Grand Lodges. Why are you requesting this?
A. Although this charge has not been previously cited against the Grand Lodge of France
because of our recognition, we are aware that it is an issue with the North American
Conference of Grand Masters - Committee on Information for Recognition. Previously we
did not order this issue to be included in the "White Paper" received on May 18th.
However, after further consideration we believe that now is the time to determine this
issue as well.
Upon receipt of written evidence as to the policy or position of the Grand Lodge of France
given us by June 30, 2002, we (The Grand Lodge A.F. & A.M. of Minnesota) will issue an
addendum to our "White Paper". If this issue is not addressed to our satisfaction we will
suspend recognition with the Grand Lodge of France.
Q. In the third paragraph of the motion adopted on May 18th, 2002 by the Grand Lodge
of Minnesota Corporate Board you note that "if the Grand Lodge of France is determined by
us to continue to be "regular" then we encourage and pray that the GLNF and the GldF will
seek treaty displaying amity and concord." Why have you said this?
A. It is our belief that personalities, politics and orchestrated campaigns of dis-information have consumed too much of our time and have not promoted the good
of Freemasonry. If two Grand Lodges are deemed "regular" and have the same territorial
jurisdiction they should be able to work together. We want these two parties to work
together and we want to make that statement as firmly as we can.
Q. Does the Grand Lodge of Minnesota lobby for or promote their position?
A. No, beyond asserting the right of the Grand Lodge of Minnesota as a sovereign
jurisdiction to work for its own best interests and the best interests of Masonry as a
whole, we will not advocate to others our position on these issues. Each Grand Lodge
must make its own decisions based upon the facts. We have only endeavored to be intellectually honest and diligent in our pursuit of truth as we can find it. We would expect
no more or no less from others.
We sincerely regret that a few other Grand Lodge jurisdictions have chosen to cease
visitation with us over this issue. We did not cause that action, they did! We will not
compromise our integrity or suspend our search for the truth. And we sincerely appeal to
them to rescind their action and allow everyone time to work through these issues.
Although we realize that this issues of recognition and regularity are complex and the
history of their application is without uniformity, we endeavor to keep fraternal relations
with all the Grand Lodges that we consider regular and will not (except in the case noted
in the previous question) break off relations with any Grand Lodge that we have historically given recognition.
--
Masonic Recognition and The Grand Lodge of France
A Report to the Grand Lodge of Minnesota
Abstract: The purpose of the Grand Lodge of Minnesota in producing this position paper
is to state in a brief and easy to read form, the most pertinent reasons why the Grand
Lodge of Minnesota chose to and stands by its decision to recognize the Grand Lodge of
France as a regular and recognizable grand lodge. With the exception of eyewitness
verification, the foundation listed is concurrent with the time we achieved amity with the
Grand Lodge of France on March 30, 2001. Because reliable researchers have assembled
so much good and up to date data, the purpose of this paper will not be to restate
everything in its entirety that prompted our convictions. Each statement herein is
referenced to a resource that the reader can access to satisfy his need for greater detail,
and in most cases for further resource links.
As the term grand lodge or grand lodges are frequently used, we ask the readers’
forbearance by shortening this to GL or GLs. Other frequently used terms will likewise be
shortened once explained.
Recognition of The Grand Lodge of France
At the Annual Communication of the Grand Lodge of Minnesota on March 30, 2001, the
standing committee on External Relations gave its annual report and recommended that
two foreign grand lodges had applied in the usual manner to the GL of MN within that past
year for recognition; the Grand Lodge of Morocco for first time recognition and the Grand
Lodge of France for recognition and restoration of Masonic relations. The Committee had
researched both, found that they met the requirements of the GL of MN, and recommended recognition; both passed the ballot nearly unanimously.
Synopsis of this White Paper Report:
Of first and foremost importance, it must be emphasized that the Grand Lodge of
Minnesota is a sovereign, regular and independent grand lodge, and as such reserves its
right to act in its own best interests and on the principles it considers important. The
ability to recognize another grand lodge that the Grand Lodge of Minnesota is satisfied as
having met all questions of regularity is one of those rights, and to defend that action
against boycott and politics is another. We expect no more or less respect in this
situation than should be afforded one Mason to another, or one Masonic grand lodge to
another.
This brief paper addresses the issues involved in the Grand Lodge of Minnesota’s (re-)
recognition of the Grand Lodge of France (GLdF). Reading through it will acquaint the
reader with the basic issues faced in determining the regularity of this or any Masonic
grand lodge. Great vigilance was exercised in the search for Masonic ‘light’ - ‘truth’ and
reliable information. Briefly, the procedure was as follows.
Standards of regularity, as outlined by reliable sources were reviewed and conformity of
the applicant grand lodge was compared. Of the three standards, only two of them
invited serious question – these were Territorial Exclusivity and adherence to the Ancient
Landmarks.
- As the GL of Minnesota and the GLdF had not formally severed relations that had existed
since at least 1919, the issue of recognizing another grand lodge in a country was moot. However, the fact remains that the GLdF was the ‘senior’ GL in France and recognized by
at least 23 US GLs before the Grande Loge Nationale Française (GLNF), which came much
later, sought recognition from these US GLs. That the GLNF had not sought permission
from GLdF to be recognized by US GLs sets a precedent if one needed to be established.
(See Appendix A for brief discussion of territorial inconsistencies)
- Careful inspection of the Constitutions of the GLdF reveal that they meet each
requirement as detailed by The Commission on Information for Recognition of the Conference of Grand Masters of Masons in North America, a standard generally accepted
by most grand lodges. Eyewitnesses from Minnesota and Prince Hall Masonry have confirmed conformity.
End of synopsis – please read on for more detailed report.
Recognition Standards of Grand Lodges
Although most grand lodges and advisory bodies have somewhat different standards, they
all agree on several crucial points. The following are the Standards adopted for use by
The Commission on Information for Recognition of the Conference of Grand Masters of
Masons in North America (or Conference of Grand Masters of North America - COGMNA). This commission was established in 1952 to provide information to constituent GLs as to
whether or not it considers that the GL in question meets the requirements of regularity,
but it has no authority to recommend or advise. The Commission consists of six members
who each serve six years; one new member, usually a DGM, is elected each year. Their
list of standards includes most of those generally considered important to regulating the
Craft:
I. Legitimacy of Origin
That the Grand Lodge requesting recognition has been lawfully formed by at least three
just and duly constituted Lodges, or that it has been legally recognized by a Grand Lodge
in fraternal relation with the Grand Lodge from whom recognition has been requested.
That such Grand Lodge must be "under the tongue of good repute" for an adequate number of years before such fraternal recognition is extended. An existence for such a
period as satisfies the Grand Lodge whose recognition is sought, during which time the
highest standards of the Craft have been practised [sic] by the applicant Grand Lodge,
may cure what would otherwise be considered illegitimacy of origin.
II. Territorial Sovereignty
That it is an independent, self-governing organization, having Masonic authority within the
governmental territory over which it assumes jurisdiction -- whether Country, Province,
State or other political subdivision; or else shares such exclusive territorial jurisdiction
with another Grand Lodge by mutual consent and/or treaty.
III. Ancient Landmarks (as listed in annual proceedings)
That it subscribes fundamentally, ritualistically and in all its relations to the Ancient
Landmarks, Customs and Usages of the Craft. This requires adherence to the following.
1. Monotheism -- An unalterable and continuing belief in God.
2. The Volume of The Sacred Law -- an essential part of the furniture of the Lodge.
3. Prohibition of the discussion of Religion and Politics.
In addition to the standards on the Commission’s list, most grand lodges also insist:
- That its membership is composed of men only.
- That lodge communications be opened to the Glory of the Grand Architect of the
Universe
- That women or any members of co-masonic organizations may not visit tiled communications
- That it requires the presence of the Three Great Lights of Masonry in the lodges while at
work, and that obligations are taken on the VSL
- That the Grand Lodge shall have sovereign jurisdiction over the Lodges under its control
and have undisputed authority over the Craft of Symbolic Degrees (Entered Apprentice,
Fellowcraft and Master Mason) within its jurisdiction; and shall not in any way be subject
to or divide such authority with any other power claiming any control or supervision over
those degrees.
COGMNA Standards of Regularity As Applied to the Grand Lodge Of France
I. Legitimacy of Origin
The Grand Lodge of France was chartered by the Grand Lodge of England in 1728 in full
accord with the latter’s requirements . French Freemasonry, like that of England,
underwent splits and mergers during the 18th & 19th centuries, but to our knowledge, no
question has ever been raised about the GLdF’s legitimacy of origin.
II. Territorial Sovereignty
The GL of MN officially recognized the Grand Lodge of France at its January 21-22, 1919
Grand Communication. It is unclear if relations existed prior to WWI. Annual proceedings
indicate that amity continued and representatives were appointed until the 1940 Grand
Communication of the GL of MN, when there was no mention of any French GL and GM
Nordby's address contains the ominous statement, ". . .in view of the banishment of
Masonic Lodges in certain parts of Europe . . ." . All disciplines of Freemasonry were
outlawed and virtually ceased to exist in areas controlled by the Axis powers until
1945-46.
>From a review of all subsequent Annual Proceedings it appears that the Grand Lodge of
Minnesota was not in communication with any French GL during the time of restoration of
Freemasonry in post WWII France. In other words, the GL of MN had never officially
severed relations with the Grand Lodge of France when French Freemasonry was devastated by the Germans in WWII, and it simply did not pick up relations at the
conclusion of hostilities. This was apparently not uncommon as other US Grand Lodges
seem to have behaved similarly .
Based on recommendation of the Commission for Information of the Conference of Grand
Masters of North America , the GL of MN officially recognized the National Grand Lodge of
France (GLNF) in 1954, as did many other US jurisdictions. This was at a time when
many US GLs also were simultaneously in amity with the Grand Lodge of France (GLdF) . When action to discontinue relations with the GLdF was recommended by COGMNA in
1964-65, all US jurisdictions then in active amity with GLdF did so. There were, however,
a few US GLs who had lost touch with GLdF in 1940-41 and had neither restored nor
broken relations with them at the end of hostilities, and which took no action of any kind
– Minnesota among them.
This is not to say that the GL of MN relies on this technicality to rationalize its position. The decision, based on careful research, to recommend recognition of GLdF would have
been affirmative in any event. Nor does the GL of MN have any interest in choosing one
grand lodge over another – it merely exerts its right, in this case, to recognize two
legitimate GLs that happen to be in the same country. The recognition of only one GL in a
country being the exception, not the rule in global Freemasonry (see Appendix B)
III. Conformity with Ancient Landmarks (see also Appendix C)
To address most of the issues involved with established conditions of regularity, it may be
enlightening for the reader to compare the list of Ancient Landmarks set down by the
COGMNA and other GLs with the exact wording of the “Declaration of Principles” as stated
in the constitution of the Grand Lodge of France:
DECLARATION OF PRINCIPLES (December 5, 1955)
I The Grand Lodge of France works to the Glory 0f The Grand Architect Of The Universe.
II In conformity with the traditions of the Order, three Great Lights are placed on the
altar of the Lodges: the Square, the Compass and a Volume of the Sacred Law. Masons
take their Obligations on these three Lights
III The Grand Lodge of France proclaims its unfailing loyalty and total devotion to our
Country.
IV Neither the Grand Lodge of France nor its constituent Lodges shall meddle in matters
of political or religious controversy .
V Concerning principles other than those defined above, the Grand Lodge of France refers
to the Old Charges, especially with regard to the respect of the traditions of Freemasonry
and to the scrupulous and strict practice of Ritual and Symbolism as means of access to
the initiatic content of the Order.
One condition not specifically addressed in the “Principles” is that membership is
composed of men only, and that is specified in Article I of the Constitution: “It is an alliance of free men of good repute, of any race, nationality and creed.”
The reader will also note in V (above) that principles not specifically defined are covered
in “The Old Charges”, which emphatically states that Freemasonry is an organization of
men only. All of the Constitutions and referenced materials can be read and verified in
French or English language on the Grand Lodge of France website at http://www.gldf.org
Additionally, strict adherence to the above listed landmarks has been verified by at least
one member of the Grand Lodge of Minnesota who attended a number of lodge communications , and also by a large number of North American Prince Hall Affiliated
Masons, including at least 3 Grand Masters. It should be noted that in 1952 the Grand
Lodge of France declared unilateral recognition of all Prince Hall Affiliated Brethren, largely
based on relations established with PHA lodges of black US servicemen stationed in post
WWII France .
A lot of misinformation exists on this subject. There are allegations of irregularity (see
Appendix D). How do you know if the information being distributed by the Grand Lodge of
Minnesota is accurate, when others are saying different things? The answer is this: The
Grand Lodge of Minnesota has evidence to prove every statement in this paper. We would
be delighted to provide detailed, precise citations to prove all our statements, and
encourage everyone who hears anything different to ask for similar citations and proof of
any contrary allegations they might hear.
Respectfully & Fraternally Submitted
MW Bro. The Honorable David Bouschor
MW Bro. Ralph Hultquist
MW Bro. Rodney Larson
Bro. Anthony Cicchese
Bro. Dexter Pehle
Bro. John Worlein, Chairman
End of Position Paper
Appendices & References Follow
Appendix A – A Brief Overview of Some Inconsistencies in Masonic Recognition
The only rule that seemingly exists in international Masonic recognition is that there is no
universal rule. If one Grand Lodge (US or international) could only be in amity with other
Grand Lodges which recognized the exact same list of GLs, there virtually would be no
recognition factor whatsoever. Every Grand Lodge in the world, and in the U.S.,
recognizes Grand Lodges that in turn recognize other Grand Lodges that are not
recognized by the first one.
To belabor this point, the following inconsistencies between US Grand Lodges are noted,
but be aware that these are by no means all differences, only a small sampling:
Mexico has at least 26 Grand Lodges with no uniformity of recognition whatsoever; 23 of
them are recognized by at least one US GL, but only one of them is recognized by all US
GLs (York Grand Lodge – which claims all of Mexico as its jurisdiction). While four US GLs
recognize 23 or more Mexican GLs, four other US GLs recognize only 4 or 5 of the Mexican
GLs and Puebla Grand Lodge is recognized only by one (GL of Michigan).
We do not even agree on the grand lodges of our Canadian neighbors, of the 10 provincial
Grand Lodges, US grand Lodges agree on recognition of only 9 of them. At this time, 28
US GLs believe that the Grand Lodge of Newfoundland & Labrador is recognizable, while
23 do not.
In the Caribbean, all US GLs agree on only one – the GL of Puerto Rico. Central and South
American countries have multiple grand lodges, such as Brazil which has 29 Grand Lodges,
28 of them recognized to one extent or another by US GLs, and only two of these by all US
jurisdictions. The GL of Vermont is alone in recognizing 27 of the 28. The ‘territories’ of
these may overlap extensively and they may not necessarily be in accord with each other
either. Central and South America GLs seem quite different from other jurisdictions in
that territory is not as defined and disputed as it is in US, Canadian and European Grand
Lodges’ jurisdictions.
Of the 31 European Grand Lodges that are recognized by any US GL, amazingly only 10 are
recognized by all 51 US GLs.
Of 12 African GLs only one is recognized by all 51 US GLs – South Africa - and no US GL
recognizes them all. The remaining 11 are all in amity with some US GLs, but this may be
as few as only 2 or 3. The Grand lodge of Michigan has taken the chance and has
recognized most African grand lodges, sometimes alone in that opinion.
In one of the most interesting examples of international Masonic recognition, you will find
that every U.S. Grand Lodge recognizes the United Grand Lodge of England (UGLE), even
though the UGLE recognizes “The Regular Grand Lodge of Italy”, a grand lodge that every
U.S. Grand Lodge considers clandestine and irregular. Still, no one accuses the UGLE of
being irregular for doing this.
Conditions in a jurisdiction may change as well. A dozen US GLs recognized the GL of
Morocco in 2000 & 2001, which had been recently formed by the requisite three lodges. At
least one of these lodges has reportedly withdrawn to join another grand lodge being
chartered in Morocco by a third party, thereby leaving only two very small lodges
remaining in this GL. Nonetheless, this ‘Grand Lodge’ of Morocco will continue to be the
only one to ‘officially’ exist in that country.
There are, of course, many, many more world wide grand lodges that are not recognized
by any US jurisdiction – and a sizeable portion of these may be found ‘regular’ in practice
(see Appendix D for discussion on regularity), but would never be recognized if a policy of
exclusive territorial jurisdiction is applied.
In almost all Eastern European countries, there has been almost a ‘gold rush’ to charter
new Grand Lodges, some of which had existing and very probably regular Grand Lodges or
Grand Lodges in “exile”. Some Western Grand Lodges may even be seen to be in the
Masonic charter “franchise” business. At the most recent meeting of the Conference of
Grand Masters Commission on Recognition Information, almost all of the lodges which had
been approved as “regular” had been chartered very recently by one Western European
grand lodge.
If the policy of exclusive jurisdiction is applied, these new ‘franchise’ grand lodges will be
the only recognizable one in that region or country – older established grand lodges or
“grand lodges in exile” will not even be considered on their merits or on precedent.
In summary (Doctrine in North America)
Exclusive jurisdiction seems to be a doctrine that has been developed and best applied in
North America, where a small unit such as a state or province makes up the jurisdiction.
The doctrine may even have served a useful purpose in the earliest stages of Masonic
expansion, but in the 20th & 21st centuries has only contributed to discrimination,
isolation and political dilemma. Some of this has only recently been addressed by the
co-recognition of several Prince Hall Affiliated Grand Lodges with their ‘mainstream’
counterpart grand lodges. This, of course, results in multiple grand lodges existing in the
same jurisdiction – effectively negating the thrust of the doctrine.
The doctrine of exclusive jurisdiction may even have had a very adverse consequence on
North American Grand Lodges over the last 50 or more years. Many Masons believe that in
the wake of the meteoric increase of Masonic membership during the period 1940 to 1962,
and subsequent ‘glide slope’ decline, that the distinction of fraternity and exercise of the
qualities & tenets of The Craft have ceased to be fundamental in the philosophy of many
grand lodges – that Masonic obligation & integrity have been replaced by mediocrity and
that the pursuit of ‘light’ has been replaced by politics & personality.
The theory further broadens to speculate that isolation from diverse Masonic philosophy
and the richness of international fraternalism has resulted in US Masonry operating “in a
vacuum”. The richness and depth that attracted the great men of history to Masonry still
exist in our time – often in Lodges we “cannot” visit - but the boundaries we erect may
well prevent us from again discovering them.
Appendix B. The American Doctrine of Exclusive Territorial Jurisdiction
In 1969 in its report on Brazil the Commission on Information for Recognition stated:
"Perhaps it is well to face the fact right here that exclusive jurisdiction does not mean
absolutely exclusive territorial jurisdiction. That more than one Grand Lodge may have
jurisdiction within a political domain is not intrinsically repugnant to Freemasonry, for
there are too many places on the globe where such a condition exists, and with complete
harmony. Exclusive jurisdiction as an absolute condition applies only to the exclusive role
of a Grand Lodge over its members and Lodges and does not share that authority with any
other Masonic authority."
In 1979 in its report on the Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Wisconsin the Commission stated:
"3. The doctrine of exclusive territorial jurisdiction should not be used to challenge the
legitimacy of Masonic establishments which were in existence long before the doctrine
obtained respectable sanction."
In the 1992 Transactions of the Virginia Research Lodge No. 1777; Stewart W. Miner, Past
Grand Master of Virginia described thirteen instances when American Grand Lodges ignored
the doctrine of Exclusive Territorial Jurisdiction. He made the following observations
about the doctrine of exclusive territorial jurisdiction: "(a) that the Doctrine, as originally
conceived, no longer exists; (b) that the historic application of the Doctrine, especially in
the 19th Century, has been selective; (c) that inconsistent applications of the Doctrine
have encouraged challenge, and (d) that when it has seemed prudent, American grand
lodges have modified their interpretations of the Doctrine to satisfy challenges at hand.
This process, I believe, is irreversible, and despite the attempts of a few grand lodges to
stem the tide by punitive action, their efforts will fail, in the long run, and change will
unquestionably prevail."
In its definition of Exclusive Jurisdiction, the Commission on Information for Recognition of
the Conference of Grand Masters states "It is a basic principle that a Grand Lodge must be
autonomous and have sole and undisputed authority over its constituent lodges. This
cannot be shared with any other Masonic council or power." This must be interpreted as
saying that the American Doctrine can only be applied to those Grand Lodges that have
chosen it as a ruling principle and that it cannot be applied to Grand Lodges in other parts
of the world where custom and usage differs.
At the Conference of Grand Masters of Masons in North America in 1961 Past Grand Master
N. Dean Rowe of Vermont said, "We should yield to many of the customs and usages of
the country where each [Grand Lodge] is located. We base our decisions on legitimacy
rather than injecting our own theories of 'exclusive jurisdiction' into the picture, which we
feel is of minor importance."
The American Doctrine of Exclusive Jurisdiction is not an Ancient Landmark. It is a widely
misunderstood, often ignored North American rule that repeatedly has been used to simply
justify a position. Many U.S. Grand Lodges recognized both the GLdF and the GLNF for
decades. However, when this policy became politically advantageous, several of these
Grand Lodges suddenly reversed their position, using the same policy to insist that only
one Grand Lodge could be recognized in a political subdivision. This policy was ignored
when the GLNF was formed in 1913 in the territory occupied by the GLdF. Such inconsistencies certainly challenge the validity of such a rule.
Appendix C – Elaboration of Regularity Issues Regarding Ancient Landmarks
Very much confusion (accidental and intentional) seems to exist regarding French
Freemasonry. Henderson & Pope in Freemasonry Universal state, “France has possibly the
most complex & diverse Masonic history of any country in the world”. Language and
French political/religious history have undoubtedly had considerable impact on this, as
likely has centuries-long adversity with neighbor England.
The most common accusations regarding irregularity that are leveled at the Grand Lodge
of France are that they are atheists, have no bible on the altar, allow women to sit in tiled
sessions and that another grand lodge is already recognized in France (the last issue of
Exclusive Jurisdiction has already been discussed elsewhere in this paper). The other
allegations are entirely a case of mistaken identity, and to adequately explain how that
happened requires a brief discussion of French Masonry and history.
French Masonry consists of a number of Grand Lodges: men’s, women’s and co-Masonic. The three largest GLs are all male only, they are The National Grand Lodge of France
(GLNF) with 15-20,000 members, the Grand Lodge of France (GLdF) with 28,000 members,
and the Grand Orient of France (GOF or GOdF) with 35-45,000 members .
All three came from the same source (the Grand Lodge of England) but took very different
directions. Much like what resulted in the United Grand Lodges of England (UGLE), French
Masonry also had splits and consolidations in the 18th & 19th centuries, but the biggest
departure came in 1877 when the Grand Orient rewrote its constitution to allow “each man
to exercise his own conscience” with regard to belief in a supreme being and whether the
VSL would be on the altar of his lodge. In the context of the time and situation of a
church/state, with church usually siding with the oppressor of private citizens, this may
actually have been the correct Masonic response – many North American GLs continued to
recognize GOF for many years after this event; even UGLE Lodges admitted GOF brethren
conditionally. To this day, possibly 1/3 of GOF lodges require a belief in GAOTU and a
Bible on their altars, even if their Grand Lodge doesn’t. To most world Masons, however, GOF is labeled an “atheist” GL and seemingly has no interest in associations with
‘regular’ Freemasonry inside or outside of France. Indeed, in recent years, GOF has begun
to allow women masons from other obediences to visit tiled communications, although it
does not confer degrees on women.
This GL is the source of much confusion. Get the initials straight: the Grand Orient of
France (GOF) is sometimes confused with the other French GLs but is the only French GL
of consequence to have abandoned the Old Charges and thus its regularity.
The Grand Lodge of France made no such changes to its constitutions. It reorganized in
1894 and continued to practice the Craft degrees as it had done previously. It does not
permit women or men from mixed gender lodges to visit, it requires a belief in the GAOTU
of all members, the Holy Bible (specifically) on the altar and obligations to be taken on
that Bible. It is also alleged that these conditions are not enforced – they are. In one
instance a lodge found with no Bible on its altar had its charter revoked.
Appendix D - 1
Regular, Irregular, Clandestine, and Recognized
First, there are questions about definitions. What is regular versus irregular? What does
clandestine mean, and who does the recognizing?
[p. 226] Coil's Masonic Encyclopedia defines a regular lodge as one that has been legally
constituted and conforms to the laws of "a recognized" grand lodge. Every grand lodge is
recognized by some grand lodges, so does this mean every lodge that complies with the
rules of any grand lodge is "regular?" Almost every attempt to find a clear definition of a
"regular" lodge or grand lodge leads to such complexity that the word confuses rather than
clarifies discussions.
"Regular" might mean a grand lodge follows the ancient landmarks of freemasonry, the
ones said to be unchangeable. But what are those ancient landmarks? Every grand lodge
has a different answer. Some list dozens of landmarks ( Kentucky has fifty-four, Nevada
thirty-nine, Minnesota twenty-six, Connecticut nineteen), some list just a few (Vermont
has seven), and some do not have any list but say that masons should observe the
landmarks without saying what they are (sometimes adding that they are unchangeable,
while at the same time considering and sometimes adopting changes in them). In some
grand lodges it is simply unclear, even to Grand Secretaries, what the policy of that grand
lodge is concerning the ancient landmarks. If there is no agreement on what are the
ancient landmarks of freemasonry, and if "regular" means grand lodges that follow the
landmarks, there cannot be universal, or even close to universal agreement on what
constitutes regular masonry.
Coil's Masonic Encyclopedia defines "clandestine" as a body that does not hold a charter
from a superior body having power to grant it, but makes it clear that this word is often
misleading and certainly unclear. The Freemasons' Guide and Compendium says a clandestine lodge is one that has not been properly warranted or chartered by any grand
lodge. Thus, a lodge could be regular in its workings, but clandestine because it was not
chartered properly. Or, it could be irregular because in someone's eyes it does not follow
"proper" masonic practices, although it is not clandestine because it was properly
chartered by a grand lodge, even if it is a grand lodge that a particular other grand lodge
does not recognize. There are no clear rules that allow anyone to decide which grand lodges are regular or
irregular, or clandestine, and use of these words simply confuses reasonable discussions.
Each grand lodge makes its own decisions about which grand lodges it will recognize,
based on various considerations. The only useful terms are "grand lodges that are
recognized by a particular grand lodge at a particular time" and those which are not.
Appendix D – 2
Landmarks: “What are landmarks?” is a question often asked, but never determinately
answered. In ancient times, boundary stones were used as landmarks before title-deeds
were known, the removal of which was strictly forbidden by law. With respect to the
landmarks of Masonry, some restrict them to the O.B. signs, tokens and words. Others
include the ceremonies of initiation, passing and raising; and the form dimensions and
support; the ground, situation and covering; the ornaments, furniture and jewels of a
lodge, or their characteristic symbols. Some think that the Order has no landmarks
beyond its peculiar secrets. It is quite clear, however, that the order against removing or
altering the landmarks was universally observed in all ages of the Craft.
Appendix E – BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bede, Elbert. The Landmarks of Freemasonry. New York: Macoy Publishing and Masonic
Supply Company, 1954.
Bessel, Paul M., “U.S. Recognition of French Grand Lodges in the 1900s”, HEREDOM, Vol.
5, 1996
Coil, Henry Wilson, et al. Coil's Masonic Encyclopedia. Rev. ed. Revised by Allen E.
Roberts. Richmond, Va.: Macoy Publishing and Masonic Supply Company, 1996.
Commission on Information for Recognition of the Conference of Grand Masters of Masons
in North America. Grand Lodge Recognition: A Symposium on the Conditions of Grand
Lodge Recognition. New York: Macoy Publishing and Masonic Supply Company, 1956.
Conference of Grand Masters of Masons in North America. "Reports of the Commission on
Information for Recognition." Annual report.
Henderson, Kent & Pope, Tony, Freemasonry Universal – Volume 2 Williamstwon Victoria
Australia, Global Masonic Publications 2000
Jaunaux, Bro. Laurent, “A Concise History of the French Regular Freemasonry” Harmonia
Lodge No. 1282, Versailles, France, posted to Philalethes Society Email List
Kesteloot, Bro. Andre V. , “A Short Introduction to French Free-Masonry.” Address given
March 1996.
List of Lodges Masonic - 2001 Edition Bloomington IL, Pantagraph Printing & Stationery
Co. 2001
Macoy, Robert, General History, Cyclopedia and Dictionary of Freemasonry (1873),
Reprinted, Montana USA, Kessinger Publishing Co
Mackey, Albert G. Mackey's Revised Encyclopedia of Freemasonry. 3 vols. Rev. and enlrg.
Revised by Robert I. Clegg, with supp. vol. by H.L. Haywood. New York: Macoy Publishing
and Masonic Supply Co., Inc., 1946.
Masonic Service Association. Ancient Landmarks of Freemasonry: As Adopted, Followed or
Undecided by the Fifty Grand Lodges of the United States. 6th ed. Silver Spring, Md.:
Masonic Service Association, Sept. 1983.
Miner, Stewart W., "The American Doctrine: A Concept Under Siege," 1992 Transactions of
the Virginia Research Lodge No. 1777, pp. 11-25 (paper delivered at that lodge on March
28, 1992)
Parker, William E. "French Freemasonry, 1913, and the Future," The Philalethes, Jun. 1996,
pp. 57-59, 67.
Worlein, John W., “A Visit to the Grand Lodge of France”, The Philalethes, April 2002, vol.
LV, no. 2 pp. 28-29, 44-46
Websites:
Recognition of foreign jurisdictions - http://www.bessel.org/masrec
Grand Lodge of France – http://www.gldf.org
EDICT
of the Grand Master
July 13, 2002
To all Grand Lodges of North America and the Nations of the World, and to the Masters, Officers and members of
all Constituent Lodges of the Grand Lodge A.F. & A. M. of Minnesota:
Whereas The Grand Lodge of Minnesota at its 148th Annual Communication extended fraternal recognition to the Grand Lodge of France, and;
Whereas The Grand Lodge of Minnesota has taken this action based upon our study and conviction of the regularity of the Grand Lodge of France and in deference to the application of the rule of territorial
exclusivity deemed by us to no longer be a relevant test of regularity, and;
Whereas Our actions have caused a number of sister jurisdictions to suspend recognition with the Grand Lodge of Minnesota in rigid conformity with the
standards of the North American Conference of Grand Masters Committee on Information for Recognition, and;
Whereas This has made impossible the visitation of our members in these jurisdictions, and;
Whereas The Grand Lodge of Minnesota will host the North American Conference of Grand Masters in February, 2003 for their annual meeting, and;
Whereas Meaningful change and discussion of this issue is best done in dialogue and consensus in the forum of this North American fraternal association; now
Therefore Be it resolved that is it is my order to forthwith suspend our recognition of the Grand Lodge of France
to the end that we may again enjoy the fraternal benefits of mutual recognition and visitation with all sister
jurisdictions. Also, it is my intent to more properly discuss the standards and application of standards of regularity
in this larger arena of discussion.
The Grand Lodge of Minnesota wishes to re-establish greater trust in the decisions and processes of the North
American Conference of Grand Masters Committee on Information for Recognition. We also desire to promote
the continued unity and amity of all North American jurisdictions. This action is therefore taken to encourage the
process of meaningful dialogue and change.
Given under my hand this 13th day of July in the year 2002 at St. Paul, Minnesota
Signed: Rev. Terry L. Tilton, Grand Master
Attest: Douglas J. Campbell, Grand Secretary
|
