mainstream or Prince Hall

Discussion in 'Frequently Asked Questions' started by hev1030, Mar 30, 2014.

  1. hev1030

    hev1030 Registered User

    3
    1
    0
    What is the difference between the two. ..

    Thank you in advance.

    Sent From My Freemasonry Pro App
     
  2. Bill Lins

    Bill Lins Moderating Staff Staff Member

    4,344
    1,144
    183
    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.
     
  3. hev1030

    hev1030 Registered User

    3
    1
    0
    Thanks my brother greatly appreciated Bill_Lins77488

    Sent From My Freemasonry Pro App
     
  4. BryanMaloney

    BryanMaloney Premium Member

    1,246
    232
    63
    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.
     
  5. vangoedenaam

    vangoedenaam Premium Member

    184
    59
    48
    The same division still exists all over the world in regards to female or mixed masonry.


    Sent From My Freemasonry Pro App
     
  6. BryanMaloney

    BryanMaloney Premium Member

    1,246
    232
    63
    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.
     
    Warrior1256 likes this.
  7. dfreybur

    dfreybur Premium Member

    3,935
    2,388
    133
    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.
     
  8. BryanMaloney

    BryanMaloney Premium Member

    1,246
    232
    63
    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.
     
  9. vangoedenaam

    vangoedenaam Premium Member

    184
    59
    48
    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
     
  10. hev1030

    hev1030 Registered User

    3
    1
    0
    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
     
    Warrior1256 likes this.
  11. MarkR

    MarkR Premium Member

    1,002
    818
    133
    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.
     
  12. dfreybur

    dfreybur Premium Member

    3,935
    2,388
    133
    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.

    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.

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

    BryanMaloney Premium Member

    1,246
    232
    63
    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.
     
  14. vangoedenaam

    vangoedenaam Premium Member

    184
    59
    48
    And my Dutch Masonry wouldnt either.


    Sent From My Freemasonry Pro App
     
  15. Mike Martin

    Mike Martin Eternal Apprentice Premium Member

    665
    418
    83
    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.
     
  16. Brother_Steve

    Brother_Steve Premium Member

    852
    467
    83
    Edited: Choose whichever is the best fit for you.
     
    Last edited: Apr 4, 2014
  17. Rifleman1776

    Rifleman1776 Registered User

    266
    183
    43
    Tell me about it, Bro. :RpS_rolleyes: Hint: think Arkansas.
     
  18. BryanMaloney

    BryanMaloney Premium Member

    1,246
    232
    63
    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?
     
  19. Rifleman1776

    Rifleman1776 Registered User

    266
    183
    43
    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.
     
  20. BryanMaloney

    BryanMaloney Premium Member

    1,246
    232
    63
    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.
     

Share My Freemasonry