# mainstream or Prince Hall



## hev1030 (Mar 30, 2014)

What is the difference between the two. ..

Thank you in advance. 

Sent From My Freemasonry Pro App


----------



## Bill Lins (Mar 30, 2014)

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.


----------



## hev1030 (Mar 30, 2014)

Thanks my brother greatly appreciated Bill_Lins77488

Sent From My Freemasonry Pro App


----------



## BryanMaloney (Mar 31, 2014)

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 (Mar 31, 2014)

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


Sent From My Freemasonry Pro App


----------



## BryanMaloney (Mar 31, 2014)

vangoedenaam said:


> 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 (Mar 31, 2014)

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.


----------



## BryanMaloney (Mar 31, 2014)

dfreybur said:


> One thing I am fussy about - PHA jurisdictions are and always have been mainstream.



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.


----------



## vangoedenaam (Mar 31, 2014)

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 (Mar 31, 2014)

vangoedenaam said:


> 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
> 
> ...



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 (Apr 1, 2014)

BryanMaloney said:


> 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 (Apr 1, 2014)

MarkR said:


> 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 (Apr 1, 2014)

MarkR said:


> 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.


----------



## vangoedenaam (Apr 1, 2014)

And my Dutch Masonry wouldnt either. 


Sent From My Freemasonry Pro App


----------



## Mike Martin (Apr 3, 2014)

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.


----------



## Brother_Steve (Apr 4, 2014)

Edited: Choose whichever is the best fit for you.


----------



## Rifleman1776 (May 5, 2014)

> 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 (May 5, 2014)

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 (May 5, 2014)

BryanMaloney said:


> 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 (May 5, 2014)

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.


----------



## dfreybur (May 5, 2014)

BryanMaloney said:


> 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?



There are national GLs in a number of countries that are large enough to have regional GLs that overlap those national GLs.  Thus there is precedent.  It's about decision not about need.  Brothers in the US decided not to have a national umbrella GL - It is claimed that this decision was lead by W Bro George Washington.


----------



## widows son (May 5, 2014)

Actually bro. Maloney, before Canadian confederation, the territory that is now Southern Ontario and Southern Quebec ( upper/lower Canada) was Canada, and the Grand Lodge was known as the Grand Lodge of Canada. Today we are the Grand Lodge of Canada, in the province of Ontario, retaining that older tradition of being the first grand lodge in Canada. But you are correct in saying that today, there isn't a national Canadian grand lodge. 


Sent From My Freemasonry Pro App


----------



## BroBook (May 5, 2014)

I might be wrong but in my city "I" have been given the impression that "mainstream" masonry does not Accept those who look as if they should be Prince Hall, now I have seen Caucasians in Prince Hall lodges!!! 


Bro Book


----------



## Bill Lins (May 5, 2014)

BroBook said:


> in my city "I" have been given the impression that "mainstream" masonry does not Accept those who look as if they should be Prince Hall


If such is the case, then they are not truly "Masons".


----------



## MRichard (May 5, 2014)

BroBook said:


> I might be wrong but in my city "I" have been given the impression that "mainstream" masonry does not Accept those who look as if they should be Prince Hall, now I have seen Caucasians in Prince Hall lodges!!!
> 
> 
> Bro Book



I was just initiated into a "mainstream" lodge. Race wasn't an issue there. Although I am not naive enough to think, that is not an issue at other lodges. Hopefully, that changes sooner rather than later.


----------



## Mike Martin (May 6, 2014)

widows son said:


> Actually bro. Maloney, before Canadian confederation, the territory that is now Southern Ontario and Southern Quebec ( upper/lower Canada) was Canada, and the Grand Lodge was known as the Grand Lodge of Canada. Today we are the Grand Lodge of Canada, in the province of Ontario, retaining that older tradition of being the first grand lodge in Canada. But you are correct in saying that today, there isn't a national Canadian grand lodge.



Once again and just to ensure accuracy, the first Grand Lodge of Canada formed in 1855, was originally the Provincial Grand Lodge of Upper Canada formed by the Premier Grand Lodge of England in 1792.

From your own website: http://www.grandlodge.on.ca/home/our-organization/history-of-grand-lodge-of-canada.html


----------



## widows son (May 7, 2014)

Yes but, once it was no longer a Prov. GL, it was the GL of Canada, being upper and lower Canada. It then changed its name to include Ontario after confederation, but kept the name Canada, as for a time Canada was just upper, and lower Canada. 


Sent From My Freemasonry Pro App


----------



## Rifleman1776 (May 8, 2014)

BroBook said:


> I might be wrong but in my city "I" have been given the impression that "mainstream" masonry does not Accept those who look as if they should be Prince Hall, now I have seen Caucasians in Prince Hall lodges!!!
> 
> 
> Bro Book



The "look like" part is a blemish on the history of Masonry in America. It is a very confusing situation, at best. Ugly at worst. Many lodges do blackball a candidate based on one negative vote only. Others, as I am told second hand, have other rules. Therefore, a single person to black ball a candidate can give all of Masonry the image of being racist. I understand why America does not have a single Grand Lodge. But I feel that was a mistake made by Bro. Washingto and others of the time. There are many stories and rumors floating around regarding Prince Hall Masonry. One story that has come my way is that several easterns states have approved communication with PH lodges in their states. That would be commendable, but I have also been told that an MM from another state, just by sitting in ANY lodge in those states are subject to expulsion for having attended a clandestine lodge. Without a single central
authoratative body there really is no way to verify or disprove these rumors. What we advocate Brothers do, almost more than anything else, 'communicate' we do not do interstate. And, in my state, even intrastate.


----------



## dfreybur (May 8, 2014)

Rifleman1776 said:


> There are many stories and rumors floating around regarding Prince Hall Masonry. One story that has come my way is that several easterns states have approved communication with PH lodges in their states. That would be commendable, but I have also been told that an MM from another state, just by sitting in ANY lodge in those states are subject to expulsion for having attended a clandestine lodge. Without a single central
> authoratative body there really is no way to verify or disprove these rumors. What we advocate Brothers do, almost more than anything else, 'communicate' we do not do interstate. And, in my state, even intrastate.



All of this is trivial to look up.  There is no mystery to it whatsoever.  No rumors just look it up and act accordingly.

http://bessel.org/masrec/phamap.htm

Members in the blue states traveling in other blue states can look up the details of their own state and the state they are visiting and know if they can visit.  Easy peasy.  Members in white states don't need to look anything up, just no visiting.  Equally easy peasy.


----------



## Rifleman1776 (May 8, 2014)

dfreybur said:


> All of this is trivial to look up.  There is no mystery to it whatsoever.  No rumors just look it up and act accordingly.
> 
> http://bessel.org/masrec/phamap.htm
> 
> Members in the blue states traveling in other blue states can look up the details of their own state and the state they are visiting and know if they can visit.  Easy peasy.  Members in white states don't need to look anything up, just no visiting.  Equally easy peasy.



That is as scary as it is interesting. Since the kerfluffle started in Arkansas, many members have begun visiting surroundings states to attend lodge. Where I live we go to Missouri. Many along the west border go to Oklahoma and in the far SW corner they attend Texas lodges. I, and about a dozen others from my area have joined Missouri lodges.
Which brings up a, not so hypothetical, question. If an MM from Arkansas visits a lodge in a blue state, what happens?
In my very first post on this subject I used the word "sad". I feel very sad seeing that Freemasonry may not be what it claims to be. We need a central U.S. authority to settle things. I'll suggest it be called Grand National Lodge or GNL.


----------



## MRichard (May 8, 2014)

Rifleman1776 said:


> Which brings up a, not so hypothetical, question. If an MM from Arkansas visits a lodge in a blue state, what happens?



Do you mean a Prince Hall lodge in another state? The map illustrates the states that recognize Prince Hall.


----------



## Rifleman1776 (May 8, 2014)

MRichard said:


> Do you mean a Prince Hall lodge in another state? The map illustrates the states that recognize Prince Hall.



Bro. I mean *any *lodge. Because the rumors say a state that recognizes PH makes every lodge clandestine. Doesn't make sense to me either.


----------



## MRichard (May 8, 2014)

Rifleman1776 said:


> Bro. I mean *any *lodge. Because the rumors say a state that recognizes PH makes every lodge clandestine. Doesn't make sense to me either.



That is not true. There are about 42 states that recognize PH which is recognized by UGLE. This is probably a rumor started by those in the states that don't recognize PH. Now if your state doesn't recognize PH, then you couldn't visit a PH lodge. I am just an EA but that just doesn't make sense. Texas recognizes PH but there is no visitation. Not sure if there are any other states that do that.


----------



## Rifleman1776 (May 8, 2014)

MRichard said:


> That is not true. There are about 42 states that recognize PH which is recognized by UGLE. This is probably a rumor started by those in the states that don't recognize PH. Now if your state doesn't recognize PH, then you couldn't visit a PH lodge. I am just an EA but that just doesn't make sense.



Thanks for your reply. Again, without a central authority, we don't have a way to check rumors. People say a lot of things, how does one know true from fantasy? I've been an MM for over 30 years and usually dismiss most conversation about 'right/wrong', 'this way/that way', etc. with a polite smile then forget what they said. Good luck on your journey.


----------



## MRichard (May 8, 2014)

Rifleman1776 said:


> Thanks for your reply. Again, without a central authority, we don't have a way to check rumors. People say a lot of things, how does one know true from fantasy? I've been an MM for over 30 years and usually dismiss most conversation about 'right/wrong', 'this way/that way', etc. with a polite smile then forget what they said. Good luck on your journey.



Thank you! Hopefully someone with more experience than me could better explain this.


----------



## Furtherlight (May 8, 2014)

Depends on your reason for joining. I investigated both types of lodges. I was told that there was little difference and that even if I joined PHA that I could still visit other lodges. I eventually chose PHA and am glad I did so. 


Sent From My Freemasonry Pro App


----------



## dfreybur (May 9, 2014)

Rifleman1776 said:


> Which brings up a, not so hypothetical, question. If an MM from Arkansas visits a lodge in a blue state, what happens?



Nothing hypothetical about that.  Visits of that sort happen all of the time.

As Arkansas does not recognize PHA in Arkansas they don't recognize PHA anywhere.  This means the lodge he is visiting is a "George Washington Affiliation" lodge for like of an official term (I refuse to use the word mainstream as both branches are mainstream and always have been).

If no PHA brothers are visiting, no issue.

If yes PHA brothers are visiting then it depends on the Arkansas rules.  I know the rules in my three jurisdiction therefore I expect Arkansas members to know there own rules.  There are "act like the locals" rules and there are "act like you are at home" rules.  If the Arkansas rule is to act like the locals, stay in the meeting.  If the Arkansas rule is to act like you are home, leave the meeting (and then go through the line in an Arkansas line so you can submit legislation to change the rule to prevent future repeats of this embarrassment).

By the way this happened at the GL level in Alabama several years ago.  The GM of Alabama visited the GL meeting in Arizona.  Of course the PHA GM of Arizona also visited as cross attendance is standard in states with recognition.  The GM of Alabama had to leave.  The Internet went wild laughing at Alabama that year and their rules roundly desired that laughter.  So they voted in a change to "act like the locals".  Two years later I was at an Illinois GL meeting.  Of course the entire PHA grand line was in attendance as usual.  The GM of Alabama was the invited keynote speaker.  He visited and spoke no problem as his rules had been recently changed.  Some of us who applauded him applauded knowing their rules change.  Some at the meeting just applauded because every Mason applauds every GM for everything.

It's all simple and a matter of looking up your rules.  And of getting active changing hose rules if they are not what you think is right.


----------



## BroBook (May 9, 2014)

Good stuff my brother 


Bro Book


----------



## Rifleman1776 (May 19, 2014)

It is all still confusing. My lodge is in Missouri, I live in Arkansas. Our obligation requires us to submit to the rules of the state we happen to be in at any moment. And, therein lies the root of much confusion and disagreement.


----------



## dfreybur (May 19, 2014)

Rifleman1776 said:


> It is all still confusing. My lodge is in Missouri, I live in Arkansas. Our obligation requires us to submit to the rules of the state we happen to be in at any moment. And, therein lies the root of much confusion and disagreement.



The wording in the obligation is different in every jurisdiction.  So far I've learned two and am in the process of learning a third.  Sure enough that part of the obligation is slightly different in each version.  The ones I have learned all say to obey the rules of the jurisdiction I am a member of so they handle the case of transferring my membership.  As I am now a member in 3 jurisdictions I see a few extra restrictions compared to a member of only 1 jurisdiction.

The wording includes the word "or" in a way that might be ambiguous.  Ask yourself if it means to obey the rules of your mother jurisdiction "and" your current jurisdiction.  Ask yourself if it means to obey the rules of your mother jurisdiction "or" your current jurisdiction.

Then also look up if your current jurisdiction has an "act like the locals" or an "act like you are at home" rule for visits.


----------



## Rifleman1776 (May 25, 2014)

dfreybur said:


> The wording in the obligation is different in every jurisdiction.  So far I've learned two and am in the process of learning a third.  Sure enough that part of the obligation is slightly different in each version.  The ones I have learned all say to obey the rules of the jurisdiction I am a member of so they handle the case of transferring my membership.  As I am now a member in 3 jurisdictions I see a few extra restrictions compared to a member of only 1 jurisdiction.
> 
> The wording includes the word "or" in a way that might be ambiguous.  Ask yourself if it means to obey the rules of your mother jurisdiction "and" your current jurisdiction.  Ask yourself if it means to obey the rules of your mother jurisdiction "or" your current jurisdiction.
> 
> Then also look up if your current jurisdiction has an "act like the locals" or an "act like you are at home" rule for visits.


 
Thanks, Bro Doug. It is not hard to act like a local when I am one. My Lodge in Missouri is only 25 miles from my old one in Arkansas. I don't work at it, I just try to be a Brother.


----------



## Warrior1256 (Oct 19, 2015)

dfreybur said:


> One thing I am fussy about - PHA jurisdictions are and always have been mainstream.


Totally agree.


----------



## Warrior1256 (Oct 19, 2015)

vangoedenaam said:


> 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.


Absolutely disagree with you on this one brother.


----------



## MarkR (Oct 20, 2015)

Just a side note.  Last weekend I held a conference for lodge education officers.  One of the speakers was the Grand Master of Prince Hall Masons in Minnesota.  He referred to Prince Hall and Mainstream, so the term didn't seem to bother him.  FWIW.


----------



## montkun (Oct 21, 2015)

I think the term has stuck simply because it's been a relatively short period of time that PHA has been accepted by "Mainstream" lodges of the state. In Pennsylvania it's only been roughly over 20 years since full reciprocity between lodges, however we still cannot have dual membership in PHA and the state Grand Lodge. But it is what it is, despite my PHA obligation stating.... 

"Furthermore, I do promise and swear to support the Constitution, Laws and Edicts of the Most Worshipful Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Pennsylvania, Grand Lodge of the State of Pennsylvania,..."


----------



## Warrior1256 (Oct 21, 2015)

montkun said:


> I think the term has stuck simply because it's been a relatively short period of time that PHA has been accepted by "Mainstream" lodges of the state. In Pennsylvania it's only been roughly over 20 years since full reciprocity between lodges, however we still cannot have dual membership in PHA and the state Grand Lodge. But it is what it is, despite my PHA obligation stating....
> 
> "Furthermore, I do promise and swear to support the Constitution, Laws and Edicts of the Most Worshipful Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Pennsylvania, Grand Lodge of the State of Pennsylvania,..."


Yeah, it's unfortunate. As stated before, in Kentucky the GL of K and PH GL recognize each other but we still do not have visitation rights. I would really like to visit with my PH brothers.


----------



## montkun (Oct 21, 2015)

That's at least one good point in PA is that both of the Grand Lodges allow visitations as long as the Brother is regular. Just can't be a member of both, but if you wanted to leave one branch to join the other it's not a major problem. Though I'm sure either side will do their best to retain your membership before releasing you.


----------



## Warrior1256 (Oct 21, 2015)

montkun said:


> Though I'm sure either side will do their best to retain your membership before releasing you.


Understandable, especially in this day of dwindling membership.


----------

