re: Re-recognition of
The Grand Lodge
Does the Grand lodge of
Do they believe in the GAOTU?...Yes
Who formed them?... the Grand Lodge of England in 1728.
Do they hold communion with the Grand Orient of France?....No.
Do they hold communion with female Masons?...No.
Have they ever be recognized before?...Yes [prior to WWII]
Are they the senior G.L. of
Then, is the G. L. National of
When did they recognize Afro-American Prince Hall Masons?...1952.
Do other Countries have multiple Grand Lodges?...Yes.
Who are they? Naming only
a few, they include:
Do all USA Grand Lodge recognize the same Foreign Lodges?...No.
Can you be regular but unrecognized?...Yes
Do Foreign Grand Lodges operate on US soil?...Yes
For a more documented and in-depth report,
The Grand Lodge of
Grand Lodge of France - White Paper
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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: <#_ftn2>
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
3. Prohibition of the discussion of Religion and Politics.
In addition to the standards on the Commission's list, most grand lodges
§ 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
§ 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. <#_ftn3>
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 <#_ftn4>. French
Freemasonry, like that of
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
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
Grand Lodges seem to have behaved similarly <#_ftn5>.
Based on recommendation of the Commission for Information of the
Conference of Grand Masters of North America <#_ftn6>, 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
GLs also were simultaneously in amity with the Grand Lodge of France
(GLdF) <#_ftn7>. When action to discontinue relations with the GLdF
was recommended by COGMNA in 1964-65, all
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 -
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) <#_ftn8>
I The Grand Lodge of France works to the Glory 0f The Grand Architect
Of The Universe. <#_ftn9>
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. <#_ftn10> 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
meddle in matters of political or religious controversy <#_ftn11>.
V Concerning principles other than those defined above, the Grand Lodge
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
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 <#_ftn12>, 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
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
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
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
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,
only 9 of them. At this time, 28 US GLs believe that the Grand Lodge
of Newfoundland & Labrador is recognizable, while 23 do not.
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'
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 -
with some US GLs, but this may be as few as only 2 or 3. The Grand
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
Lodge considers clandestine and irregular. Still, no one accuses the
UGLE of being irregular for doing this. <#_ftn15>
Conditions in a jurisdiction may change as well. A dozen
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
remaining in this GL. Nonetheless, this `Grand Lodge' of
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. <#_ftn16>
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
Exclusive jurisdiction seems to be a doctrine that has been developed
and best applied in
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
"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
In 1979 in its report on the Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Wisconsin the
"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." <#_ftn18>
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
Past Grand Master N. Dean Rowe of
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."  <#_ftn19>
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
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
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  <#_ftn20>.
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
recent years, GOF has begun to allow women masons from other obediences
to visit tiled communications, although it does not confer degrees on
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  <#_ftn21>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. <#_ftn22> 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
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:  <#_ftn23> "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.
and Masonic Supply Company, 1954.
Bessel, Paul M., "
1900s", HEREDOM, Vol. 5, 1996
Coil, Henry Wilson, et al. Coil's Masonic Encyclopedia. Rev. ed. Revised
by Allen E. Roberts.
Commission on Information for Recognition of the Conference of Grand
Masters of Masons in
on the Conditions of Grand Lodge Recognition.
and Masonic Supply Company, 1956.
Conference of Grand Masters of Masons in
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.
Masonic Service Association. Ancient Landmarks of Freemasonry: As
Adopted, Followed or Undecided by the Fifty Grand Lodges of the
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
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
Recognition of foreign jurisdictions - http://www.bessel.org/masrec
Grand Lodge of France - http://www.gldf.org <http://www.gldf.org/>
 <#_ftnref1> Grand Lodge of Minnesota Proceedings - 2001
 <#_ftnref2> Commission on Information for Recognition of the
Conference of Grand Masters of North America: A Symposium on the
Conditions of Grand Lodge Recognition
 <#_ftnref3> Example of well stated requirement used: Grand Lodge of
 <#_ftnref4> Henderson & Pope, Freemasonry Universal, p. 190. Also
see Kesteloot, Andre V., A Short Introduction to French Free?Masonry.
 <#_ftnref5> Conversation with librarian of George Washington Masonic
National Memorial, which maintains one of the largest and most complete
collections of US GL annual proceedings
 <#_ftnref6> Minnesota Proceedings 1954
 <#_ftnref7> Bessel,, Paul M., U.S. Recognition of French Grand
Lodges in the 1900s, chart Pp.12-13
 <#_ftnref8> www.gldf.org <http://www.gldf.org/>
 <#_ftnref9> At the Grand Lodge of France, the Great Architect Of The
Universe is seen as a Creator Principle.
 <#_ftnref10> At the Grand Lodge of France, the Volume of the Sacred
Law is the Holy Bible.
 <#_ftnref11> See also in that regard, Art. 23 of the Constitutions
of the Grand Lodge of France <http://www.gldf.org/html/e-const.htm>.
Art. 23 - It is strictly forbidden to provoke or start political or
religious discussions in Lodge.
 <#_ftnref12> Worlein, John, "A Visit to the Grand Lodge of France",
The Philalethes, April 2002, vol. LV, no. 2, p. 28
 <#_ftnref13> Henderson & Pope, Freemasonry Universal Pp 191
 <#_ftnref14> Source of data: List of Lodges Masonic - 2001 and
 <#_ftnref15> http://www.bessel.org/masrec/europe.htm &
communications with the webmaster
 <#_ftnref16> Agenda of The Commission for Information for
Recognition, COGMNA, Milwaukee WI, February 17, 2002
 <#_ftnref17> Conference of Grand Masters of Masons in North
America. "Reports of the Commission on Information for Recognition."
1979 Annual report.
 <#_ftnref18> Stewart W. Miner, "The American Doctrine: A Concept
Under Siege," 1992 Transactions of the
 <#_ftnref19> Transactions of the Conference of Grand Masters of
Masons of North America 1961, pp. 43-44.
 <#_ftnref20> A range of membership numbers is used because there is
considerable controversy about exactly how many members actually belong
in each of these bodies. Multiple memberships, dates used and several
other factors are the cause of this confusion.
 <#_ftnref21> Coil, Henry Wilson, et al. Coils Masonic
Encyclopedia. Rev. Ed. By Allen Roberts 1996
 <#_ftnref22> MSA, Ancient Landmarks of Freemasonry. Also see Elbert
Bede, Landmarks of Freemasonry.
 <#_ftnref23> Macoy, Robert, General History, Cyclopedia and
Dictionary of Freemasonry (1873), Reprinted, Montaana USA, Kessinger