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!

Visitation between A.F.&A.M and F&A.M

Jorge Rojas Jr

Registered User
Are there Regulations on this issue? I'm a new PHA and I've heard different answers from some of the brothers.

Sent from my LG-P769 using My Freemasonry mobile app
 

masonicdove

Registered User
First off welcome to the craft brother! Visitation between PHA and for the lack of a better term, mainstream depends upon the state. So check with your lodge to see if your grand lodge has recognition or visitation.
 

Brother JC

Moderating Staff
Staff Member
One of my GLs is AF&AM, one is F&AM, and one doesn't use either designation...
There are much deeper considerations to visitation.
 

Plustax

Registered User
I think some are under misconception that F&AM and AF&AM are Mainstream and PHA which is not the case at all. I was raised in a F&AM(GA) and now reside in Texas under a AF&AM lodge(endowed member). Both are "mainstream or Blue" lodges. I heard that same comment/assumption about a month ago from a Bro mason during a conversation. He also said that there was a difference (as he thought) between a "3" letter & a "4" letter mason which he was thinking F&AM and AF&AM. I tried to explain that what was really meant was "PHA" and "Blue" or "Main", but he refused to understand or acknowledge that. So I left it alone so as not to create hard feelings. MHO is that I wish we could all be "as one". Whatever happened in history that caused a separation is that..... History... Good to know... Good to learn from, but must now move on. It's much like people hating the confederate flag or "rehashing" what happened in history. It was bad, it was awful, but it happened & brought us to where we are.... Many things better and many things still needing to be better. However, it happened and it can never be changed. We must move on.... Not forget... Just move on and what better place than to bring masonry back together as one. Unfortunately I feel there is too much politics & power involved by both PHA and Mainstream.
 
Last edited:

Jorge Rojas Jr

Registered User
I have a friend that isn't from the craft but grandfather was. Grady Hemphill as had great things to say about his influence in his life. He now passed but was part of the Julian Field lodge held in downtown Fort Worth. I would love to set in a meeting in respects of a great friend.

To me it's all the same according to our obligation. But I'd love to meet new brothers in the DFW Texas Metroplex.

Sent from my LG-P769 using My Freemasonry mobile app
 
Last edited by a moderator:

mrpierce17

KOP Council director / Lodge instructor
Premium Member
Are there Regulations on this issue? I'm a new PHA and I've heard different answers from some of the brothers.

Sent from my LG-P769 using My Freemasonry mobile app
Depending on weather your talking about mainstream A.F.&.A.M lodges or black 4 letter lodges if a brother claims to be a Prince Hall mason his lodge should be styled F.&.A.M. ....Anything else is considered clandestine...it is much easier to just ask what Grand Lodge are you operating under there are only 2 that are recognized per state the Grand Lodge of state and The Most Worshipful Prince Hall Grand Lodge of state you can simply check grand lodge of state mainstream or P.H.A. use the lodge locater and see if the said lodge is listed

Bro.R.Pierce
Friendly Lodge #436 F&.A.M.
M.W.U.G.L.of.FL , P.H.A
 

tldubb

Premium Member
The best advice is contact your GL, they should have a listing of GLs, that they recognize. .ie visitation.



Sent from my SCH-I545 using My Freemasonry HD mobile app
 

Squire Bentley

Premium Member
Texas does not have visitation between Prince Hall & Mainstream Freemasonry. This is the way the Grand Lodge of Texas AF & Am wants it.
 

MRichard

Mark A. Ri'chard
Premium Member
Last edited:

MRichard

Mark A. Ri'chard
Premium Member
I edited my previous post to include a link to what I read on this site about the issue.
 

Squire Bentley

Premium Member
We had this discussion on this board a couple of years ago. DDGMs from the Grand Lodge of Texas were spreading the story that Prince Hall requested a no visitation policy at the time of recognition. This just wasn't true and my Grand Master confirmed that position. As a matter of fact to clear up any ambiguity Grand Master Wilbert. M. Curtis of the MWPHGLTX sent a letter to the Grand Master of Texas stating that Prince Hall was ready at any time for open visitation as it always has been. I believe that Brother Bowden has written on this subject. Have you referenced his works?
 

MRichard

Mark A. Ri'chard
Premium Member
We had this discussion on this board a couple of years ago. DDGMs from the Grand Lodge of Texas were spreading the story that Prince Hall requested a no visitation policy at the time of recognition. This just wasn't true and my Grand Master confirmed that position. As a matter of fact to clear up any ambiguity Grand Master Wilbert. M. Curtis of the MWPHGLTX sent a letter to the Grand Master of Texas stating that Prince Hall was ready at any time for open visitation as it always has been. I believe that Brother Bowden has written on this subject. Have you referenced his works?

This is a post from Brother Bowden on the subject.
http://www.myfreemasonry.com/showth...am-Freemasonry?p=110456&viewfull=1#post110456
 

bupton52

Moderator
Premium Member
Hopefully things will change and we won't have to figure out who is to blame for what. Let's put our energy into seeing that happen. I'm sure we could get it done.

Sent From My Freemasonry Pro App
 

Squire Bentley

Premium Member

I love Brother Bowden like he was my blood Brother. But the truth be told, neither Grand Lodge is going to allow anybody below Grand Master to negotiate this kind of a deal. There are no playmakers that will change this other than they change the mind of their own Grand Master. That is just Masonic protocol. You and I may not like it, but that is the way things are done.

I reiterate the fact: The Grand Master of the MWPHGLTX sent a letter to the Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of Texas declaring that Prince Hall was ready for full cross visitation as it always has been. Some time after a meeting was scheduled between the two Grand Masters but Prince Hall pulled out when it was informed that the GL of Texas had changed the subject and would be giving the Prince Hall GL a dressing down at the scheduled meeting.

The best way to accomplish cross visitation is for each of us to work within our Grand Lodges to get each Grand Lodge to vote in Grand Session to move ahead on this issue and approve it. If each Grand Master will bring the issue to the floor of his Grand Lodge session and put it to a vote, then maybe we can get it done. So the best course of action is to work hard on this issue only within your own Grand Lodge.

I would be happy to write and publish an article on the subject if Brothers would give me the information necessary to present the issue publicly.

Frederic L. Milliken
"The Beehive"
 

MRichard

Mark A. Ri'chard
Premium Member
I love Brother Bowden like he was my blood Brother. But the truth be told, neither Grand Lodge is going to allow anybody below Grand Master to negotiate this kind of a deal. There are no playmakers that will change this other than they change the mind of their own Grand Master. That is just Masonic protocol. You and I may not like it, but that is the way things are done.

I reiterate the fact: The Grand Master of the MWPHGLTX sent a letter to the Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of Texas declaring that Prince Hall was ready for full cross visitation as it always has been. Some time after a meeting was scheduled between the two Grand Masters but Prince Hall pulled out when it was informed that the GL of Texas had changed the subject and would be giving the Prince Hall GL a dressing down at the scheduled meeting.

The best way to accomplish cross visitation is for each of us to work within our Grand Lodges to get each Grand Lodge to vote in Grand Session to move ahead on this issue and approve it. If each Grand Master will bring the issue to the floor of his Grand Lodge session and put it to a vote, then maybe we can get it done. So the best course of action is to work hard on this issue only within your own Grand Lodge.

I would be happy to write and publish an article on the subject if Brothers would give me the information necessary to present the issue publicly.

Frederic L. Milliken
"The Beehive"

I still don't see how it is all the fault of the MWGLoTX even assuming that such a letter was sent out. Theoretically, the MWPHGLTX could have recognized the MWGLoTX and put the ball in their court as Brother Bowden suggested in another post. Then if they did not receive a response, then you could make that argument.

But just as Brother Upton suggested, it will probably wiser to focus on solving the problem rather than placing blame on either party. I think it is safe to say that we both want visitation. I would even hope for dual memberships.
 
Last edited:

JFS61

Premium Member
My understanding is the GLOTX "changed" the subject when the MWPHLGLTX invaded the sovereign masonic territory of the Ivory Coast. There was no way the GLOTX could precede with further extending masonic relations with a Grand Lodge that had invaded the territory of a Grand Lodge that GLOTX was in amity with. My understanding is that the situation is in the process of being/has been resolved, and hopefully things will get back on track.

I do agree with others, that trying to place the blame on one side or other (which too many here seem to be doing) is counterproductive, especially without knowing all the work going on behind the scenes. In fact, why not give Brother Normand (head of the GLOTX Fraternal Relations Committee) a call, as I understand he is quite accessible and would probably be more than willing to discuss the situation with any brother.
 
Last edited:

Squire Bentley

Premium Member
"assuming that such a letter was sent out."

There is no assuming, it's a fact. A letter was sent. This is not a matter of opinion. A fact is a fact. If the Grand Lodge of Texas is not acknowledging the receipt of such a letter let me know. And I wonder what information you have to question the possibility that such a letter was not sent.

Recognition between the two Grand Lodges was done years ago, my Brother. I don't get what you are saying. At the time the compact was signed the MWPHGLTX suggested that there be mutual visitation and the Grand Lodge of Texas said no. Prince Hall has since that Compact approached the subject with the Grand Lodge of Texas. In all cases it is Prince Hall suggesting the cross visitation and the Grand Lodge of Texas saying NO.. The ball is in the court of the Grand Lodge of Texas.

Now if what you are suggesting is that the MWPHGLTX allow Brethren from the Grand Lodge of Texas to visit their Lodges while the Grand Lodge of Texas continues to say no to Prince Hall Masons visiting their Lodges, I have one thing to say - GET REAL! Don't you see it has to be a mutual agreement?

I'm really not into passing out the blame, but the record must be set straight when one side is not telling the truth.

 

MRichard

Mark A. Ri'chard
Premium Member
"assuming that such a letter was sent out."

There is no assuming, it's a fact. A letter was sent. This is not a matter of opinion. A fact is a fact. If the Grand Lodge of Texas is not acknowledging the receipt of such a letter let me know. And I wonder what information you have to question the possibility that such a letter was not sent.

Recognition between the two Grand Lodges was done years ago, my Brother. I don't get what you are saying. At the time the compact was signed the MWPHGLTX suggested that there be mutual visitation and the Grand Lodge of Texas said no. Prince Hall has since that Compact approached the subject with the Grand Lodge of Texas. In all cases it is Prince Hall suggesting the cross visitation and the Grand Lodge of Texas saying NO.. The ball is in the court of the Grand Lodge of Texas.

Now if what you are suggesting is that the MWPHGLTX allow Brethren from the Grand Lodge of Texas to visit their Lodges while the Grand Lodge of Texas continues to say no to Prince Hall Masons visiting their Lodges, I have one thing to say - GET REAL! Don't you see it has to be a mutual agreement?

I'm really not into passing out the blame, but the record must be set straight when one side is not telling the truth.


Earlier you asked me to reference some of Brother Bowden's works on the subject matter. That was one of his suggestions earlier. http://www.myfreemasonry.com/showth...ream-Freemasonry?p=85972&viewfull=1#post85972 .

Also, MWPHGLAR has done something similar. I believe this is your blog. http://www.freemasoninformation.com...-master-cleveland-wilson-takes-the-high-road/

I used the term assuming to get past a subject matter without debating the veracity of it anymore. Hence, your version of events could very well be accurate.
 
Last edited:
Top