Scottish and Irish Rites vs. Prince Hall?

Originally posted by jonnygemini
Not a mason myself...have been going to a lodge for 6 months and have turned in my app...have heard from several brothers here in SF that some lodges in the South will still not sit with or recognize Prince Hall masons...It seems that Theron is from southern CA so does anyone here have direct experience of masonic relations in the Southern Jurisdiction? I went to school in North Carolina and was pleasantly surprised with Chapel Hill area, but out in rural areas many folks still cling to old ideas about race and religion.

The answer to this has been given, but to clarify something about Masonic "jargon" The Southern Jurisdiction is a part of the Scottish Rite in the U.S.A. and includes pretty much the states west of the Mississippi River and south of the Ohio River, viz:

Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, New Hampshire, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Wisconsin, Vermont

Every other U.S. state is part of the Southern Jurisdiction. This deliniation has nothing to do with the Blue or Symbolic Lodges (1st - 3rd Degrees) only the Scottish Rite (4th - 33rd Degrees)

I believe what you meant to say was the southern states, where sadly Prince Hall Masonry isn't completely recognized (accepted) by so-called "main-stream" Masonry. This, will change though. I feel confident.

Regards,

Originally posted by theron dunn
Actually, being as my grand lodge recognizes the MWPHGLOCI, I have been privledged to sit in open lodge with my PH brothers... and their ritual, after two hundred plus years of separation, is VIRTUALLY IDENTICAL to my ritual...

Oh, there ARE differences, which for obvious reasons I won't go into in this forum, but they are SO MINOR as to be nothing. These men could come to my lodge and sit any chair and work with us with no change.

No, the reason the MWPHGLOCI insisted on the demit from one and petition the other AND go through the ritual again was to satisfy self preservation... if a man could simply petition a local (perhaps more convenient lodge). that over time PH would lose its...identity, and become subsumed by the GLOC.

At least, that is what I have been given to understand... and it makes sense, sort of.

Thanks Theron, that does make sense. However, I'm still confused about the position of the Scottish Rite or the York Rite, OES, any other appendant bodies. If the recognition problem is at the Blue Lodge level, then it would (as has been demonstrated here) vary from state to state. The Southern Jurisdiction covers many states. Can a PH Mason join the Scottish Rite, OES or The Shrine? It seems as though it wouldn't matter, because the recognition issue would be between the GL's, am I right?

thankyou for the insight

Originally posted by The Axeman
Thanks Theron, that does make sense. However, I'm still confused about the position of the Scottish Rite or the York Rite, OES, any other appendant bodies. If the recognition problem is at the Blue Lodge level, then it would (as has been demonstrated here) vary from state to state. The Southern Jurisdiction covers many states. Can a PH Mason join the Scottish Rite, OES or The Shrine? It seems as though it wouldn't matter, because the recognition issue would be between the GL's, am I right?

My understanding is YES, they can. However, I am a Shriner, but not in Star, York or Scottish Rite, so I can't speak authoritatively FOR them.

There is an ADDITIONAL issue of recognition. There are over fifty grand lodges in California, and obviously most of them are clandestine and irregular... the name and symbols of masonry are so old that no one can claim the trademark on them, so pretty much anyone can CLAIM to be a mason... which is why regularity and recognition are issues.

So, if, say, a member of Le Droit Humaine, a women's only masonic body tried to join the San Bernardino Valley Scottish Rite, she would not be able to, because that body is recognized through the AASR, which is recognized by the GLOC as a regular affiliated Masonic body. If they accepted a "female mason" as a member, their recognition would be withdrawn so fast by ALL regular Grand Lodges your head would spin.

Which means that in a state where PH is NOT recognized by the existing mainstream Grand Lodge, it is unlikely that a PH mason could join a SR valley. Though, many PH grand lodges have SR and YR bodies appendant to THEM. The entanglements become very interesting at this point.

Say a PH mason, recognized by the GL of California, joins the SR here, and visits a valley in a state that does not recognize PH lodges... what happens? I don't know, but I would assume that the brothers would just move on in a brotherly fashion, but I don't know.

There is a case in a state that shall remain nameless where it is illegal to be a brother and partake in any way in the sale of alcohol. A brother was tried and removed from masonry for owning a liquor store (perfectly within the LAW of his state, just not the Masonic Law), but he was also a Shriner. The local Shrine refused to remove him from their membership rolls, and as a result the Grand Master of that state dropped recognition of the Shrine in his state.

I am not sure as to the details on this, but I understand that what the brother did was join a Lodge in a neighboring state which did not forbid dealing in alcohol, and then everything was fine again... and there was another "rub". You see, the state that forbade alcohol businesses recognizes the Grand Lodge in the state where the brother ended up joining... which means that the brother who was tried and removed from masonry IS NOW ABLE TO ATTEND LODGE WHERE HE ORIGINALLY WAS A MEMBER... and affiliate (hold dual membership), so the whole exercise turned into NOTHING.

Quite an interesting exercise in maintaining your obligations all around.

Now, I have gone far afield on this, but my intent was to give a couple of examples of recognition issues as a way of answering your original question.

What an interesting story. I'm in Arkansas, and a Mason may not own a liquor store here. I think the brother I talked to at the meeting said there are 3 states where this is the case. That's funny, though. I bet the Grand Master of that state was a little peeved, wouldn't you think?

Thanks for your answers, I appreciate it. If anyone can elaborate on the others that would be cool too.

White American Masonry protested Prince Hall and twelve others being initiated and raised to the ranks of master masons, given a charter and a dispensation by the Grand Lodge of England to form African Lodge 459 and confer degrees and start grand lodges and blue lodges by threatening to leave the GL of England and all international lodges if Blacks were given equal footing. White American Masonry at least in part resigned from the GL of England. Prince Hall is racially inclusive unlike some of their White counterparts, There have been White PH members and entire White PH lodges. PH enjoy full recognition is most juristidictions with all other proper chartered lodges although some lodges have yet to give recognition based on misconceptions or race. This is not an exclusive practice of Masonry.

DAMN ATS!!!!!

I am SERIOUSLY sick and tired of this BS annon posting!!!

I swear I am ready to throw in the towel on this site I can't stand threads dragged up FOUR YEARS LATER BY SOME COWARDLY ANNON JERK!!!!

[edit on 6/12/2008 by Rockpuck]

reply to post by Rockpuck

This seems to be somthing that is happening more on more. I was also wondering why so many old threads were being reopened by unname posters? I don't see the point. It is so easy to join ATS.

Originally posted by Rockpuck
DAMN ATS!!!!!

I am SERIOUSLY sick and tired of this BS annon posting!!!

I was just asking myself if perhaps there was some sort of conspiracy among anonymous posters. They've (He's?) been very active here over the past week.

reply to post by Masonic Light


It's like someone has gone back 4 years of SS forum threads and dragged them to the surface. We don't need them, the same topics are constantly repeated on the SS forum anyways!

MODS: If an anon poster submitts to a thread over a year old (I would prefer 6 months) the post should be rejected.

Is ATS wants to carry on this stupid Anon scheme they might as well make it so Anons can only contribute to ACTIVE threads!

Originally posted by Rockpuck
DAMN ATS!!!!!

I am SERIOUSLY sick and tired of this BS annon posting!!!

Let us start a petiton on RATS!
www.abovetopsecret.com...
No illusion of it mattering necessarily but we must be heard.

reply to post by theron dunn


If that man is not in Scottish Rite or York Rites then he can NOT be a Shriner

I clicked on this thread to see what it was about and saw one of the replies was from someone I know just passed away a couple of weeks ago.

After picking my jaw off the floor and my heart out of my throat I realized it was started over 4 years ago and replied to as if it was yesterday.

WTF?

I mean that is just plain silly.

To top it off the reply wasn't even worth saying and didn't further the
discussion.

Cory

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
reply to post by theron dunn

 

If that man is not in Scottish Rite or York Rites then he can NOT be a Shriner

Well, Theron's dead. And banned. So he won't be replying. But to reply in his stead, the Shrine voted a few years ago to waive the York/Scottish membership requirement as prerequisite to joining the Shrine. Now you just have to be a Master Mason, 3°.