Dontrell Stroman
Premium Member
I understand that in the early 1700 or 1800s there was a split in freemasonry. I'm wondering if there is much of a difference in F&AM verses AF&AM in today's time ?
My Freemasonry | Freemason Information and Discussion Forum
Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
F&AM , AF&AM
- Thread starter Dontrell Stroman
- Start date
dfreybur
Premium Member
In Prince Hall there's a big difference. All of the jurisdictions that have continuous traceable lineage to African 459 are F&AM so AF&AM automatically means a jurisdiction that is never going to be generally recognized.
In what I call George Washington for lack of an accepted term the difference is purely cosmetic. There exist regular and recognized jurisdictions that have more descent from the Moderns but use AF&AM. There exist regular and recognized jurisdictions that have more descent from the Antients but use F&AM.
Detailed differences in ritual within our branch of the family are more about how expansion happened as the colonies became states and then expanded west.
In what I call George Washington for lack of an accepted term the difference is purely cosmetic. There exist regular and recognized jurisdictions that have more descent from the Moderns but use AF&AM. There exist regular and recognized jurisdictions that have more descent from the Antients but use F&AM.
Detailed differences in ritual within our branch of the family are more about how expansion happened as the colonies became states and then expanded west.
Indeed, plus AFM (SC) and Utah which was AF&AM and became F&AM.
LAMason
Premium Member
And the Grand Lodge, FAAM, of the District of Columbia.
Dontrell Stroman
Premium Member
I'm aware of the difference in Prince Hall Masonry, but I'm speaking in reference to "mainstream" masonry ?
Umm....see above posts?
From experience I can say there are some differences in ritual, but that happens from state-to-state regardless of designation.
Dontrell Stroman
Premium Member
Okay I see. Thanks for the insight brother
Don't forget the Grand Lodge of Liberia AF&AM the only regular PH GL that uses AF&AM if I'm not mistaken
http://www.grandlodgeofliberia.org/pages1.php?pgID=36
http://www.grandlodgeofliberia.org/pages1.php?pgID=36
Dontrell Stroman
Premium Member
Learned something new. Thanks brother
BroBook
Premium Member
Not all my brother, the AF&AM in fl actually broke off from the F&AM, most, if not all of the others, what y'all call PHO, were started by masons that been had been suspended or expelled for unmasonic conduct. Search for " a living schism" it was written by our most recent PGM.
dfreybur
Premium Member
Parts of the Masonic world work on the "Highlander" principle - There can only be one.
Parts of the Masonic world work on a sort of double model - In those geographies two overlapping jurisdictions function. UGLE districts or groups and the native GL in many countries, CGMNA and CGMPHM in the US, overlapping national and state in Mexico and Brazil ...
Maybe we can move to an even more open system, sort of like a plywood model. Several overlapping jurisdictions in any one geography. I have no idea how such a system would work as it would have to resist drifting towards chaos ...
LAMason
Premium Member
In Freemasonry it is called the Doctrine of Exclusive Territorial Jurisdiction (ETJ).
So, what other jurisdictions do you think should be recognized?
Yet, you suggest creating an artificial crisis that would precipitate just such chaos.
dfreybur
Premium Member
Two examples I know that are already in place in the US as well as the countries of Mexico and Brazil that I already mentioned -
A year or two before California recognized PHA one of the GLs in Mexico asked permission to charter a Spanish speaking lodge in the state of California near the border. The location has a Spanish speaking majority and the only California lodge authorized to work in Spanish is nowhere near there. They asked permission according to ancient tradition. Generosity prevailed and permission was granted. Then PHA was recognized. Now there are 3 jurisdictions that operate at specific locations in the state all with permission of GLofCA.
When the GLofAK was formed one of the lodges in Alaska decided they would rather stay with their chartering state and not join GLofAK. They asked for the blessing of states in the region and I was at a California GL when that was voted on. Generosity prevailed and the request was approved. The PHA was recognized. Now there are 3 jurisdictions that operate at specific locations in Alaska.
That's the precedent. What I wonder about is discussing regularity of a small number of PHA branches that diverged recently as long as they (unlike PHO) have been operating continuously. It's a hard sell to pull off at a vote. Understanding that the precedent is established is a baby step. The goal is really more incentive for a few PHA branches to get together anyways.
I know of several historical examples so I know that we don't need to care. The jurisdictions that pulled recognition just got laughed at as embarrassments to Masonry and relented. (Before I petitioned) some southern states pulled recognition when PHA recognition started in the northeast. Laughing ensued and the southern states relented. During the Haas fiasco some states pulled recognition and got laughed at. During the Florida fiasco banning named religions at least one state already had in place pulling recognition had the edict been approved.
So I know the precedents. In the case of AK I know that MWPHGLofAK already grants blanket recognition that applies to all 3 of my jurisdictions. I know the issues GLofAK is having with the Shrine. You may think it would be chaos, but the recent history suggests otherwise. So what if GLofAK pulls recognition over recognition of MWPHGLofAK? We still have lodges we can visit when we are in the state so we can afford to laugh at GLofAK. It's not like we would start laughing at them - We've been laughing at them for a couple of years already at this point.
If GLofAK pulled recognition from one or more of my 3 jurisdictions most Masons in the country would just laugh at them. The loss would be theirs.
LAMason
Premium Member
You probably would be surprised on how it would play out if you tried to force a recognition crisis by recognizing a PHA Grand Lodge not recognized by that State.
As I pointed out previously, Alton Roundtree, an expert in the history of PHA and PHO would disagree with you. According to him PHO is just as regular as PHA.
"Brother Roundtree is the co-author with Paul M. Bessel of Out Of The Shadows: The Emergence of Prince Hall Freemasonry in America, published in 2006. He is a Past Master, a 33rd Degree Mason, a fellow of both the Phylaxis Society and the Masonic Society, and has served as editor of the Masonic Globe Magazine, and the Prince Hall Masonic Digest."
http://freemasonsfordummies.blogspot.com/2011/02/alton-roundtree-named-100th-blue-friar.html
Brent S. Morris wrote the Foreward to Out of the Shadows and said this:
"The book gives a detailed account of the history of the NGL, concluding that the NGL was never dissolved, and that its 27 State Grand Lodges, designated "Prince Hall Origin" (PHO), are therefore regular. They have 300 lodges with about 5000 members."
http://www.freemasons-freemasonry.com/libro_bessel_Shadows.html
Ripcord22A
Site Benefactor
Brother Dfreybur GLoAK? Aee u refering to alaska or arkansas? AK is alaska and u speak of alaska but then you speak of the issues that arkansas is having woth the shrine... Im so confused
If you want to see how multiple GLs work amicably together, look at Japan.
As for those last few hold-outs here in the States, they'll find amity or they won't. I don't live there, so it doesn't affect me going to lodge.
As for those last few hold-outs here in the States, they'll find amity or they won't. I don't live there, so it doesn't affect me going to lodge.
LAMason
Premium Member
And which ones would that be?
LAMason
Premium Member
What is the name of the Lodge and Grand Lodge that Chartered it, also what year was it chartered?
dfreybur
Premium Member
Unlikely given the events I cited. More importantly it ALREADY happened and no one bothered. About a year and a half ago the MWPHGLofAR issued blanket recognition by edict to every GL that has recognition it their own state. Right now MWPHGLofAR recognizes very many states that do not return that recognition. The way it played out is no one but the GLofAR cared.
Thanks for noticing my typo! One of my historical examples was Alaska then I switched to Arkansas but continued the incorrect abbreviation AK.
BroBook mentioned that in Florida the split between MWPHGLofFL AF&AM and his MWPH Union GLofFL was recent.
I just checked the members only section of the GLofCA web site. There downloadable Proceedings only go back to 2000. I attended 1997,8,9. Recognition completed 1995 when I was Junior Daecon. The votes declaring regularity and ability to waive one incident of territory happened in 1993 and 1994 - Those are the two books to look in.