Aleister Crowley: Freemason!

54 views
Skip to first unread message

Sar Draconis

unread,
Dec 31, 2002, 1:38:53 AM12/31/02
to
The initiation of Aleister Crowley into Blue Lodge is discussed in an
interesting paper appearing in the "Ars Quatuor Coronatorum",
Transactions of Quatuor Coronati, Vol 108, for the year 1995.

Aleister Crowley was the self-proclaimed "Beast 666" of "Do what thou
wilt shall be the whole of the law" fame, and whose sacred book, "The
Book of the Law", is now used in California for the obligation of his
religious followers.

On page 153 of the publication, in a paper entitled: "Aleister
Crowley: Freemason!", Martin Starr documents the Blue Lodge initiation
of Aleister Crowley:

"Crowley "... tried another gambit while he was a resident in Paris in
1904 ... He petitioned Anglo-Saxon Lodge No. 343, a Lodge chartered
in 1899 by the Grand Loge de France, ... on 29 June 1904.

The petition gives his name as 'Aleister St. Edward Crowley', and his
occupation as 'poet'. ...

Crowley was initiated on 8 October 1904, presumably passed the
following month, and raised on 17 December 1904; he is listed in the
'Tableau annuel' dated 31 December 1904 with the Grand Lodge number
41210, Lodge number 54. Crowley was 'warmly welcomed by numerous
English and American visitors to our Lodge . . .

. . .From the records made availabe . . .Crowley appears as a member
of Anglo-Saxon Lodge No. 343 in 1908."

At the time of Crowley's initiation, the GLNF was not yet formed, and
the GLdF was the only regular Lodge in France, (the GODF having been
declared irregular upon the removal of the S.A.O.T.U. from the
ritual).

Previously we have seen that in 1916, when Crowley was living in New
York, the Grand Lodge of New York recognized the GLdF, and that
Crowley had occasion to visit a number of Blue Lodges, as well as
other high grade bodies in the U.S. His membership in an Ark Lodge
then active in NYC in this era has been reported by another masonic
researcher.

SAR

Lord Councellor Arch Druid

unread,
Dec 31, 2002, 3:24:01 AM12/31/02
to
Dear SAR,

Martin and I have an unspoken and unwritten agreement as do many of the
Brethren here. While I do appreciate what you are doing for the cause of a
dead man, you apprear to propogating Aleister Crowley's magical principles
as a function of political policy. There are factions of The Order and they
were established to provide accuracy of the truths set forth described,
rather cryptically, in Liber Al vel Legis. The A.'.A.'. is another matter
entirely different. There are established Lodges of the Ordo Templi
Orientis, many.

Please accept this as constructive criticism when I say that if you began
regarding your body as a Temple or a Lodge, you would understand the reasons
in which you appear not to be met with acceptance in this matter.

Martin P. Starr is, the last I knew, a 32° of the Scottish Rite &
Praemonstrator of the A.'.A.'.. He does not have the rights to Crowely's
Literary Estate, the Caliphate Ordo Templi Orientis does.

Please direct your enquiries to Bill Heidrick, IX° of the Caliphate Ordo
Templi Orientis.

heid...@well.com


Ed King

unread,
Dec 31, 2002, 10:34:59 AM12/31/02
to
In article <b97518ae.02123...@posting.google.com>, Sar
Draconis wrote:
> The initiation of Aleister Crowley into Blue Lodge is discussed in an
> interesting paper appearing in the "Ars Quatuor Coronatorum",
> Transactions of Quatuor Coronati, Vol 108, for the year 1995.

Will you PLEASE quit your subterfuge on this stupidity. You may be
a big and mighty "Bishop" able to threaten others with your little
oooggaaa-boogggaaa group but on this, you're behaving like a ten year
old stubborn, doltish child.

The article you cite has, as its SECOND sentence:

"...all his affiliations were with unrecognized and irregular
bodies...."

How much plainer does this need to be?

Now are you going to poke little pins in some voodoo doll and make my
leg twitch too?



> Aleister Crowley was the self-proclaimed "Beast 666" of "Do what thou
> wilt shall be the whole of the law" fame, and whose sacred book, "The
> Book of the Law", is now used in California for the obligation of his
> religious followers.

You seem to be on a 'mission' here - but you would do MUCH better if
you would stick to FACTS rather than playing loose and free with
misinformation.



> On page 153 of the publication, in a paper entitled: "Aleister
> Crowley: Freemason!", Martin Starr documents the Blue Lodge initiation
> of Aleister Crowley:
>
> "Crowley "... tried another gambit while he was a resident in Paris in
> 1904 ... He petitioned Anglo-Saxon Lodge No. 343, a Lodge chartered
> in 1899 by the Grand Loge de France, ... on 29 June 1904.
>
> The petition gives his name as 'Aleister St. Edward Crowley', and his
> occupation as 'poet'. ...

Swell.

> Crowley was initiated on 8 October 1904, presumably passed the
> following month, and raised on 17 December 1904; he is listed in the
> 'Tableau annuel' dated 31 December 1904 with the Grand Lodge number
> 41210, Lodge number 54. Crowley was 'warmly welcomed by numerous
> English and American visitors to our Lodge . . .

The Grand Lodge de France then, as now, makes no demands on its visitors
beyond a basic proof that they are 'apparent' Masons. For them,
recognition is not an issue.

If I were to attend a meeting of theirs as a Mason, I could be
reprimanded, suspended or expelled by my Grand Lodge. If they visited a
lodge of mine, through ignorance and lack of diligence by the Tyler and
Master, there would be NO consequences for them. That's the way they do
it - both then and now. It is, I suspect, one of the reasons for the
continued objections to their recognition.

> .. . .From the records made availabe . . .Crowley appears as a member


> of Anglo-Saxon Lodge No. 343 in 1908."
>
> At the time of Crowley's initiation, the GLNF was not yet formed, and
> the GLdF was the only regular Lodge in France, (the GODF having been
> declared irregular upon the removal of the S.A.O.T.U. from the
> ritual).

Golly gee, you seem to have missed SO much in that AQC article like, for
example, this:

"He petitioned Anglo-Saxon Lodge, No. 343, a lodge chartered in 1899 by
the Grande Loge de France, a body unrecognized by the Grand Lodge of
England, on 29 June 1904."


> Previously we have seen that in 1916, when Crowley was living in New
> York, the Grand Lodge of New York recognized the GLdF, and that
> Crowley had occasion to visit a number of Blue Lodges, as well as
> other high grade bodies in the U.S.

No, we have not "seen" any such thing. You note that the Grand Lodge of
New York "recognized". In fact, they _allowed intervisitation_ which is
quite a different things. And you have failed (miserably) to provide any
evidence of your claims of his attendance at ANY such meetings.

I found this interesting paragraph in a new biography of Crowley by
Lawrence Sutin: speaking of his supposed 33rd degree, Sutin writes "It
is noteworthy that Crowley's claim was to the teachings of the loosely
defined Scottish Rite and not those of the accepted body of "regular"
<his quotes> Freemasonry in England - the United Grand Lodge, with its
dominant presence in the aristocratic circles of London. Given his sorry
reputation, it is doubtful that Crowley could have persuaded any
"regular" lodge in his native land to initiate him into even the first
degree."

> His membership in an Ark Lodge then active in NYC in this era has
> been reported by another masonic researcher.

And that would be who, please?

Ed King

http://www.masonicinfo.com -- Anti-Masonry: Points of View

Internet newsgroup posting. Copyright 2002. All rights reserved.


Zero

unread,
Dec 31, 2002, 12:23:07 PM12/31/02
to
"Lord Councellor Arch Druid" <neo_ne...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:aurjp...@enews1.newsguy.com...

> Dear SAR,
> Martin and I have an unspoken and unwritten agreement as do many of the
> Brethren here. While I do appreciate what you are doing for the cause of a
> dead man, you apprear to propogating Aleister Crowley's magical principles
> as a function of political policy. There are factions of The Order and
they
> were established to provide accuracy of the truths set forth described,
> rather cryptically, in Liber Al vel Legis. The A.'.A.'. is another matter
> entirely different. There are established Lodges of the Ordo Templi
> Orientis, many.

Magic/k seems mostly 5th dimensional consciousness, 'truth', basically
it is not 'cryptical' but hard to understand for lower consciousness. iow
: cleanse the spirit, transcend, heighten your consciousness (in natural
ways, no drugs whatsoever, it dislodgeds/distorts your consciousness :)
and it'll become clear, for every lesson a teacher will appear.

Mainly because you signal the will to learn and grow.


SarDraconis

unread,
Dec 31, 2002, 2:04:57 PM12/31/02
to
<< Subject: Re: Aleister Crowley: Freemason!
From: Ed King edk...@masonicinfo.com
Date: Tue, Dec 31, 2002 8:34 AM
Message-id: <VA.0000088...@earthlink.net> >>


<<
The Grand Lodge de France then, as now, makes no demands on its visitors
beyond a basic proof that they are 'apparent' Masons. For them,
recognition is not an issue.

If I were to attend a meeting of theirs as a Mason, I could be
reprimanded, suspended or expelled by my Grand Lodge. If they visited a
lodge of mine, through ignorance and lack of diligence by the Tyler and
Master, there would be NO consequences for them. That's the way they do
it - both then and now. It is, I suspect, one of the reasons for the
continued objections to their recognition.

No, we have not "seen" any such thing. You note that the Grand Lodge of
New York "recognized". In fact, they _allowed intervisitation_ which is
quite a different things.

Now are you going to poke little pins in some voodoo doll and make my leg
twitch too?

Ed King
>>

Actually this raises an interesting question. Even though Ed King's
jurisdiction does not currently "recognize" the GLdF, is he in any way bound by
his masonic oath to the a GLdF mason? I think the example suggested by Ed's
Internet conduct would be "No, he isn't." Is this incorrect? In my view, this
situation is a very big problem, and it reflects all the difficulties which
have arisen in Masonry following the schism with the Grand Orient. Indeed, I
would consider it a much greater and over-riding moral issue, against which the
problem of the present day demographic collapse in masonry pales in comparison.
Some, however, may consider a focus on morality over mere numbers to be an
"extreme position."

SAR


Gene Zippy

unread,
Dec 31, 2002, 2:47:54 PM12/31/02
to
On 31 Dec 2002 19:04:57 GMT, sardr...@aol.com (SarDraconis) wrote:

>Actually this raises an interesting question. Even though Ed King's
>jurisdiction does not currently "recognize" the GLdF, is he in any way bound by
>his masonic oath to the a GLdF mason?

Huh?
If you are asking if Ed is free to visit a Lodge in a jurisdiction
that his does not have Amity with, or allow a Mason from an
unrecognized jurisdiction to visit his Lodge, then the answer - as any
Mason can tell you - is no.
Most mainstream jurisdictions outside france have strict policies
regarding visitations. Amity between the jurisdictions is the normal
requirement.

--
|O| Be well. Travel with a light heart.

Brother Gene .*.
H.M.S.H.
Q.P.H.D.
Regular 1,765 degree Mason
http://www.blackmountainlodge.net
http://www.freemason.org
http://mastermason.com/BrotherGene
http://www.mastermason.com/BrotherGene/frequently_asked_questions.htm
MBBFMN #387
ICQ #503060
************************************
"Are you guys ready? Let's Roll!!"
Todd Beamer, Flight 93
************************************

And in case I don't see ya' - Good Afternoon, Good Evening and Good Night!
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GCM/CC/TW/O d--(++) s:,s++ a+ C+(++++) U--- P! L-- E! W++ N+++ o-- K- w++++ O---- M--(+) V? PS+++ Y+ PGP-- t* 5 X- R* tv+++ b++ DI+++ D G e* h---- r+++ y++++
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
Remember: Your Masonry may be different from someone else's.


Internet newsgroup posting. Copyright 2002. All rights reserved.

Any Mason may use the contents for any valid Masonic purpose, permission may be granted to others upon request.

Objects in this post are funnier than they appear
Can you imagine a world without hypothetical situations?
Be seeing you

''Peachy'' Driver

unread,
Dec 31, 2002, 3:19:33 PM12/31/02
to
SarDr...@aol.com (Sar Draconis) wrote in message news:<b97518ae.02123...@posting.google.com>...

> His membership in an Ark Lodge

Royal Ark Mariners?

Larry Bernard

unread,
Dec 31, 2002, 3:58:13 PM12/31/02
to

> The article you cite has, as its SECOND sentence:
>
> "...all his affiliations were with unrecognized and irregular
> bodies...."
>
> How much plainer does this need to be?
>

Brother Ed, His GL was regular for a good hunk of his lifetime

> "He petitioned Anglo-Saxon Lodge, No. 343, a lodge chartered in 1899 by
> the Grande Loge de France, a body unrecognized by the Grand Lodge of
> England, on 29 June 1904."
>

But UGLE recognition aint everything

>> I found this interesting paragraph in a new biography of Crowley by
> Lawrence Sutin: speaking of his supposed 33rd degree, Sutin writes "It
> is noteworthy that Crowley's claim was to the teachings of the loosely
> defined Scottish Rite and not those of the accepted body of "regular"
> <his quotes> Freemasonry in England - the United Grand Lodge, with its
> dominant presence in the aristocratic circles of London. Given his sorry
> reputation, it is doubtful that Crowley could have persuaded any
> "regular" lodge in his native land to initiate him into even the first
> degree."

His scottish rite degree's came out of mexico IIRC

>


FBEAGCFBADGCBEAD

unread,
Dec 31, 2002, 5:26:11 PM12/31/02
to
(paraphrasing) What happened was that some Masonic leaders told Crowley that
they wanted to certify him to a certain high degree of membership in
Freemasonry because he had figured out the "supereme secret" or something.
Crowley told them that "but I know of no such secret", and they told him, "But
you have clearly spelled it out in plain writing..." (In the BOOK OF LIES
somewhere..), so the documents were drawn up and Crowley was sworn in...

"And how could I ever refuse? I feel like I win when I lose..
Waterloo, I couldn't escape you if I wanted to" - ABBA

Lord Councellor Arch Druid

unread,
Dec 31, 2002, 7:22:38 PM12/31/02
to

"FBEAGCFBADGCBEAD" <drsmi...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20021231172611...@mb-ca.aol.com...

> (paraphrasing) What happened was that some Masonic leaders told Crowley
that they wanted to certify him to a certain high degree of membership in
Freemasonry because he had figured out the "supereme secret" or something.
Crowley told them that "but I know of no such secret", and they told him,
"But you have clearly spelled it out in plain writing..." (In the BOOK OF
LIES somewhere..), so the documents were drawn up and Crowley was sworn
in...

Correct. Circa 1904; and authority was given by then German Ordo Templi
Orientis after Crowley displayed profiency in Understanding of the highest
truth in Sufi Mysticiscm. Praeter-Frater?

Thule and the Third Reich also had the highest truth in Sufi Mysticiscm and
Adolf Hitler shut him down.

Crowley then founded the A.'.A.'. and brought his entourage with him to
Sicily... Only I know what happened from there.

" Before Hitler was, I AM." ;-)

Aleister Crowley

David R. Jones

unread,
Jan 1, 2003, 12:08:50 AM1/1/03
to
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.

And amity is a variable issue. The very same body that Crowley was
raised in did later become what is generally considered regular. Did
regularity for past initiations come with that? Different
jurisidictions have different statutes regarding this. Does the loss
of amity irregularize those we thought were regular? Does amity
confer regularity on those we once thought irregular? In the present
it is easy to define those who we consider regular. Historically this
is more difficult. Regular masons sometimes act irregularly, cf.
Thomson.

Love is the law, love under will.

David R. Jones

Grants Pass Oregon #84 JD McKenzie River #195

Gene Zippy

unread,
Jan 1, 2003, 12:59:05 AM1/1/03
to
On Wed, 01 Jan 2003 05:08:50 GMT, drj...@uci.net (David R. Jones)
wrote:

> Did regularity for past initiations come with that? Different
>jurisidictions have different statutes regarding this.

Insofar as regularity determines rights of visitation (as in
California Masonry, which literally equates "Regular" with
"Recognized"), no. Regularity/recognition is a strictly temporal
issue.

Until a few years ago, Prince Hall Masonry in California was
unrecognized, and then, whallah, all of a sudden, a similar vote was
taken in each Grand Lodge (we voted first, they reciprocated a few
months later), there was inter visitation.

> Does the loss
>of amity irregularize those we thought were regular?

Yup! If amity is dissolved, there may be no intervisitation between
the jurisdictions.

>Does amity confer regularity on those we once thought irregular?

Yup. If we recognize them, they are - by definition - regular.

>In the present
>it is easy to define those who we consider regular. Historically this
>is more difficult.

Not really. The archives of any Grand Lodge will show who was
Recognized at any particular time.

Jim Bennie

unread,
Jan 1, 2003, 5:28:16 AM1/1/03
to
In <ErSdneAbNbR...@comcast.com>, "Larry Bernard"

<kara...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Brother Ed, His GL was regular for a good hunk of his lifetime

Really? It was never recognised here as Masonic at any point during
his life-time. In fact, recognition was refused.

I love the way this stuff gets blown up. Something somewhere says some
(ie very few) Grand Lodges in the US didn't bother to end some kind of
relationship with that particular body after the whoppingly lengthy
period of 1915 (at the earliest) to 1918. That now morphs into "regular
for a good hunk of his lifetime."

Jim Bennie
PM/DC, No. 44, Vancouver

Joe Steve Swick III

unread,
Jan 1, 2003, 12:28:10 PM1/1/03
to
___Ed King___
Will you PLEASE quit your subterfuge on this stupidity. <snip> The article

you cite has, as its SECOND sentence:
"...all his affiliations were with unrecognized and irregular bodies...."
----

Thank you, Ed. You have saved me the time of quoting this article myself,
and telling Sar D. what I think of his obfuscation over Crowley's
credentials.

Folks may have whatever opinions they wish about Crowley; however, the
essential facts of his association with "clandestine" bodies are not in
dispute.

Joe Swick PM
Verity Lodge No. 59 F&AM
Kent, Washington


Joe Steve Swick III

unread,
Jan 1, 2003, 12:42:06 PM1/1/03
to
In Joe Swick's Ideal World (call it my personal fantasy), the term
"unrecognized" would refer to those bodies that your Grand Lodge does not
recognize, witholding judgment on the "regularity" of work. "Irregular and
unrecognized" would be a stronger term, used of those bodies which in the
opinion of your own Grand Lodge, have no legitimate link to a historical
Masonic body, or which otherwise does not perform "regular" ritual work.

While my language could be tightened up a bit, I would suggest that by such
a definition, PHA Lodges have always been "regular," even when
"unrecognized."

JSW

"Gene Zippy Goldman.·." <br_...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:l5051vcji4cffqtce...@4ax.com...

Joe Steve Swick III

unread,
Jan 1, 2003, 12:54:02 PM1/1/03
to
___FBEAGCFBADGCBEAD___

(paraphrasing) What happened was that some Masonic leaders told Crowley that
they wanted to certify him to a certain high degree of membership in
Freemasonry because he had figured out the "supereme secret" or something.
Crowley told them that "but I know of no such secret", and they told him,
"But you have clearly spelled it out in plain writing..." (In the BOOK OF
LIES somewhere..), so the documents were drawn up and Crowley was sworn
in...

___Lord Councellor Arch Druid___


Correct. Circa 1904; and authority was given by then German Ordo Templi
Orientis after Crowley displayed profiency in Understanding of the highest
truth in Sufi Mysticiscm. Praeter-Frater?

-----

How does the "German Ordo Templi Orientis" translate into "some Masonic
leaders"? According to the AQC article mentioned elsewhere in this thread,
the Ordo Templi Orientis was "a non-masonic esoteric society now largely
identified with Crowley's work." (108:150).

NON-MASONIC.

Thank you.

JSW


Joe Steve Swick III

unread,
Jan 1, 2003, 1:10:42 PM1/1/03
to
___Ed Quotes___

"He petitioned Anglo-Saxon Lodge, No. 343, a lodge chartered in 1899 by the
Grande Loge de France, a body unrecognized by the Grand Lodge of England, on
29 June 1904."

___Larry Bernard___


But UGLE recognition aint everything

----

Notice that this FOLLOWED Crowley's supposed reception of the 33° by Don
Jesus Medina in 1900.

___Ed King___


I found this interesting paragraph in a new biography of Crowley by Lawrence
Sutin: speaking of his supposed 33rd degree, Sutin writes "It is noteworthy
that Crowley's claim was to the teachings of the loosely defined Scottish
Rite and not those of the accepted body of "regular" <his quotes>
Freemasonry in England - the United Grand Lodge, with its dominant presence
in the aristocratic circles of London. Given his sorry reputation, it is
doubtful that Crowley could have persuaded any "regular" lodge in his native
land to initiate him into even the first degree."

___Larry Bernard___


His scottish rite degree's came out of mexico IIRC

-----

"The 'Supreme Grand Council ... founded by the Duke of Medina and Sidonia,
Commander of the Spanish Armada' was, in the words of Bro. John Hamill, 'a
miniscule irregular body', and the conferral of the 33° in Mexico City by
Medina-Sidonia granted Crowley no Regular masonic standing. Whatever
documentation Medina-Sidonia furnished Crowley, no trace of it survives
among Crowley's voluminous papers; my attempts to trace Medina-Sidonia
archives in Mexico have not met with success.... Crowley did not keep in
touch with Medina-Sidonia after he left Mexico in April 1901. Clearly the
candidate was not impressed; Crowley comments on the conferral of the 33°
that 'it did not add much of importance to my knowledge of the mysteries;
but I had heard that freemasonry was a universal brotherhood and expected to
be welcomed all over the world by brethren.' (Crowley, Confessions, p. 695)
Crowley was in for his first in a series of rude shocks where masonic
recognition were concerned." (108: 151-2).

'a miniscule IRREGULAR body,' whose conferral amounted to NOTHING. Ditto his
1904 attempts with Anglo-Saxon Lodge.

Joe Swick


Gene Zippy

unread,
Jan 1, 2003, 3:07:57 PM1/1/03
to
On Wed, 1 Jan 2003 09:42:06 -0800, "Joe Steve Swick III"
<jsw...@mindspring.com> wrote:

>In Joe Swick's Ideal World (call it my personal fantasy), the term
>"unrecognized" would refer to those bodies that your Grand Lodge does not
>recognize, witholding judgment on the "regularity" of work. "Irregular and
>unrecognized" would be a stronger term, used of those bodies which in the
>opinion of your own Grand Lodge, have no legitimate link to a historical
>Masonic body, or which otherwise does not perform "regular" ritual work.
>
>While my language could be tightened up a bit, I would suggest that by such
>a definition, PHA Lodges have always been "regular," even when
>"unrecognized."

Agreed. In common parlance, there is a difference between "regular"
and "recognized". In the California Masonic Code, and the
constitutions of many other jurisdictions, the two terms are equal.

That is why I try not to use "regular". It becomes cumbersome to
constantly draw a distinction between common usage and legal
definition.

However, I do agree that the methods, goals, procedures and content of
the many Prince Hall jurisdictions is indistinguishable from that of
most non Prince Hall ones. Their Masonry is no different from ours
in any meaningful or substantial way.

David R. Jones

unread,
Jan 1, 2003, 6:02:26 PM1/1/03
to

Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.

>Yup! If amity is dissolved, there may be no intervisitation between


>the jurisdictions.
>
>>Does amity confer regularity on those we once thought irregular?
>
>Yup. If we recognize them, they are - by definition - regular.
>
>>In the present
>>it is easy to define those who we consider regular. Historically this
>>is more difficult.
>
>Not really. The archives of any Grand Lodge will show who was
>Recognized at any particular time.

So then Crowley became regular when UGLE recognized the GLdF and
remained so the rest of his life; since the unrecognition of GLdF
occured after his death? And y ou are saying he became irregular
again (after his death) when UGLE unrecognized GLdF? In fact
depending on the circumstances someone's regularity in Masonry could
be something that changed after they were dead?

I am curious on the point regarding GL recognition. It seems that the
GLdF has had various U.S. GLs recognize it and unrecognize it through
time. So that you and Ed for arguments sake, could have considered
Crowley, for instance, irregular but as the statutes are different (as
they are for PH) I would have to consider Crowley regular given the
prevailing statutes in Oregon?

>Until a few years ago, Prince Hall Masonry in California was
>unrecognized, and then, whallah, all of a sudden, a similar vote was
>taken in each Grand Lodge (we voted first, they reciprocated a few
>months later), there was inter visitation.

As I understand it by a vote of nearly 70% in GL session in 2002
California Masons refused to recognize PH Masons. Now in Oregon we
have and do recognize PH Masons as regular. So this brings the
obvious point that your opinion of what is regular and mine must be
different if we belong to different jurisidications.

Love is the law, love under will.

David R. Jones
Oregon Grants Pass # 84; JD McKenzie River # 195


Larry Bernard

unread,
Jan 1, 2003, 7:03:18 PM1/1/03
to

> I love the way this stuff gets blown up. Something somewhere says some
> (ie very few) Grand Lodges in the US didn't bother to end some kind of
> relationship with that particular body after the whoppingly lengthy
> period of 1915 (at the earliest) to 1918. That now morphs into "regular
> for a good hunk of his lifetime."
>
> Jim Bennie

> PM/DC, No. 44, Vancouver

He, allegedly demitted not long after that.. "allegedly" being the key word

and as he started as a pason in 04 and he dropped out allegedly in the early
to mid twenties thats a good hunk of his life as a mason

;-0


Gene Zippy

unread,
Jan 1, 2003, 7:06:34 PM1/1/03
to
On Wed, 01 Jan 2003 23:02:26 GMT, drj...@uci.net (David R. Jones)
wrote:

>>Not really. The archives of any Grand Lodge will show who was


>>Recognized at any particular time.
>
>So then Crowley became regular when UGLE recognized the GLdF and
>remained so the rest of his life; since the unrecognition of GLdF
>occured after his death?

No. "Regularity" - as a legal term - is not an attribute of an
individual. It is an attribute of a jurisdiction.
Given the many serious questions regarding your Crowley's claims to
being a Mason (made by him or on his behalf), it would seem unlikely.

>And y ou are saying he became irregular
>again (after his death) when UGLE unrecognized GLdF?

No.

>In fact
>depending on the circumstances someone's regularity in Masonry could
>be something that changed after they were dead?

See above.

>I am curious on the point regarding GL recognition. It seems that the
>GLdF has had various U.S. GLs recognize it and unrecognize it through
>time.

Yes, their legal status has been unusually inconsistent. They are not
currently recognized by any American jurisdiction.\

>So that you and Ed for arguments sake, could have considered
>Crowley, for instance, irregular but as the statutes are different (as
>they are for PH) I would have to consider Crowley regular given the
>prevailing statutes in Oregon?

No.
First, every jurisdiction is Sovereign, and makes it's own rules and
establishes it's own associations.
Second, if this is the cruxt of your question, your Crowley could
never have been admitted to my Lodge as a visitor.

>>Until a few years ago, Prince Hall Masonry in California was
>>unrecognized, and then, whallah, all of a sudden, a similar vote was
>>taken in each Grand Lodge (we voted first, they reciprocated a few
>>months later), there was inter visitation.
>
>As I understand it by a vote of nearly 70% in GL session in 2002
>California Masons refused to recognize PH Masons.

I don't know where you come to this "understanding", but it is
entirely in error.
We have recognized Prince Hall Masonry in several jurisdictions for
many years, and each and every year that number grows.

There was a resolution submitted for consideration that was badly
flawed in it's design. IF it had been voted upon and passed, it could
not have legally been implemented. When the proponents of it were
informed of their errors, they withdrew the resolution, in order that
a proper one could be written in future.

>Now in Oregon we
>have and do recognize PH Masons as regular.

As have we in California Masonry for years.

>So this brings the
>obvious point that your opinion of what is regular and mine must be
>different if we belong to different jurisidications.

Every Masonic jurisdiction is Sovereign, and establishes it's own
laws. According to the laws that govern California Lodges, "regular"
means "recognized".

Oregon may have some other legal definition, but I suspect it is the
same.

David R. Jones

unread,
Jan 1, 2003, 8:17:52 PM1/1/03
to
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.

Thank you, by the way, for your time on this subject.

>No. "Regularity" - as a legal term - is not an attribute of an
>individual. It is an attribute of a jurisdiction.
>Given the many serious questions regarding your Crowley's claims to
>being a Mason (made by him or on his behalf), it would seem unlikely.

It just seems to me that if Crowley was raised in a Lodge (Anglo
Saxon) under the jurisdiction of a Grand Lodge (GLdF) that was (during
his lifetime) regularized by UGLE that his standing would have at that
time become recognized for all jurisdictions under UGLE, or for that
matter any GL that accepted GLdF. And so long as he was a member in
good standing of AngloSaxon he would have been regular at least in the
UGLE jurisdictions where generally abode. Also apparently that his
raising by AngloSaxon Lodge would be seen as regular, at least in his
lifetime.

>Yes, their legal status has been unusually inconsistent. They are not
>currently recognized by any American jurisdiction.\

>Every Masonic jurisdiction is Sovereign, and establishes it's own


>laws. According to the laws that govern California Lodges, "regular"
>means "recognized".

If for instance my Grand Lodge (GL OR) recognized GLdF during
Crowley's life then I would be entitled to accept Crowley as being an
initiated MM. Any ideas how I would go about researching which
jurisdictions GL or Oregon held to be legitimate in the period between
1904 and 1947?

>I don't know where you come to this "understanding", but it is
>entirely in error.
>We have recognized Prince Hall Masonry in several jurisdictions for
>many years, and each and every year that number grows.
>
>There was a resolution submitted for consideration that was badly
>flawed in it's design. IF it had been voted upon and passed, it could
>not have legally been implemented. When the proponents of it were
>informed of their errors, they withdrew the resolution, in order that
>a proper one could be written in future.

Thank you I saw some broohaha on a seemingly anti PH vote that was
taken at last years CA GL and was and still am confused. I know this
is offtopic but is there any place (you could direct me) where I can
find the details of the proceeding: arguments actual statute etc.

Love is the law, love under will.

David R. Jones (who wonders what kind of dues cards they had in 1904)

Oregon Grants Pass #84, JD McKenzie River #195

Ed King

unread,
Jan 1, 2003, 8:30:50 PM1/1/03
to
In article <3e13707b...@news.uci.net>, David R. Jones wrote:
>
> So then Crowley became regular when UGLE recognized the GLdF and
> remained so the rest of his life; since the unrecognition of GLdF
> occured after his death?

Can you tell me when you believe that the UGLE recognized the Grand Lodge
de France and when you believe that it derecognized it?

(And some citation please?)

<Balance snipped as being irrelevant without this piece....>

Ed King

http://www.masonicinfo.com -- Anti-Masonry: Points of View

Internet newsgroup posting. Copyright 2003. All rights reserved.


David R. Jones

unread,
Jan 1, 2003, 10:00:14 PM1/1/03
to
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.

>Can you tell me when you believe that the UGLE recognized the Grand Lodge

>de France and when you believe that it derecognized it?
>
>(And some citation please?)


It was from Martin Starr's article in AQC but I don't have it to hand.
You cited a part this article it and I recall that that text seems to
state that GLdF did get recognized with a date. Sorry I don't have it
to hand, but I will check it again when I do. Even though Martin's
conclusion is different (you cited part of his thesis but without the
evidence he presents), being that the regularization didn't affect
previous irregular initiations. Every Masonic authority I have
spoken with indicates that it would have had backward recognition so
long as Crowley remained in good standing in his Lodge under the
jurisdiction of the recognized GL and so long as the GLdF was
recognized. This should be verifiable with Anglo Saxon's records. I
believe he let his membership lapse there in 1926 but that would be
from his own diary entries (again this can be verified via Anglo
Saxon's records).

> <Balance snipped as being irrelevant without this piece....>

Agreed

Love is the law, love under will.

David R. Jones

David R. Jones

unread,
Jan 2, 2003, 1:27:47 AM1/2/03
to
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.

>>Until a few years ago, Prince Hall Masonry in California was
>>unrecognized, and then, whallah, all of a sudden, a similar vote was
>>taken in each Grand Lodge (we voted first, they reciprocated a few
>>months later), there was inter visitation.
>
>As I understand it by a vote of nearly 70% in GL session in 2002
>California Masons refused to recognize PH Masons.

>I don't know where you come to this "understanding", but it is
entirely in error.
We have recognized Prince Hall Masonry in several jurisdictions for
many years, and each and every year that number grows.

>There was a resolution submitted for consideration that was badly
flawed in it's design. IF it had been voted upon and passed, it could
not have legally been implemented. When the proponents of it were
informed of their errors, they withdrew the resolution, in order that
a proper one could be written in future.

Here is where I got the information:

http://www.freemason.org/bhood/2002%20Results%20of%20Grand%20Lodge.pdf


According to this the resolution was not withdrawn but voted on and
defeated. Sadly all that is here is the description of the
resolution, not the resolution itself. It says:

---------------

Resolution No. 02-11:
Listing Prince Hall Grand Lodges in List of Lodges Masonic
YES 343 29.9%
NO 804 70.1%
FAILED

----------------

Love is the law, love under will.

David R. Jones

Jim Bennie

unread,
Jan 2, 2003, 4:24:39 AM1/2/03
to
In <0dScnQ-Q1aF...@comcast.com>, "Larry Bernard"

<kara...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > I love the way this stuff gets blown up. Something somewhere says some
> > (ie very few) Grand Lodges in the US didn't bother to end some kind of
> > relationship with that particular body after the whoppingly lengthy
> > period of 1915 (at the earliest) to 1918. That now morphs into "regular
> > for a good hunk of his lifetime."

> He, allegedly demitted not long after that.. "allegedly" being the key word

> and as he started as a pason in 04 and he dropped out allegedly in the early
> to mid twenties thats a good hunk of his life as a mason

I'm not talking about demits. I'm talking about your statement "His GL
was regular for a good hunk of his lifetime." It was not regular "for


a good hunk of his lifetime."

Please give me the years the Grand Lodge of Florida declared the Grand
Lodge of France to be regular.

Jim Bennie

unread,
Jan 2, 2003, 5:08:50 AM1/2/03
to
In <orv61vkmbapajgk5i...@4ax.com>, Gene "Zippy" Goldman.·.

<br_...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> No. "Regularity" - as a legal term - is not an attribute of an
> individual. It is an attribute of a jurisdiction.

Well, it's attributed by a jurisdiction on an individual or a body
of individuals. I've read cases (not here in BC) where someone has
been made a Mason without a warrant in the room. The GM declared
him irregular.

> >And you are saying he became irregular


> >again (after his death) when UGLE unrecognized GLdF?

> No.

As the UGLE has never recognised the Grand Lodge of France, there's
no point. For solely patriotic reasons, some American GLs allowed
visitation rights to its lodges, some of them even recognised it for
the brief period of American involvement in WW1. But England certainly
didn't.

> Yes, their legal status has been unusually inconsistent. They are not
> currently recognized by any American jurisdiction.\

Which is what happen when you recognise GLs for other than Masonic
reasons.

> >>unrecognized, and then, whallah, all of a sudden,

"Whallah"? You didn't get a dictionary for Christmas, did you Gene?

Gene Zippy

unread,
Jan 2, 2003, 9:44:54 AM1/2/03
to
On Thu, 02 Jan 2003 01:17:52 GMT, drj...@uci.net (David R. Jones)
wrote:

>>No. "Regularity" - as a legal term - is not an attribute of an


>>individual. It is an attribute of a jurisdiction.
>>Given the many serious questions regarding your Crowley's claims to
>>being a Mason (made by him or on his behalf), it would seem unlikely.
>
>It just seems to me that if Crowley was raised in a Lodge (Anglo
>Saxon) under the jurisdiction of a Grand Lodge (GLdF) that was (during
>his lifetime) regularized by UGLE

Correction: GLdF may have been, for a short time, *recognized* by
UGLoE, but if GLdF is Sovereign, no one and no thing outside itself
has any authority or ability to "regularize" it.

>that his standing would have at that
>time become recognized for all jurisdictions under UGLE,

Correction: UGLoE is a jurisdiction, and there are none "under" it.
Every Masonic jurisdiction is Sovereign - beholden to no one and no
thing outside its own membership. If some jurisdiction were,
somehow, "under" another, it would lose it's Sovereignty.

>or for that
>matter any GL that accepted GLdF. And so long as he was a member in
>good standing of AngloSaxon he would have been regular at least in the
>UGLE jurisdictions where generally abode.

Correction: UGLoE jurisdiction, singular, not plural. There is one
and only one Masonic jurisdiction called UGLoE.

>Also apparently that his
>raising by AngloSaxon Lodge would be seen as regular, at least in his
>lifetime.

Seen as regular by other members of that jurisdiction, possibly.

>>Yes, their legal status has been unusually inconsistent. They are not
>>currently recognized by any American jurisdiction.\
>>Every Masonic jurisdiction is Sovereign, and establishes it's own
>>laws. According to the laws that govern California Lodges, "regular"
>>means "recognized".
>
>If for instance my Grand Lodge (GL OR) recognized GLdF during
>Crowley's life then I would be entitled to accept Crowley as being an
>initiated MM. Any ideas how I would go about researching which
>jurisdictions GL or Oregon held to be legitimate in the period between
>1904 and 1947?

Check with your Grand Secretary's office.

>>I don't know where you come to this "understanding", but it is
>>entirely in error.
>>We have recognized Prince Hall Masonry in several jurisdictions for
>>many years, and each and every year that number grows.
>>
>>There was a resolution submitted for consideration that was badly
>>flawed in it's design. IF it had been voted upon and passed, it could
>>not have legally been implemented. When the proponents of it were
>>informed of their errors, they withdrew the resolution, in order that
>>a proper one could be written in future.
>
>Thank you I saw some broohaha on a seemingly anti PH vote that was
>taken at last years CA GL and was and still am confused.

There was no vote, the motion was withdrawn. If it had not been, it
would have been ruled out of order, because of the sloppy legal
research.

>I know this
>is offtopic but is there any place (you could direct me) where I can
>find the details of the proceeding: arguments actual statute etc.

There were no details, there was no discussion, the resolution was
withdrawn because of it's legal flaws before being brought to the
floor for discussion.

--
|O| Be well. Travel with a light heart.

Brother Gene .*.
H.M.S.H.
Q.P.H.D.
Regular 1,765 degree Mason
http://www.blackmountainlodge.net
http://www.freemason.org

http://www.mastermason.com/BrotherGene
http://www.mastermason.com/BrotherGene/frequently_asked_questions.htm
MBBFMN #387


************************************
"Are you guys ready? Let's Roll!!"
Todd Beamer, Flight 93
************************************

Remember: Your Masonry may be different from someone else's.


Internet newsgroup posting. Copyright 2002. All rights reserved.

Any Mason may use the contents for any valid Masonic purpose, permission may be granted to others upon request.

Objects in this post are funnier than they appear

Be seeing you

Ed King

unread,
Jan 2, 2003, 10:03:24 AM1/2/03
to
In article <3e13a921...@news.uci.net>, David R. Jones wrote:
> Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.
>
> >Can you tell me when you believe that the UGLE recognized the Grand Lodge
> >de France and when you believe that it derecognized it?
> >
> >(And some citation please?)
>
> It was from Martin Starr's article in AQC but I don't have it to hand.
> You cited a part this article it and I recall that that text seems to
> state that GLdF did get recognized with a date.

You've misremembered.

> Sorry I don't have it to hand, but I will check it again when I do.

Unless you can find something I've misread (or didn't see)....

> Even though Martin's conclusion is different (you cited part of his
> thesis but without the evidence he presents), being that the
> regularization didn't affect previous irregular initiations.

There was NO "regularization" at any point during Crowley's lifetime or
since.

> Every Masonic authority I have spoken with indicates that it would
> have had backward recognition so long as Crowley remained in good
> standing in his Lodge under the jurisdiction of the recognized GL
> and so long as the GLdF was recognized.

False premise = false conclusion.

> This should be verifiable with Anglo Saxon's records. I
> believe he let his membership lapse there in 1926 but that would be
> from his own diary entries (again this can be verified via Anglo
> Saxon's records).

So, this leaves us with what I believe accurately summarizes the
situation....

1. The lodge and its Grand Lodge were NOT recognized by UGLE at any point
during the adult lifetime of Crowley OR SINCE!

2. While the Grand Jurisdiction of ONE of the residences of Crowley during a
short overlapping period permitted intervisitation with that Grand Lodge,
there was no "recognition" per se.

3. That Crowley's acts would have made him a prime candidate for expulsion if
he HAD been a part of a "regular" lodge, then

4. Crowley was at NO time a "regular" and/or "recognized" Mason.

I believe these conclusions will be supported by the Starr paper when you
re-read it.

Gene Zippy

unread,
Jan 2, 2003, 10:13:50 AM1/2/03
to
On Thu, 2 Jan 2003 10:08:50 +0000 (UTC), jgbe...@vcn.bc.ca (Jim
Bennie) wrote:

>In <orv61vkmbapajgk5i...@4ax.com>, Gene "Zippy" Goldman.·.
><br_...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>> No. "Regularity" - as a legal term - is not an attribute of an
>> individual. It is an attribute of a jurisdiction.
>
>Well, it's attributed by a jurisdiction on an individual or a body
>of individuals. I've read cases (not here in BC) where someone has
>been made a Mason without a warrant in the room. The GM declared
>him irregular.

Good point.

>> >And you are saying he became irregular
>> >again (after his death) when UGLE unrecognized GLdF?
>
>> No.
>
>As the UGLE has never recognised the Grand Lodge of France, there's
>no point. For solely patriotic reasons, some American GLs allowed
>visitation rights to its lodges, some of them even recognised it for
>the brief period of American involvement in WW1. But England certainly
>didn't.

What is it about that fact that is so difficult for Crowley's deciples
to comprehend?

>> >>unrecognized, and then, whallah, all of a sudden,
>
>"Whallah"? You didn't get a dictionary for Christmas, did you Gene?

Hardly. I don't even celebrate it.


--
|O| Be well. Travel with a light heart.

Brother Gene .*.
H.M.S.H.
Q.P.H.D.
Regular 1,765 degree Mason
http://www.blackmountainlodge.net
http://www.freemason.org

************************************
"Are you guys ready? Let's Roll!!"
Todd Beamer, Flight 93
************************************

Remember: Your Masonry may be different from someone else's.


Internet newsgroup posting. Copyright 2002. All rights reserved.

Any Mason may use the contents for any valid Masonic purpose, permission may be granted to others upon request.

Objects in this post are funnier than they appear

Be seeing you

David R. Jones

unread,
Jan 2, 2003, 4:21:28 PM1/2/03
to

>1. The lodge and its Grand Lodge were NOT recognized by UGLE at any point
>during the adult lifetime of Crowley OR SINCE!
>
>2. While the Grand Jurisdiction of ONE of the residences of Crowley during a
>short overlapping period permitted intervisitation with that Grand Lodge,
>there was no "recognition" per se.
>
>3. That Crowley's acts would have made him a prime candidate for expulsion if
>he HAD been a part of a "regular" lodge, then
>
>4. Crowley was at NO time a "regular" and/or "recognized" Mason.
>
>I believe these conclusions will be supported by the Starr paper when you
>re-read it.

Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.

According to Martin Starr "Crowley was initiated on 8 October 1904,
presumably passed the following month, and raised on 17 December
1904." He subsequent membership is somewhat vague. He was almost
certainly still a member in 1912 though Mr. Starr lists 1908 as the
end of his association with Anglo Saxon # 343; as he presented his
current certificate of standing to the Sect. of Quatour Coronati Lodge
on 19 Aug 1912. The earliest date that it is certain that Crowley was
no longer an active member of Anglo Saxon #343 is 1934.

Anglo Saxon #343 was under the jurisdiction of the Grand Lodge du
France. My jursidiction, Oregon, officially recognized Grand Lodge Du
France from June 14, 1918 (1918 Proceedings, pp
36-37/http://bessel.org/masrec/france.htm) and still listed them as
regular as late as 1960 (http://bessel.org/masrec/glfderec.htm). In
Oregon active communication with GLdF was discontinued in 1964 because
of the recommendation of COGMNA the Conference of Grand Masters of
North America. No formal action seems to have been taken by the GL of
Oregon recognition was simply allowed to quietly lapse, in favor of
the UGLE sanctioned GL in France the NGLF. There has never been a
question of the legitimacy of GLdF's origin (it was chartered by the
GL of England in 1728: Henderson & Pope, Freemasonry Universal, p.
190), nor of its adherence to the Antient Landmarks (unlike the Grand
Orient of France it has never contenanced CoMasonry, the removal of
the VSL or any deviation from the necessary acceptance of a supreme
deity by its candidates).

One of the critical points for our argument is the fact that UGLE
recognized GL of France the National Grand Lodge of France or GLNF
wasn't chartered by UGLE until 1913. Prior to this time there seems
to have been no UGLE recognized body in the whole country of France
for almost a century. So that when Crowley was initiated, passed and
raised in Anglo Saxon #343 he was affiliating with the only GL in
France that adhered to the Antient Landmarks. Oregon didn't recognize
GNLF until 1953 so for the entirty of Crowley's life the only GL in
France that was recognized by the GL of Oregon was the GLdF. It
should be noted that during the 1950s many U.S. jurisdications
recognized both the GLdF and the GNLF.

It also appears that Anglo Saxon #343 is now under the jurisdiction of
GNLF as Anglo Saxon #103 which is recongnized by both UGLE and Oregon.


These are the facts as best I can determine them. My understanding of
Masonic statute (at least in Oregon) is as follows. Crowley's
initiation into Anglo Saxon #343 would have been recognized as regular
(in my jurisdiction) upon the recognition of the GLdF by the GL of
Oregon in session on 14 June 1918, and that initiation would have
remained recognized as regular until well after Crowley's death if not
forever. He would have been considered a Freemason in good standing
in the state of Oregon so long as his membership in Anglo Saxon #343
was current. But never would his initiation have been in question,
subsequent to Oregon's recognition of the GLdF and its suboridinate
bodies.

Now I am curious if Anglo Saxon is now under the jurisdication of the
GNLF which is recognized by not only UGLE but almost every GL in the
U.S. what affect does this have on initiations done by Anglo Saxon in
the past? Why would they not now be considered regular? Those I have
talked to in Oregon seem to think that it would esp. in light of
Oregon's previous recognition of their previous GL obedience.

I know there are many who would like to deny that Crowley was ever a
legitimate Freemason, maybe with good cause, but at least in my
jurisdication the issue is far from cut and dried and seems in fact to
favor Crowley's initiation and possibly his standing at least so far
as the letter of Masonic law goes.

Recognition of foreign jurisdictions - http://www.bessel.org/masrec

Grand Lodge of France – http://www.gldf.org

Starr, Martin. Aleister Crowley: Freemason. AQC Vol 108, 1995

Jim Bennie

unread,
Jan 2, 2003, 9:16:51 PM1/2/03
to
In <3e14accd...@news.uci.net>, drj...@uci.net (David R. Jones) wrote:
> There has never been a
> question of the legitimacy of GLdF's origin (it was chartered by the
> GL of England in 1728: Henderson & Pope, Freemasonry Universal, p.
> 190), nor of its adherence to the Antient Landmarks (unlike the Grand
> Orient

There have been plenty of questions about the legitimacy of origin
of the Grand Lodge of France. Furthermore, my copy of Kent Henderson's
book says nothing about 1728. It does say:

"It is believed Freemasonry was introduced into France from England
between 1725 and 1730 and there is some evidence to support this
contention...These lodges, with a few others, appear to have provided
the core for the Grand Lodge of France which was erected in 1736."
(pg. 184). Even Henderson writes, of its GLs, "of which only one is
regular."

Furthermore, in the History of Freemasonry and Concordant Orders,
published in 1892, Alfred A. Hall writes:

"Lord Derwentwater and others founded the first lodge in Paris,
in 1732, under the authority of the Grand Lodge of England...Lord
Hounouster was chosen Grand Master of French Masons in 1736."

> One of the critical points for our argument is the fact that UGLE
> recognized GL of France the National Grand Lodge of France or GLNF
> wasn't chartered by UGLE until 1913.

The UGLE does not charter Grand Lodges.

> Prior to this time there seems
> to have been no UGLE recognized body in the whole country of France
> for almost a century.

Maybe you should read Henderson a little closer, where he explains
the UGLE withdrew recognition of the Grand Orient of France in 1877.
100 years didn't transpire between 1877 and 1913.

> It should be noted that during the 1950s many U.S. jurisdications
> recognized both the GLdF and the GNLF.

Name these "many". The majority didn't even recognise it in WW1
when there was all this talk about "our boys over there not being
able to visit a lodge."

David R. Jones

unread,
Jan 2, 2003, 9:53:29 PM1/2/03
to
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.

On Fri, 3 Jan 2003 02:16:51 +0000 (UTC), jgbe...@vcn.bc.ca (Jim
Bennie) wrote:

>The UGLE does not charter Grand Lodges.

Maybe not dejuro but defacto they certainly do. GNLF is the obvious
example in this case.

>Name these "many".

Alabama, Alabama, Arkansas, California, Colorado, DC, Florida,
Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana , Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey,
New York, North Dakota, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Texas,
Utah, Wisconsin, Wyoming

>The majority didn't even recognise it in WW1

Yes they did. 23 was a majority of jurisdications at the time and
represented far more than a majority of Masons in the U.S.

>when there was all this talk about "our boys over there not being
>able to visit a lodge."

This is the crux of the issue though, that there was no legitimate GL
in France by UGLE's standards. I'm not saying it wasn't political but
it was fact. And in Oregon under Oregon Masonic statutes the case is
rather clear. Anyone initiated into a body under GLdF would have been
unequivocally been a regularly initiated Freemason from 1918-1960 and
a Freemason in good standing so long as they were current with the
Lodge that raised them. This would have been retroactive for all
Masons initiated under GLdF. I have no idea what the statutes or
recognitions were in your jurisdiction but in mine Crowley would have
to have been and still considered a Freemason.

Ed King

unread,
Jan 2, 2003, 10:33:47 PM1/2/03
to
In article <3e14f756...@news.uci.net>, David R. Jones wrote:
<snip>

> I have no idea what the statutes or
> recognitions were in your jurisdiction but in mine Crowley would have
> to have been and still considered a Freemason.

Does your Grand Lodge also recognize Crowley's claim that he was Grand
Master of the United States?

David R. Jones

unread,
Jan 2, 2003, 11:59:58 PM1/2/03
to
Source and context please?


On Fri, 03 Jan 2003 03:33:47 GMT, Ed King <edk...@masonicinfo.com>
wrote:

Larry Bernard

unread,
Jan 3, 2003, 12:16:33 AM1/3/03
to

> Does your Grand Lodge also recognize Crowley's claim that he was Grand
> Master of the United States?
>
> Ed King

but was that one of his claims in which he was lying

;-)

Gene Zippy

unread,
Jan 3, 2003, 9:22:04 AM1/3/03
to
On Fri, 3 Jan 2003 00:16:33 -0500, "Larry Bernard"
<kara...@comcast.net> wrote:

>but was that one of his claims in which he was lying

Redundant.

--
|O| Be well. Travel with a light heart.

Brother Gene .*.
H.M.S.H.
Q.P.H.D.
Regular 1,765 degree Mason
http://www.blackmountainlodge.net
http://www.freemason.org

************************************
"Are you guys ready? Let's Roll!!"
Todd Beamer, Flight 93
************************************

Remember: Your Masonry may be different from someone else's.


Internet newsgroup posting. Copyright 2002. All rights reserved.

Any Mason may use the contents for any valid Masonic purpose, permission may be granted to others upon request.

Objects in this post are funnier than they appear

Be seeing you

''Peachy'' Driver

unread,
Jan 3, 2003, 6:52:44 PM1/3/03
to
drj...@uci.net (David R. Jones) wrote in message news:<3e14f756...@news.uci.net>...


> >The UGLE does not charter Grand Lodges.
>
> Maybe not dejuro but defacto they certainly do. GNLF is the obvious
> example in this case.

*cough* Regular Grand Lodge of Italy *cough* *cough*

''Peachy'' Driver

unread,
Jan 3, 2003, 8:39:59 PM1/3/03
to
Ed King <edk...@masonicinfo.com> wrote in message news:<VA.000008a...@earthlink.net>...

> In article <3e14f756...@news.uci.net>, David R. Jones wrote:
> <snip>
> > I have no idea what the statutes or
> > recognitions were in your jurisdiction but in mine Crowley would have
> > to have been and still considered a Freemason.
>
> Does your Grand Lodge also recognize Crowley's claim that he was Grand
> Master of the United States?

Ed,

At one point he had some crazy scheme to get himself installed on the
NMJ Supreme Council (would've been funny to see his portrait hanging
up in the National Heritage Museum in Lexington) but I've never heard
of that before. Wouldn't be surprised though...

Gareth Driver

DM

unread,
Jan 3, 2003, 8:46:25 PM1/3/03
to
Here is a link to some crowley information:

http://users.erols.com/solequis/secret_societies/phoneymasonry.htm

DM

On 3 Jan 2003 17:39:59 -0800, gareth...@yahoo.com (''Peachy''

David R. Jones

unread,
Jan 3, 2003, 9:14:34 PM1/3/03
to
Unfortunately Gary Ford is ex O.T.O. and has a serious ax to grind.
Some of what he says is true, but much of it is simply his false
hypotheses presented as fact. O.T.O. has gone a long way to
disassociate itself from Masonry and Ford's assertions regarding the
bestowal of degrees and the accuracy of King's Secret Rituals is
simply not fact anymore. It may have been closer to the truth 20
years ago when Ford was a member of O.T.O. but hasn't been for a long
time.

DM

unread,
Jan 3, 2003, 11:41:09 PM1/3/03
to
I was refering to what was written about crowley.


On Sat, 04 Jan 2003 02:14:34 GMT, drj...@uci.net (David R. Jones)
wrote:

>Unfortunately Gary Ford is ex O.T.O. and has a serious ax to grind.

Ed King

unread,
Jan 4, 2003, 9:59:21 AM1/4/03
to
In article <3e1518bf...@news.uci.net>, David R. Jones wrote:
Footnote #11, Starr paper....

David R. Jones

unread,
Jan 4, 2003, 6:30:29 PM1/4/03
to
Hmmmm I'm not quite sure what you are referring to. The assertion is
to a "a past Grand Master" is if you read the English Review (August
1922) article used in a completley humorous way. Crowley is poking
fun at the problem that still plagues English Freemasons regarding the
recognition of French Freemasons and doing so anonymously as "a Past
Grand Master." A point I have made before that no matter how you look
at it the regular Lodges are clandestine and recognition (esp. in the
U.S.) has been a total confusion. Further reference is given by
brother Starr to Crowley's Confessions where you can read for yourself
exactly how seriously Crowley took Thomson's bestowal of such rank,
which was not at all, considering it essentially a joke. There is a
big difference between the degrees that Thomson bestowed on Crowley
and Crowley's tongue in cheek use of one of them in an anonymous humor
article. Crowley was not claiming this to Masons, in fact Crowley
clearly states in his biography that he found such pompous claims
rather ludicrous.

On Sat, 04 Jan 2003 14:59:21 GMT, Ed King <edk...@masonicinfo.com>

Jim Bennie

unread,
Jan 4, 2003, 10:03:34 PM1/4/03
to
On Fri, 3 Jan 2003, David R. Jones wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Jan 2003 02:16:51 +0000 (UTC), jgbe...@vcn.bc.ca (Jim
> Bennie) wrote:
> >The UGLE does not charter Grand Lodges.
>
> Maybe not dejuro but defacto they certainly do. GNLF is the obvious
> example in this case.

It isn't "maybe". Quote for me this charter. You made a factual
declaration. Don't start, well, it wasn't really, it was sort of,
because, well.

> Yes they did. 23 was a majority of jurisdications at the time

I beg your pardon? In 1914, you had 49 jurisdictions in the US.
I realise we have the metric system here, but 23 is not a majority
of 49 even under your measurement system.

> and represented far more than a majority of Masons in the U.S.

I'll concede that, but we were talking in jurisdictional terms.

> This is the crux of the issue though, that there was no legitimate GL
> in France by UGLE's standards.

In 1913, there obviously was. And it started sending letters requesting
recognition (BC either said no, or deferred, I believe it was the former).
The Grand Lodge of France suddenly decided it'd better get on the
recognition bandwagon, knowing full-well if the American GLs recognised
one, it wouldn't recognise the other. The GL of France had much better
timing, though, right about the time the Americans were entering the
war and there were wails of anguish about how these Masons overseas
couldn't visit a lodge over there. A number fell over themselves to
allow visitation rights with the largest French bodies .. interestingly
enough, never declaring them regular, but treating visiting like a
wartime measure .. kinda like income tax, which the government saw no
need to get rid of at the end of the war either.

> And in Oregon under Oregon Masonic statutes the case is
> rather clear. Anyone initiated into a body under GLdF would have been
> unequivocally been a regularly initiated Freemason from 1918-1960 and
> a Freemason in good standing so long as they were current with the
> Lodge that raised them. This would have been retroactive for all
> Masons initiated under GLdF.

Yes, David, I would agree .. provided, of course, Oregon actually
declared the GL of France regular and didn't merely allow wartime
visitation rights it saw no reason to end.

> I have no idea what the statutes or
> recognitions were in your jurisdiction but in mine Crowley would have
> to have been and still considered a Freemason.

Simple. Mine has never recognised the Grand Lodge of France. We did
recognise the Grand Orient for the first few years. And we began
recognising the National Grand Lodge of France in the '60s; 1962 I
believe.

Jim Bennie

unread,
Jan 4, 2003, 10:07:11 PM1/4/03
to
On Fri, 3 Jan 2003, Ed King wrote:
> In article <3e14f756...@news.uci.net>, David R. Jones wrote:
> <snip>
> > I have no idea what the statutes or
> > recognitions were in your jurisdiction but in mine Crowley would have
> > to have been and still considered a Freemason.
>
> Does your Grand Lodge also recognize Crowley's claim that he was Grand
> Master of the United States?

I don't know why it would have to, Ed, any more than it recognises my
claim to be able to ordain Gene as a 1,765 degree Mason, or that my
hair really isn't falling out.

David would be correct. If his Grand Lodge recognised the GLF as
regular, then Masons initiated therein would be regular (unless
the GLF itself decided otherwise).

Of course, the US was whipped into a wartime frenzy and there was
this sort-of nether status where people could visit but they weren't
recognised. At least some GLs engaged in it.

David R. Jones

unread,
Jan 4, 2003, 11:30:57 PM1/4/03
to
On Sat, 4 Jan 2003 22:03:34 -0500, Jim Bennie <bj...@torfree.net>
wrote:

>It isn't "maybe". Quote for me this charter. You made a factual
>declaration. Don't start, well, it wasn't really, it was sort of,
>because, well.

Read the White Papers on the the GL of Minnestota's recognition of the
GLdF. The Sect. of UGLE clearly asserts that the GNLF came into
existance because of the efforts of UGLE. This is what I mean by
defacto. They went into a foreign jurisdiction and chartered bodies
that eventually became the GNLF of France as part of a conscious plan
on their part. It may not be in the charter but it was part of a
concerted plan by the officers of UGLE to regularize Freemasonry in
France, the same seems to have taken place in Italy.

>I beg your pardon? In 1914, you had 49 jurisdictions in the US.
>I realise we have the metric system here, but 23 is not a majority
>of 49 even under your measurement system.

You are correct I was working from data based on the 1904 date of
Crowley's initiation. My mistake sorry.

>> and represented far more than a majority of Masons in the U.S.
>
>I'll concede that, but we were talking in jurisdictional terms.

True enough but these jurisdictions represented over 80% of Masons in
the U.S. at the time (not counting the then equally unrecognized PH
Lodges).

>Yes, David, I would agree .. provided, of course, Oregon actually
>declared the GL of France regular and didn't merely allow wartime
>visitation rights it saw no reason to end.

They did as I have stated elsewhere and have in fact never rescinded
that recognition. They no longer list them and list only the GNLF of
France, but no formal derecognition has ever occured. I was told by
one of the older historians I know that this was to avoid putting the
standing of any of the brothers who fought in WWI and might have been
raised there in question. A moot point now but only fairly recently.

I have a question for you though. Given that the Lodge Crowley was
initiated, passed and raised in is no longer affiliated with the GLdF
but the regularized GNLF wouldn't this in and of itself convey
regularization to his original initiation?


erik

unread,
Jan 9, 2003, 4:09:43 PM1/9/03
to
''Peachy'' Driver <gareth...@yahoo.com> wrote:
: *cough* Regular Grand Lodge of Italy *cough* *cough*

Good Afternoon Br Gareth,
Nasty cough you have there. Maybe more of that special Harvard
Lodge cough syrup would help you get over it. Well, long enough to sing
the theme song anyways. So when is that FC?

--
ttfn

------------

Erik J. Meyer

Constellation Lodge AF&AM (no, we don't have numbers)
Hermann-Dexter Lodge IOOF #133 Dedham, MA
www.mychip.org are you a turtle?

Draco The Elder

unread,
Jan 9, 2003, 8:35:34 PM1/9/03
to

"erik" <er...@shelltown.net> wrote in message
news:rylT9.819$Sq1.3...@news.ca.inter.net...

> ''Peachy'' Driver <gareth...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> : *cough* Regular Grand Lodge of Italy *cough* *cough*
>
> Good Afternoon Br Gareth,
Nasty cough you have there. Maybe more of that special Harvard Lodge cough
syrup would help you get over it. Well, long enough to sing the theme song
anyways. So when is that FC?

I lied. Deal with it.

To answer your question: Yes, but in minor. Major whipped-up a spin that has
yet to hit "REALITY". Oh but praise the "LAWS" of "CAUSUALITY". You men
thought of it as an Eagle perched on an Olive Branch. What you men didn't
know, is that it was the whole TREE. HAHAHA! The result: a Tsunami from a
witch(bless porn) and a storm from Abraxas in the Ocean.

Everyone's all dried-up.

As for you, Eric: You have been appointed to eat the corns off of the Lord
and Lady's feet. It sucks to be you. You wanted an imaginary Celtic Demon.
You got the God and Goddess instead. Hoped that helped. Have a good day.

''Peachy'' Driver

unread,
Jan 11, 2003, 12:36:06 AM1/11/03
to
erik <er...@shelltown.net> wrote in message news:<rylT9.819$Sq1.3...@news.ca.inter.net>...
> ''Peachy'' Driver <gareth...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> : *cough* Regular Grand Lodge of Italy *cough* *cough*
>
> Good Afternoon Br Gareth,
> Nasty cough you have there. Maybe more of that special Harvard
> Lodge cough syrup would help you get over it.

Heh heh.

> Well, long enough to sing
> the theme song anyways.

Depends on what key we start in!

> So when is that FC?

February. Seeya then!

Gareth

''Peachy'' Driver

unread,
Jan 11, 2003, 12:38:24 AM1/11/03
to
I suppose I could post all kinds of Sar Draconis-style warnings that
Draco the Elder/nucleus/Jason D. Scott is not authorized to speak for
me, but what would be the fun in that?

Peachy the Younger

"Draco The Elder" <webZw...@ya.net> wrote in message news:<avl7j...@enews1.newsguy.com>...

erik

unread,
Jan 13, 2003, 3:48:19 PM1/13/03
to
''Peachy'' Driver <gareth...@yahoo.com> wrote:
:> So when is that FC?

: February. Seeya then!

Regular meeting would be February 20, 2003. Ok. I suppose a time might
be found when I drop into the building earlier that day. Hopefully no
district events will be on the schedule for then.

erik

unread,
Jan 13, 2003, 3:52:42 PM1/13/03
to
"Draco The Elder" <webZw...@ya.net> wrote in message news:<avl7j...@enews1.newsguy.com>...
: As for you, Eric: You have been appointed to eat the corns off of the Lord

: and Lady's feet. It sucks to be you. You wanted an imaginary Celtic Demon.
: You got the God and Goddess instead. Hoped that helped. Have a good day.

Good Afternoon All,
I missed this post. I am guessing hte anonymous individual was
referring to me as my .sig file was in the post. I have no idea what they
are referring to in regards to Celtic demons. Now, if they had said bane
sidhe I would have had some idea. Otherwise I figure grain from the
agricultural diety types is not such a bad thing. Or was dear <anon>
trying to hint at their foot fetishism? Eh.

AINSUPH

unread,
Jan 14, 2003, 2:59:11 PM1/14/03
to
drj...@uci.net (David R. Jones) wrote in message news:<3e1642cd...@news.uci.net>...

> Unfortunately Gary Ford is ex O.T.O. and has a serious ax to grind.
> Some of what he says is true, but much of it is simply his false
> hypotheses presented as fact. O.T.O. has gone a long way to
> disassociate itself from Masonry and Ford's assertions regarding the
> bestowal of degrees and the accuracy of King's Secret Rituals is
> simply not fact anymore. It may have been closer to the truth 20
> years ago when Ford was a member of O.T.O. but hasn't been for a long
> time.

What is ironic about all of this is that Ford himself has claimed and
he has conferred 95th degree of Memphis-Mizraim on visiting regular
masons behind closed doors at the Hotel Washington during Masonic
Week. Ford has even been known to formulate and sign charters
authorizing Sovereign Sanctuaries of Memphis-Mizraim. I would prefer
to believe that since Ford is an honest and upright Mason, that all
the claims which he sets forth, and has set forth in his various
signed charters etc., are entirely valid and true!!!

Another fascinating claim is that Ford is 7=4 of the Golden Dawn,
which he obtained from Pat Zalewski via Chris Hyatt. Documentation of
Ford's astonishing GD activities may be found at
http://www.golden-dawn.com.

The truth is that Ford has done far more for Memphis-Mizraim and the
Golden Dawn than ANYONE since Pharoah Amenhotep Himself!!! His
webpage is simply set up to inform the unenlightened.

AIN

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages