# Misuse of A.F&A.M vs. F&A.M



## Nate Riley (Aug 13, 2011)

Our recent discussion of issues related to GLOT and PHA prompted me to repost the post below from Bro. Bowden last year. I recently moved to Florida and the regular lodges here are F&A.M. So, while the comparison of A.F&A.M. and F&A.M. may make since when comparing GLOT and PHA in Texas, an understanding of the following will make us more proficient Masons on a larger scale.



Blake Bowden said:


> After the foundation of the first Grand Lodge in England in 1717, a rival Grand Lodge arose less than two decades later, calling itself the Antients (or Ancients), whereby it intended to assert greater authenticity than the rival "modern" Grand Lodge. The Antients were also known as the Athol Masons, from their first Grand Master, the Duke of Athol. Some authors (e.g., Carl Claudy) say the Antients were schismatic--i.e., had split off from the "modern" Grand Lodge; others (e.g., Allen Roberts) of more recent vintage say that the Antients were founded independently by Lodges deriving from Scottish and Irish traditions who were excluded by the English "moderns."
> 
> These competing English Grand Lodges, along with Grand Lodges established in Scotland and Ireland, issued charters for Lodges in the American colonies into the latter half of the 18th century, until the American Revolutionary War led to the ties between the colonies and the mother country being severed. Long after that event, in 1813 (when the two countries were again at war, in fact), the rival English Grand Lodges amalgamated to form the United Grand Lodge of England, which is the governing body of English Freemasonry to this day.
> 
> ...


----------



## Mac (Aug 13, 2011)

My thanks to brother Blake for putting that together.  Sounds like a fleshed out version would make for a great Lodge program one night.


----------



## LukeD (Aug 13, 2011)

Great article.


----------



## Robert G (Aug 15, 2011)

You may enjoy this map I created for my lodge's website:
http://www.gulfbeachlodge.org/joomla/index.php/masonic-education?start=12


----------



## Robert G (Aug 15, 2011)

By the way, it is incorrect to assert that the difference between F&AM and AF&AM designations within Prince Hall Masonry is unfounded. Actually, the issue with Prince Hall lodges and the three or four letter designations stem from the fact that W:. Bro:. Prince Hall obtained a charter from the Premier (or Modern) Grand Lodge of England. Thus, all regular Prince Hall Grand Lodges are designated F:. & A:. M:. . There are some clandestine Prince Hall grand lodges which designate themselves A:.F:.& A:.M:. These are not recognized as regular by the Conference of Prince Hall Grand Masters.


----------



## Mac (Aug 16, 2011)

Agreed, Brother Robert.  I would think the best way to approach it is to simply say: there is no simple, blanket rule that applies to AF&AM, F&AM, FAAM, AFM, etc...


----------



## Huw (Aug 20, 2011)

Hi Nate and all.

Indeed that's a useful and factual summary, well posted.

For the sake of being fully accurate, I have a couple of corrections to the background details in the first paragraph.

1) "After the foundation of the first Grand Lodge in England in 1717, a rival Grand Lodge arose less than two decades later, calling itself the Antients"

Not quite.  The Antients were founded in 1751, so that's a little over three decades later.

2) "Some authors (e.g., Carl Claudy) say the Antients were schismatic--i.e., had split off from the "modern" Grand Lodge; others (e.g., Allen Roberts) of more recent vintage say that the Antients were founded independently by Lodges deriving from Scottish and Irish traditions"

That question has been settled pretty conclusively (by detailed research in the records of the Antients):  Claudy got this one wrong, Roberts is right.  It was an independent foundation by Brethren from Ireland (mainly) who had moved to London, but then found it difficult to get past the Tylers in the existing English Lodges because their version of the Scts was slightly different, so they set up their own Lodges and Grand Lodge instead.

T & F,

Huw


----------



## Bryan (Sep 17, 2011)

I've always wondered why Texas is AF&AM and Louisiana is F&AM... especially considering the fact that the Grand Lodge of Louisiana Chartered the Grand Lodge of Texas.    

Texas.. just had to be different..  lol


----------



## Bro. Stewart P.M. (Sep 17, 2011)

Bryan said:


> I've always wondered why Texas is AF&AM and Louisiana is F&AM... especially considering the fact that the Grand Lodge of Louisiana Chartered the Grand Lodge of Texas.
> 
> Texas.. just had to be different..  lol



Of course!


----------



## LukeD (Sep 17, 2011)

Surprised?


----------



## Robert G (Sep 18, 2011)

I've done some research regarding Texas' use of AF&AM. Here's what I've discovered. Louisiana's grand lodge was founded with the help of Pennsylvania's grand lodge which uses F&AM. Pennsylvania was originally derived from the Premier (Moderns) grand lodge of England. Later it switched its orientation to the Ancients grand lodge but retained the F&AM designation. Thus, Louisiana acquired it even though its derivation was Ancient. When Texas formed its grand lodge it restored the Ancients' designation and is styled AF&AM, which should have been the style for both Pennsylvania and Louisiana. To this day Pennsylvania uses a ritual derived from the Ancient grand lodge of England, while most of the US grand lodges use the Preston-Webb Form (ritual) agreed upon at the Baltimore Convention of 1842.


----------



## LukeD (Sep 18, 2011)

Do you have any more info on the ritual Penn uses?  It would be interesting to see the differences, even outside of the esoteric realm.


----------



## Robert G (Sep 19, 2011)

See this page on the website of the GL of Pennsylvania: http://pagrandlodge.org/policy/visiting-search.html
Access the history of freemasonry in Pennsylvania here: http://www.pagrandlodge.org/programs/masedu/boaf/boaf.html
Within the latter link the transformation from the Moderns to the Ancients is explained.


----------



## Mike Martin (Sep 20, 2011)

Further to Huw's details which are spot on I would just like to add that our (UGLE) Book of Constitutions is titled thus:

Constitutions of the Antient Fraternity of Free and Accepted Masons under the United Grand Lodge of England/


----------



## Huw (Sep 21, 2011)

Hi Robert.



Robert G said:


> Louisiana's grand lodge was founded with the help of Pennsylvania's grand lodge which uses F&AM. Pennsylvania was originally derived from the Premier (Moderns) grand lodge of England. Later it switched its orientation to the Ancients grand lodge but retained the F&AM designation. Thus, Louisiana acquired it even though its derivation was Ancient. When Texas formed its grand lodge it restored the Ancients' designation and is styled AF&AM, which should have been the style for both Pennsylvania and Louisiana.



This appears to be a very common misconception in the US, apparently even including some US masonic reference books, but it's wrong. I guess you researched in some of the books which are wrong about this, unfortunately.

The Antients GL in England was *F&AM*, not *AF&AM*. The full name of the Antients was the GL "of Free and Accepted Masons of England according to the Old Institutions". It was because of the "Old Institutions" part that they acquired the nickname "Antients", but that was only ever a nickname, not part of their actual name.

The Premier GL ("Moderns") in England was originally AFM, but later changed its full name to be also F&AM.

AF&AM wasn't used in England until the Union of GLs in 1813 when they joined to become UGLE. UGLE is AF&AM.

Pennsylvania didn't exactly "switch" its affiliation. There were Lodges under both the Premier GL (first) and the Antients (later), which for a while existed side by side. But the Premier GL's Lodges didn't survive, whereas some of the Antients did. So of course, when it became an independent GL, it was formed entirely out of Antients Lodges. Since the Antients were F&AM, it was natural for GLoPA to be F&AM too.



Robert G said:


> To this day Pennsylvania uses a ritual derived from the Ancient grand lodge of England, while most of the US grand lodges use the Preston-Webb Form (ritual) agreed upon at the Baltimore Convention of 1842.



As you say, Pennsylvania ritual is based on Antients work. So far as I know, all the other US GLs base their ritual on Webb (with sundry variations adopted by various States from time to time), regardless of whether they call themselves "F&AM" or "AF&AM", so which designation they chose really tells you nothing about the ritual of that GL. In some States, however, the GL grants dispensations to a few Lodges to use something different from their standard work, in some cases including something which isn't Webb-based. A well-known example is the "red" lodges in GLoLA/16, but there are also a few other Lodges around the US using other different forms.

T & F,

Huw


----------



## Robert G (Sep 22, 2011)

Thank you for clarifying the issue for us. It is much appreciated!


----------



## KFerguson84 (Sep 27, 2011)

If anyone has any questions about Pennsylvania ritual, let me know. I'm a PA Mason and will try to answer them to the best of my ability.


----------



## khilles (Sep 27, 2011)

Enlightening


----------

