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!

mainstream or Prince Hall

hev1030

Registered User
What is the difference between the two. ..

Thank you in advance.

Sent From My Freemasonry Pro App
 

Bill Lins

Moderating Staff
Staff Member
At the risk of extreme oversimplification, the short version is that Prince Hall Lodges formed beginning back in the late 1700s to give blacks the opportunity to become Masons. Until fairly recent times, most "mainstream" Grand Lodges excluded blacks from membership.

Nowadays, for the most part, such is not the case. Most Grand Lodges, "mainstream" & Prince Hall alike, gladly accept men of high moral character regardless of color.

My advice would be to visit a number of both "mainstream" & "Prince Hall Affiliated" (NOT "PHO" or other irregular) Lodges. Every Lodge has its own "vibe"- visiting will let you see in which Lodge(s) you feel comfortable & accepted.
 

BryanMaloney

Premium Member
Footnote: Prince Hall arose due to a horrible and uniquely American rejection of Masonic principles. In the rest of the world, the division doesn't exist.
 

vangoedenaam

Premium Member
The same division still exists all over the world in regards to female or mixed masonry.


Sent From My Freemasonry Pro App
 

BryanMaloney

Premium Member
The same division still exists all over the world in regards to female or mixed masonry.

You are introducing nonsense. The Landmarks make it quite clear that Freemasonry is and always has been for men. This is not at all the same thing as the lamentable Prince Hall situation, and trying to introduce this non-issue into this thread cheapens the Prince Hall legacy immeasurably. Comasonry has never been Regular Masonry. Women have always been free to have their own organizations and have done so. The Prince Hall situation is due to Freemasons voluntarily violating Masonic principles. There is NO COMPARISON AT ALL to be made with comasonry or women Masonic-like organizations. NO MASONIC PRINCIPLE HAS BEEN VIOLATED by Regular Freemasonry in that case.
 

dfreybur

Premium Member
One thing I am fussy about - PHA jurisdictions are and always have been mainstream. I don't like even putting the word in quotes when contrasting the two regular jurisdictions in each state. I have long used "George Washington Affiliated" for the ones I am a member of. It's never been an official term anywhere and I rather like it that way. W Bros Hall and Washington were contemporaries and the way history has evolved in treating them is rather expressive of what happened.

It was a time before the advent of the Daytona 500 and Indianapolis 500 so the world was a different place than any of us would tolerate today. Fortunately the number of places to never visit again and the number of people to never speak to again drops steadily as the decades pass. What is a historical footnote in the lives of some became a historical footnote in the lives of many then most and gradually nearly everywhere.

So what's the difference? There are the usual small wording differences in the ceremonies. PHA brothers wear their gloves a lot more is the one that stands out to me as a difference in what happens at a lodge meeting. There's a song added to the PHA opening. More than two centuries of parallel heritage at this point.
 

vangoedenaam

Premium Member
We may have covered the discrimination on gender in the landmarks, but it doesnt make it any less discriminatory. Now dont get me wrong. Im happy to be in a male only lodge, but i would like visitation to be possible with comasonic lodges. And im also very happy we dont have the split based on race in Europe. That doesnt mean though racism didnt exist, we just didnt have a lot of coloured ppl. In fact, my country was one of the last ones in the world to abolish slavery, a fact im not proud of. But i am also in a country where the first bit of the constitution is exactly the one against discrimination and for equality. So i dont see any difference between racial and gender discrimination.

I understand the pha discussion may be about a sensitive issue for US masons, remember, im looking at it from across an ocean. So forgive me for missing some of the points. Im willing to learn


Sent From My Freemasonry Pro App
 

hev1030

Registered User
We may have covered the discrimination on gender in the landmarks, but it doesnt make it any less discriminatory. Now dont get me wrong. Im happy to be in a male only lodge, but i would like visitation to be possible with comasonic lodges. And im also very happy we dont have the split based on race in Europe. That doesnt mean though racism didnt exist, we just didnt have a lot of coloured ppl. In fact, my country was one of the last ones in the world to abolish slavery, a fact im not proud of. But i am also in a country where the first bit of the constitution is exactly the one against discrimination and for equality. So i dont see any difference between racial and gender discrimination.

I understand the pha discussion may be about a sensitive issue for US masons, remember, im looking at it from across an ocean. So forgive me for missing some of the points. Im willing to learn


Sent From My Freemasonry Pro App

Yes! I am willing to learn more myself just trying to be knowledgeable in aware of all.. I'm 37 and want to better myself and what better way then with a brotherhood the make good men better men

Sent From My Freemasonry Pro App
 

MarkR

Premium Member
You are so correct, but we're stuck with an awkward and icky terminology. It would be great if the term "George Washington Lodges" became widespread.
Except that, unlike M. Wor. Bro. Prince Hall, George Washington did not start his branch of Freemasonry in the United States. Also, using the term George Washington Freemasonry as a catch-all is rather disrespectful to Grand Lodges in the rest of the world.

I don't know the answer to getting rid of the "mainstream" appellation, but George Washington doesn't do it for me.
 

dfreybur

Premium Member
Except that, unlike M. Wor. Bro. Prince Hall, George Washington did not start his branch of Freemasonry in the United States.

Elias Ashmole is approximately as well known or as unknown as Prince Hall. While the two give a good parallel on introducing a branch of Masonry, the difference in how well known Washington is versus Hall is a very effective and very succinct summary of the history of the issue.

One thing that Washington did was decline to form a national Grand Lodge. That set the precedent for all sorts of local sovereignty issues that are also involved in the PHA history.

Also, using the term George Washington Freemasonry as a catch-all is rather disrespectful to Grand Lodges in the rest of the world.

As the distinction is uniquely American it makes sense to phrase it in American. If some foreigner goes "Washington? That's a city" or "Washington? So the city was named after some American guy then? Nice to hear he was a brother" that works correctly for me.

I don't know the answer to getting rid of the "mainstream" appellation, but George Washington doesn't do it for me.

Which is why I'm rather glad it remains not a common usage. Not enough of a consensus.
 

BryanMaloney

Premium Member
Except that, unlike M. Wor. Bro. Prince Hall, George Washington did not start his branch of Freemasonry in the United States. Also, using the term George Washington Freemasonry as a catch-all is rather disrespectful to Grand Lodges in the rest of the world.

How? After all, it would be used to designate a uniquely American Freemasonic historical thread. UGLE would not be a George Washington GL. None of the Canadian GL would be George Washington GL.
 

Mike Martin

Eternal Apprentice
Premium Member
Just for accuracy, Prince Hall was Initiated into an Irish Travelling Lodge and the Lodge that he Founded was Warranted by the Premier Grand Lodge of England.
 

Rifleman1776

Registered User
One thing that Washington did was decline to form a national Grand Lodge. That set the precedent for all sorts of local sovereignty issues that are also involved in the PHA history.

Tell me about it, Bro. :RpS_rolleyes: Hint: think Arkansas.
 

BryanMaloney

Premium Member
There has never been a UK Grand Lodge. There is no Grand Lodge of Canada. Why need there be a Grand Lodge of the USA?
 

Rifleman1776

Registered User
There has never been a UK Grand Lodge. There is no Grand Lodge of Canada. Why need there be a Grand Lodge of the USA?

I can only reply with my opinion. And that would be to possibly prevent a situation like we have in Arkansas. Currently the GM, and several predecessors, have delcared an organization that is not a lodge "clandestine" and is expelling MMs who participate in activities of that organization. A ruling body, e.g. National Grand Lodge, might bring brotherly calm to the issue. I can just wish we had such a National Grand Lodge.
 

BryanMaloney

Premium Member
A National Grand Lodge of the USA could also prevent mistakes from being corrected. Consider that recognition of PHA was opposed by the majority of state Grand Lodges at one time and thus would have been opposed by a National Grand Lodge. However, the independence of each state meant that the door could be opened to progress. The more concentrated authority is over a larger and larger group, the more out-of-touch and dictatorial it becomes. That is the nature of power.
 
Top