The Lodge Room

Something for the Ages and the Connaught

2012-01-09T23:03:00.000-08:00

Those active with the Level Club are aware that the Club, while in reduced strength, focused on drawing a base of younger men to ensure its future as an initial measure in a larger design.

What is a young Mason? In the U.S. the average age of an active Mason is over 60. So is "young" in this context less 60 years of age?

What is a young for a person who is interested in Freemasonry but has yet to become a Mason? The average man today tends to be much older than in the past when contemplating and eventually approaching a lodge for membership. Should young relative to Masonic interest be seen as anyone below 50?

There is an important consideration regarding this youth movement. Fraternalism benefits from having those with different and complementing experiences, concerns and energies come together and share of themselves. With continuity such an environment happens. In recent decades fraternalism, and Freemasonry in particular has not had this continuity of either participation or frankly speaking, of quality of participants. The youth movement itself is excellent in terms of addressing issues of revitalization and reorientation toward healthy brotherhood and away from some of the damning problems that typified the nadir of the past several decades. One would hope that though that a wider range of recruitment and continuity would lead to the beneficial state described.

But do young men need subset events or clubs within the larger organization to make Freemasonry more relevant to them by catering to say, men 35 and under exclusively? The lodges of the UK which have been successful in revitalizing the Craft through specialized programs for young men and reemphasizing affinity lodges, including school (and university) lodges. They have also
struck up a club for young Masons.

This club, the Connaught serves primarily those professionals of the London area, no small number of whom were active in their university scheme. It is worth noting that the successful Connaught Club has given rise to an associated revitalized lodge, Burgoyne 902, which is not thankfully, age exclusive.

Unlike the Level Club, the Connaught Club is open only to those who are already Masons though we are told there are events where members are encouraged to bring guests. It also should be noted that the Connaught has occasions on their calendar that may be of interest to the traveling brother and its members' lodges encourage visiting Masons.

From the Connaught:

ABOUT THE CONNAUGHT CLUB

The principle of the Connaught Club originated in June 2007 when the Metropolitan Grand Lodge held a reception for Freemasons under the age of 35. The evening, hosted by the Deputy Metropolitan Grand Master, was deemed a unanimous success. Owing to the reception’s enjoyment, further events were planned and the Connaught Club was born. In its first two years of activity, the Connaught Club has grown to become the focal point and central meeting place for young Freemasons living in and around London. In the last few months, the Club has seen exciting new developments as membership continues to rise and further events hosted. The Club now has its own dedicated lodge with all the principal offices being filled by brethren under the 35 year old threshold.

Connaught Club Objective

From the onset, the purpose of the Connaught Club has been to give young Freemasons in London a means to socialise with like-minded people of similar ages within Masonry; whilst bridging the large geographic area and diversity of London’s many lodges.

Aside from social functions, the Club acts as a representative body for the views of the younger generation of Freemasons. Theses views and further suggestions from brethren within the club are then referred to Metropolitan Grand Lodge through the appropriate channels.

We endeavor to encourage and support participation in our lodges and in Freemasonry. We promote openness and pride in our membership of the Craft and stress the contemporary role Freemasonry plays in modern society, with particular emphasis placed on its relation to the younger generations.

A Freemason's Christmas Wish

2011-12-15T05:22:00.000-08:00

A Freemason's Christmas Wish

-Bro. Andrew Bradley

It is the time of year when the Brethren rejoice,
and sing carols of praise in resounding voice.
Days of merriment and long nights of cheer,
as we all await the "Happy New Year!".
It is a time of family and life long friends,
a time of happiness and to make amends.
Roast turkey and baubles and the Nutcracker Suite,
we each have our own way to make Christmas complete.

As we stroll through this happy month of December
find time to pause and take time to remember
that distinguishing sign of a Freemason's heart -
those acts of Charity. How great they are.
As your family gathers 'round your Christmas tree,
and the children play with giggles of glee,
spare a thought for the poor, the man with no shoes,
whose money for food is less than your dues.

Remember also the Grand Lodge above,
and the Supreme Great Architect's act of love.
And practise those virtues we hold so true.
Have some fun! But let Temperance chasten you.
And during this season of peace and joy
look well to our future - the girl and boy.
Then wonder what lessons you may them teach,
and with your guidance what heights they may reach.

So, to all of my Brethren from far and wide,
whether your Christmas be snow, or hot and dry,
may the Architect grant his celestial boon
and keep your good health 'til we meet again soon.
Take care of yourself and those you find dear.
Keep this festive spirit throughout the next year.
Look toward your next date with our happy band.
'Til our next merry meeting. Apron, heart, and hand.

Exclusive Territorial Jurisdiction by Stewart W. Miner, PGM, GLDC

2011-12-02T08:27:00.000-08:00

A Presentation on Masonic Exclusive Territorial Jurisdiction (ETJ) by RW Stewart W. Miner, PGM of the Grand Lodge of the District of Columbia. Mr Miner notes that far from being rooted in the Constitutions or landmarks or even customary practices of Freemasonry from the Grand Lodge of England, that the practice is instead one based on pragmatic policies and politics in the American Masonic landscape. Here in America the speaker notes, ETJ has never been uniformly practiced historically nor is it in modern times, and that such practices have come both with and without the approval of various grand lodges. Mr Minor also expresses in an amusing personal anecdote that (prior to his research) he too, as Grand Secretary of the District of Columbia was upset to find that his grand lodge's "territory had been invaded".

For those interested in further information we recommend this piece by noted Masonic scholar Paul Bessel. You will also find the text to Mr Miner's speech above here.

Simplicity of Being a Mason Among Masons

2011-11-30T05:45:00.000-08:00

“What’s that you are reading? So I see you are studying to be a Mason. What is that all about?”

"Give me a break; I'm just trying to figure out if this thing is for me at all."

As time passed and as I had more experience living as a Brother, it seemed as if just being a Mason was truly putting to ease this restless heart of mine. I was fortunate to have an experience of a well formed lodge that had maintained tradition and emphasized quality of membership but could Freemasonry be that simple? In a word, yes.

It was not so much about the study, rewarding though that was. The Brotherhood of Freemasonry done well was rather simple. I became less worried about the arcane and more focused on simply being… being a Brother. In fact the words "simplicity" and "availability" in our Lodge credo struck me very deeply. That is what resonated in my heart! That is what I love about this Masonic life at its best!

Simplicity:
Simply love Masonic principles written in the rituals, exemplified in the work, lived in our daily lives.
Simply love being among good men believing in Brotherhood of Man, Fatherhood of God, basic yet inspiring.
Simply love fraternity, the sentiment of good will with those in my Lodge.

Simply love the joy of hearing the fellows call me "Brother" and the joy of calling them "Brother".
Simplicity; God's gift to me-simply to be a brother.

Availability:

In an age where people find it hard to sit still and stay put, I desire to be available. To commit to being a Mason means keeping in touch in various ways with a set of men through my movement and travels. Even on the seldom occasions I cannot make it to an Lodge meeting or event they are a touchstone, a reason for communication. I also find that when attending Lodge even if one doesn't say much, the presence says much more. Whatever Brothers do: whether it is efforts of friendship- finding out about our brothers and what is going on in their lives, sincerely wishing them well, lending a hand when possible, and giving the best of ourselves; or the work of the Lodge- setting up and taking down the lodge room, the chores of office, sending communications and publishing newsletters and updates, giving phone calls and emails, tiling the door, opening the meeting, etc.; there is also the work for the Lodge outside the Lodge itself- setting up for a group events, finding a caterer, making reservations, coordinating supportive and charitable efforts, offering advice and a listening ear, having fun while attending an event, etc. - it is all really relevant. A Brother's main job is to be a Brother, to be available.

Shriners Declared "Clandestine" by the Grand Lodge of Michigan

2011-11-29T23:14:00.001-08:00

This from what I have always found to be the atrociously titled though well intentioned "Freemasonry for Dummies" blog and a comment (written in purple, followed by our commentary in black):

The Grand Master of Michigan, MW Frederick E. Kaiser, Jr., has withdrawn official recognition of the Shrine there, and it has been declared clandestine and illegal. Michigan Masons may not attend tyled Shrine meetings in that state.

The problem stems from a Mason who was expelled by the Grand Master in July allegedly for pleading guilty to a crime punishable by incarceration of one or more years, and per Michigan's Masonic rules. Unfortunately, the Elf Khurafeh Shrine and the Imperial Shrine (Shriners International) in Tampa didn't agree and kept the suspended Mason as a full member of the Shrine. A slight complication: he's the current Potentate. He had pled guilty to possessing and operating gambling devices, and probably won't be sentenced until February. However, since he did plead guilty, the GM expelled him. The Shrine did not...

From the GM's letter of November 23rd:

The expelled Mason, by action of Elf Khurafeh Shrine, headquartered in Saginaw, Michigan continues to be a member and Potentate of that Shrine. Elf Khurafeh’s action to retain him was subsequently upheld by the Imperial Potentate. This situation exists despite the reputed requirement that a member of the Ancient Arabic Order Nobles of
the Mystic Shrine (Shriner’s International) must also be a Mason in good standing.

Discussion was initiated with the Imperial Potentate, and counsel for the Imperial Shrine. The Grand Lodge of Michigan explained its position, and requested that the Imperial Potentate reconsider his decision, given information previously unavailable to him. Unfortunately for all concerned and with heavy heart, I must state that no modification of
his position, nor of Elf Khurafeh Shrine’s, has occurred.

Elf Khurafeh Shrine and the Imperial Potentate have failed to adhere to their own Shrine law, by retaining a non-Mason in their ranks. They have also failed to honor their obligations under Michigan Masonic Law. Therefore, acting under §3.10.2.2 of Michigan Masonic Law, the Grand Lodge of Michigan hereby withdraws formal recognition of the Ancient Arabic Order Nobles of the Mystic Shrine (Shriner’s International) as a Masonic organization in the State of Michigan. The relevant sections of Michigan Masonic Law are as follows:

§3.8.2: Any and all organizations, associations, or persons within the State of Michigan, professing to have
any authority, power or privileges in Ancient Craft Masonry, not fraternally recognized by this Grand Lodge, are
declared to be clandestine and illegal, and all Masonic intercourse with any of them is prohibited.

§8.1.2.9: All Master Masons under the jurisdiction of the Grand Lodge of Michigan who hold membership in
Ancient Arabic Order Nobles of the Mystic Shrine are forbidden to attend tiled Shrine meetings when there is in
attendance a suspended or expelled Mason.

It is therefore my order that no Mason who holds membership in a Michigan Lodge, or in a Lodge chartered by a recognized Grand Lodge who resides or sojourns in Michigan, may (1) attend any nonpublic function of any Shrine in Michigan or (2) have any Masonic interaction of any kind with any Shrine organization in Michigan. Furthermore, no Shrine function or activity will be afforded a special privilege not afforded any other unrelated organization that is allowed to use a building dedicated to Masonic purposes, or on the grounds of a building so dedicated.

Violation of these provisions by a Mason under the jurisdiction of the Grand Lodge of Michigan is punishable by charges of un-Masonic conduct.
And then we have this from a commenter: "The GM had the intestinal fortitude to make an unpopular decision to assert the sovereignty of the Grand Lodge over all things Masonic. Unfortunately, some bodies forget that."

I respectfully though intensely disagree with the course of action and the commenter. Being a Mason does not stop your freedom of association. The the A.A.O.N.M.S (known more popularly as the Shrine and its members Shriners) is not a Masonic organization in that Lodge functions occur; it is simply an association that limits itself to Masons. (At least most of the time; Shriners have regularly admit on an "honorary" basis any number of individuals who are not nor have ever been Masons.)

These are independent Masons not conducting Masonic affairs. When anyone starts to dictate to Masons what they can do independent of Freemasonry and outside the lodge then we run dead against the values that Freemasonry is supposed to be championing and imparting and the rights that Masons depend on the practice the Craft (see the Constitution and the notion of freedom of association and assembly).

(As a related aside, I often find it funny that an organization that promotes its history as a model of democratic principles often brings out the lurking authoritarianism in its members. Human nature...)

I entirely agree, for instance with the Grand Lodge of Kentucky's long held decision to not recognize the Shrine. If anything I do not think that the grand lodges who govern the "blue lodges" should be in the business of conferring the favor of recognition or not to external organizations that do not deal in blue lodges just as we expect for the most part (in this country anyway) for the York Rite, Scottish Rite, Shrine, Cedars, etc. to not get into conferring the degrees of the blue lodge. Fortunately, this tends to be the case, i.e., grand lodges do not attempt to restrict among its members outside degrees that are separate and different from the work of the Lodge.

"Sovereignty of the Grand Lodge over all things Masonic" is a very big statement that while grandiloquent is not true, for reasons of practice and principles of Freemasonry itself); the gentleman also seem to infer "Sovereignty of all people Masonic" as well which to any Mason should be alarming on the very face of it.

This not only takes things as far as restricting the freedoms of Masons in ways heretofore unknown and unwarranted, but also takes the additional step of determining that the grand lodge of a state has the right to dictate the terms of operation to an independent body, and one that happens not to even be headquartered in the state (not that this is the crux of he issue.)

While not a Shriner I admire their good work and I believe that since it is being done by Masons it is a credit to Freemasonry because the members are Masons.

I also believe that this may be a product of ongoing issues, one being the dispute between the idea of whether grand lodges serve Freemasonry or whether Freemasonry serves the grand lodges. With such a declining state of membership there seems to be a lot of tension and politics inside Freemasonry and between Freemasonry and organizations of Freemasons.

Brethren are examining not just the laws/ rules and practices and their basis and history. Sometimes we see where politics and practice may not be valid. Things may be rapidly becoming a case of "reform (and splinter) or die" but I think we are much better served if everyone comes to their senses and perhaps the sides step back from creating unnecessary conflict. Perhaps it is true, that "he who rules less rules best".

R.M.

Development of a New Lodge: A Template Based on What We Have Learned

2011-10-15T09:42:00.000-07:00

THe MISSION, GOALS AND ORGANIZATION OF Lodge #--- OF THE --- gRAND lODGE OF fREE anD ACCEPTED MASONS

Lodge #--- aspires to emulate the best practices and principles of Traditional American Freemasonry (including much expressed by RW John Mauk Hilliard); Anglo-Latin or “European Concept” practices (as outlined by RW Kent Anderson, UGLA); and something of the initiatic focus of Traditional Observance (promoted by the Masonic Restoration Foundation); organizing along the principles of Affinity (including RW Oliver Lodge UGLE and RW William A. Hill); reintroduction of Anglo-Saxon traditional Masonry in a focus on wide ranging intellectual inquiry (as urged by WB Julian Rees PJGD, UGLE); avoidance of the petty and perfunctory including officialdom, kakistocracy, obsession with promotion, rank and lengthy procedure and time wasting (as shared by RW Dwight Smith and RW George Braatz); immediate involvement in areas of lodge function beyond simply occupying “chairs”, (also shared by Smith and Braatz). The core principles for us INCLUDE:

Distinctly and solely focuses Initiatic Function of Lodge meetings; Programs of Regular Indoctrination into the intellectual, spiritual teaching and social applications of the Fraternity and the Lodge; Bringing the Lodge into intimate fellowship and communication; Charity first among the Brethren and also in the immediate community; Mutual Support in Advancement of Brothers; Refined and elevated Environment in behavior and presentation in all aspects of Lodge functions; Limiting the number of Lodges held to the absolute minimal needed for degrees and votes to maintain the initiatic focus; Selectivity, Exclusivity and Continuity with a thorough, independent program for identifying new members; Compatibility among membership, formulating and continuing a distinct character and Affinities of the Lodge: a relationship with a formal or informal society, club or other organization for mundane affairs such as charitable endeavors, social events, membership development, debate and other opportunities ; Warm relations with and support of the governance of the Grand Lodge ; Relationships with other Lodges; Relationships with spiritual organizations and other civic and social organizations in keeping with the interests and characteristics of the Lodge; Required commitment to the Lodge and its supporting structures that assures at least minimal level of involvement and support of the Lodge and its members (and the rancourless disassociation of members who cannot meet this requirement).

Mission and Goals of the Lodge:

· Benefit our constituency in the Lodge, the institution and the community in that order.

· The Lodge would be as a group of brothers, dedicated to mutual support, well being and development of each Brother, emphasizing the values of the Lodge and Freemasonry through our actions toward each other in ways tangible as well as intangible.

· Every Brother would know that the most Masonic duty of Charity would be present first and unfailingly within our Lodge membership.

· Every Mason in the Lodge would be able to point to the manifest benefit of being in the Lodge and why he attends. No brother would need to use platitudes and idealization to explain his reasons for membership in the Lodge.

· The continuation and establishment of traditions and customs that reinforce the Masonic spirit and ethos within our lodge in service to our members, the institution and the community.

Organization and Operation of the Lodge:

· Our Lodge meetings will have a clear agenda of dealing with vetting candidates, organizing and carrying out degree work and engaging in education befitting those of substantial intellectual development and educational attainment.

· "European Concept" model of education where new candidates would share some research or information about Masonry rather than focusing on memorization from rote, and the pursuit of members that show evidence of taking the exhortations to learning in the liberal arts and sciences seriously.

· Traditional Observance scheduling and focus of formal meetings, to wit, Lodges being held only for review of candidates and giving degrees, work being done in ancient manner to the degree allowed by the jurisdiction. (An atmosphere of solemnity including use of a contemplation room; brevity and austerity rather than “dramatic flair”, affectations and camp in ritual performance). Formulation of a Lodge specific Credo as a touchstone to communicate and retain the character desired.

· Informal round table business meetings, with clear agendas on some Lodge meeting nights (held on weekends when possible, Friday casual).

· Short term and long term goals, tasks, time-lines and calendar, point people and committees.

· Nights for guests and for inter - lodge visitation (usually when degrees are held). We will offer our assistance and request assistance from other Lodges. Otherwise privacy and exclusivity to build the bonds and maintain the distinct character within the Lodge.

Organization and Operation of the Club:

· The club would work independently in support of our Masonic work, having the similar duties reflective of the goals of our Lodge.

· The social and intellectual development, charity (in and out of the Lodge) and our development of the club's financial wherewithal would occur through its calendar of events and programs.

· The Club will permit social and intellectual discussion and member participation broader than the Lodge. There will not be compulsory membership as to respect the independence of the Lodge.

· While independently assessed and managed fees will be assessed from the Lodge to cover the basic work of Charity, Agape, and Membership Development (including investigation), other fundraising will be pursued by the Club independently to support Club and Lodge activities.

Communication:

· We would support both the Lodge and club with an integrated (social networking) internet forum, online journal and email and text message group.

· We would all have some biographical information to the degree that none of us would be strangers. We would all know the names and something about our fellows in the Lodge- what they are doing, what they are thinking and what their situation is.

Recruitment:

· The Club will be at the service of the Lodge and do thorough outreach to yield a steady stream of good, solid and well-vetted men coming in. The Club’s services will enable the Lodge to avoid soliciting membership (per Masonic regulations) and other limitations and problems often experienced in the selection process, allowing the Lodge itself to maintain an unmarred character and attention to its initiatic focus.

· According to the principles of traditional Lodges, we will employ selectivity and the strictest attention to compatibility with membership. The Club will be mindful of this Lodge’s tradition, interests, mission, credo and themes; relationships will be considered along with the careful and independent assessment of potential candidates.

· The Lodge will welcome candidates with the wherewithal to assist in ensuring that our Lodge is viable.

· The Lodge will welcome individuals with a genuine interest in esoteric and spiritual meaning of the Craft and capacity to understand these aspects of the Craft.

· A graduated dues system similar to clubs (taking into account age, proximity and retirement, university enrollment, clergy, commissioned officers and educators.)

· Consideration of Masons with ties to healthy Lodges while generally avoiding cross membership to the degree that the Lodge suffers from significantly split attentions.

· Men who are likely to be in full amity and fellowship with the character of membership we have.

Culture and Programs:

· Traditional Observance Rituals (candles, contemplation room) focused on the ancient ritual and brevity.

· Two annual table Lodges. Festive board (mixer) open for Masons and guests.

· Guest degree teams (such as Colonial Degree, “Kilties” and the Badge and Square); opportunities to travel to participate in degrees in exceptional environments such as the outdoors.

· When available, to take part in Grand Master Classes, degrees at other lodges and to invite guests to assist in our work so that the initiation is not just into our lodge but into Freemasonry as a whole, and a chance for the candidate to be welcomed into a wide Freemasonic circle.

· Appropriateness of dress in Lodge and appropriate Club events (tuxedos or business attire / jackets); Fine regalia including personal aprons, ribbon jewels for Table Lodges and Festive board occasions.

· Lodge meetings and Agape scheduled and held according to European Concept.

· Twinning programs with lodges that nationally and internationally that have been successful and that would be easy to visit, for instance: Twinning program University Scheme Lodge in Britain; Twinning program with University Scheme Lodge in New Jersey; Twinning program with Swedish Rite Lodge in Scandinavia or Germany; Twinning with Lodges of similar character in cities where Brothers show a pattern of relocating in order to ensure Brothers stay involved with the Craft.

· Development of a credo, motto, seal and other distinctive statements and indicators as a appropriate to the new lodge.

fin

Hello there! Tell me about yourself... Seeking Brotherhood?

2011-09-24T20:14:00.000-07:00

Good to see the young men at Emerson involving themselves (Br Tyler Cameron Sanborn) and also good to see the efforts by the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts (particularly the work of Br Robert Huke, Communications and Development Director.) Huke and other Brethren in the Bay State have gotten out into the student and professional community, and very appropriately yet energetically presented the benefits of membership to promising and accomplished men interested in brotherhood, connecting them with lodges of like fellows in lodges that share things in common in terms of background, interests and disposition.

Supporting What is Good and Remembering Our Limits

2011-07-24T18:53:00.000-07:00

What follows is an interesting essay, especially the bit on the Rite of the Rose of Cross Gold. Perhaps oddly named, the organization is seemingly a very positive development of the type that one would hope would be supported by grand lodges. If not supported or encouraged, one would expect that such a thing would have to be ignored and it would operate freely with no interference or commentary. No grand lodge has any imaginable jurisdiction over such organizations or the involvement in such by its membership, and it would be un-Masonic and absurd for any to claim any jurisdiction. It should be stressed that WE are not at all acquainted with the details and not sure that the Grand Lodge of Georgia was not in fact either supportive or non-interfering. Our reprinting is not about the particulars of this situation but problems arising from grand lodges' leadership that perhaps have mistaken their roles and purview and the purpose of Freemasonry. If that is the case we can hope that all involved will rediscover their right course.

The following essay is by Brother Griffin, a Master Mason from Texas, and is reprinted from his website The Griffin's Lair.

Masons are naturally predisposed to give their loyalty and the benefit of their doubts to those who have ascended to leadership positions. But these virtues, coupled with complacency and a lack of information, make the fraternity a fertile field for men whose intentions are not to serve the ideals and spirit of Masonic Light, but rather to serve narrow-mindedness... and an anti-intellectual shallowness.

Masons everywhere ought to be outraged at the foolish indignities and blatant tyranny fostered in the name of Masonry by Grand Lodges across the United States. What follows is an accounting of reprehensible events and trends in Masonry that are becoming all too common.

A number of Grand Lodges continue to refuse recognition to Prince Hall Freemasonry on the flimsiest grounds of traditional rules of regularity. Somehow the men of power in those Grand Lodges believe this course of action is more virtuous than extending a fraternal hand to generations of good men who have sworn before God to uphold the same honorable obligations. No matter what the true intentions may be for this continued segregation of Masonry, to the general public, and especially to many who might otherwise join the fraternity, it is nothing short of racism.

Some Grand Lodges are taking steps to eliminate the right of Masons to freely express their own opinions about our fraternity. There have been edicts and rulings that Grand Lodge censors must approve personal Masonic websites, or their owners can face expulsion. In other words, these Grand Lodges no longer respect a Mason's ability, much less his right, to speak about Masonry in accord with his own conscience and his understanding of the obligations. If in speaking a Mason violates an obligation, then let him suffer the consequences. But it is nothing less than tyranny to eliminate the actual liberties of all in order to prevent the potential offenses of a few.

The freedom of association is also under attack. A number of Grand Lodges already have regulations forbidding Masons from joining, supporting or organizing Masonic bodies not already on a sanctioned list. So long as an organization is not claiming to make Masons, so long as it is not in violation of the Ancient Landmarks, and so long as it does not seek to usurp the authority of the regional Grand Lodge, then it is absurd for a Grand Lodge to assume any lawful authority to interfere with the business of that organization...

Think carefully about these infringements on free speech and association. It means that in some jurisdictions Masons have less freedom with regard to their organization than members of political parties, churches or schools do with theirs. Is this consistent with an order that has long prided itself on being an instrument of liberty?

As a general rule in most jurisdictions, Masons who seek a deeper philosophical, psychological and spiritual experience and understanding of Masonry are scoffed or shunned as "fringe Masons." Discussions of Masonry as a system of mythical initiation and philosophical enlightenment are too often discouraged in lodge meetings. The message is that the language of Masonic ritual is not to be taken seriously, and that Masons with such interests had best keep quiet. It is another tactic of totalitarian regimes to keep their people uneducated, and to silence and ridicule the most learned.

There is also a bitter generation gap emerging in the fraternity. Many Masons of the World War II and Baby Boomer generations do not understand the needs and wants of Generation-X Masons and the Millenials that are now coming of age for candidacy. In searching for excuses for Masonry's membership ills, older Masons in influential positions have publicly accused young American males of being lazy, stupid, immoral and heathenistic. Of course, this accusation is also used as a justification for throwing out pieces of ritual and symbolism that are no longer understood and valued by the very same men who claim to be the defenders of tradition. These attitudes and circumstances coupled with unprecedented membership campaigns clearly communicate to the men of younger generations that their only value to the fraternity is as sources of income and labor. The meaning of Masonic membership is delivered as "Show up, pay up and shut up."

Masons at large must start consistently confronting such injustices, or what is left of the fraternity will be nothing but a pretentious farce. Already it is too often an insult to the great bygone defenders of enlightenment and liberty that we now publicly advertise as exemplars of Masonry.

Even now, the Grand Lodge of Georgia is moving toward setting a precedent for the expulsion of young, hardworking Masons with good intentions. The Rite of the Rose Cross of Gold (RRCG) was created by a group of well educated professionals, some of them holding Masonic offices, who wanted a place within the fraternity that lives up to its promises of brotherly love and assistance in the quest for further Masonic Light. These regularly initiated and loyal brothers had grown weary of the ridicule and resistance they had suffered from brethren who want their fraternity to be little more than a dinner club for grumpy old men. To their credit, the RRCG website has drawn an impressive amount of attention, and Masons across the country and in other nations have shown enthusiastic interest in what the RRCG is offering.

The young men of the RRCG asked no more than to be allowed a corner under the umbrella of the Grand Lodge of Georgia where they and future like-minded brothers could pursue their legitimate Masonic interests without ruffling the feathers of others. They were not seeking any status beyond that held by such organizations as the Shrine, the Scottish Rite, the Allied Masonic Degrees or the Masonic Rosicrucians. They publicly and privately attested that they were not going into the business of making Masons, and that they would not admit anyone to their ranks who was not already a "regular" Master Mason in good standing. To demonstrate their desire to operate in the good graces of the Grand Lodge, they were scrupulous in providing the RRCG's financial records, founding documents and rituals. Not only did they provide access, they requested critique and guidance from the Grand Lodge on anything they might need to amend in order to operate in amity with the Grand Lodge.

The Grand Lodge of Georgia did not respond to the RRCG with any critique or guidance. Instead they are now responding with the threat to expel these honorable brothers if they do not renounce their affiliation with the RRCG and denounce it as "clandestine". In preparation for this move, the Grand Master had to issue an edict that effectively ignored the traditional Masonic meaning of clandestine and actually redefined it to suit his desires. When the RRCG leaders requested clarification on whether or not the edict applied to their organization, they received no response.

The intention of the edict has only now become clear after being sneaked through the Grand Lodge, hidden within a package of other proposals and left undiscussed. Now the officers of Georgia lodges are going to be pressured to bring charges against friends and brothers with whom they have no quarrel, most of them active members and leaders in their lodges and other Masonic organizations.

This state of affairs is organizational insanity, if not outright megalomania. It is asinine that the Grand Lodge of Georgia would take such actions while simultaneously complaining about declining membership. If the Grand Lodge doesn't want the kind of men in the RRCG, then what kind does it want? It is sickening to realize that the Grand Lodge is not above allowing convicted felons and known child molesters to retain and even regain membership, but they find it impossible to tolerate the presence of good men who only want to enrich Masonry.

The situation(s listed are) repulsive, but all of these points ought to raise red flags in the minds of every good Mason...

It isn't everyone's calling to publicly battle injustice on the front lines, but it is time for every conscientious Mason to do something. In some places and situations, Masonic reform requires public conflict, even legal action, for that is the only way that justice can be served. Already there are brothers leaving the mainstream jurisdictiions to join "irregular" and more enlightened Grand Lodges. Some brothers may find the best way to serve Masonic reform is by quietly creating change from within the existing power structures. In the more progressive mainstream jurisdictions, Masons ought to be expressing their concerns about such things to their own Grand Lodges, for sometimes the scrutiny of other Grand Lodges is the most effective means of encouraging change. Other Masons may wish to simply join in Internet discussions of these problems as a way of helping to ensure that they do not continue to be swept under the rug.

There is one form of service that all can perform in this cause, and that is prayer. Masonry claims to be dedicated to the Glory of God, and we are taught to seek the blessings of the Great Architect of the Universe upon all great and noble labors. We are now in a time when the greatest and most noble labor we can perform is to return the fraternity to its calling as a school of moral virtue, philosophical enlightenment and spiritual illumination...

Anderson's Constitutions of 1723, Lionel Vilbert, 35 p., 1923

2011-05-02T17:31:00.000-07:00

Anderson's Constitutions of 1723 by Lionel Vibert

Having devoted his attention for several years to pre-Grand Lodge Masonry, Bro. Lionel Vibert (Past Master of Quator Coronati 2076, UGLE) specialized on the Grand Lodge era the records of which are still so confused or incomplete that, in spite of the great amount of work accomplished by scholars in the past, work remains yet to be done. The paper below is critical and often cited with much of our current understanding owing to judgment and scholarship. It was one of the author's first published studies of the Grand Lodge era. To us American Masons to whom Masonic jurisprudence is an almost necessary preoccupation, such a work offers crucial light on that formative period, and especially on Dr. Anderson whose Constitutions and our understanding of their context, references and validity are groundwork for our laws. CLICK HERE TO READ THIS ESSAY

Overlooked Reform: The Grand Lodges

2011-03-01T00:32:00.000-08:00

^The Way Things Are ^

^The Way Things Should Be ^

With all the wonderful things going on in Freemasonry to better local or individual lodges (Traditional observance, affinity, European concept, etc.) and bring them out of these challenging times there is unfortunately little effort made to reform the grand lodges and to make them once again administrations in service to the ultimate and supreme body: the individual lodge.

Grand lodges today are living on the legacy (including the financial legacy) of what was left by hundreds of years of Masons, and the now much reduced numbers of Freemasons; yet they are more thoroughly taxing and burdening lodges and claiming greater authority than ever before.

In the future grand lodges will have few assets left to liquidate or mismanage. Even with a generation of liquidation of considerable assets, the state of finances in most grand lodges at this point proves that grand lodges should never be managers of assets as they are not equipped to do so and officers are not selected on the basis of their competence in such matters.

Many grand lodges have all but tossed aside the notion of equality. They have become homes for political players, even for men frustrated in the real world of open competition and qualification. Titles of honor of doing service has became reason for usurpation of authority. Owing to this error plagued state of things, the lodges themselves become distracted from the work of being healthy lodges (or else failing) to become subordinate bodies, with individuals in these lodges who (rightly) believe that ingratiating oneself with the grand lodge officers and eventually becoming one are like progressive degrees themselves.

In this topsy-turvy state, layers of officers in the grand lodges, and their involvement and authority have become more meaningful than the lodges themselves. And this self-created hierarchy by its very nature gives itself to corruption, cronyism and many other vices that strangle the lodges. The most glaringly evident areas has been the habit of this self generated bureaucracy to drive away new blood and to shut the doors to new ideas. As such the environment has been one to only sustain the oldest members and ultimately, keep a lesser quality of members. Practically speaking, authority over policies that would rectify these problems have been left to these same grand lodge officers.

By putting such important matters into the hands of grand lodges we are not simply leaving them to fail but to fail for all of us. This is obviously not the only or even its primary area of failure. Grand lodges are failing in almost every way conceivable and because of it the Craft is indisputably in free-fall.

Grand lodges were initiated by older lodges to support Masonic lodges, yet it is increasingly the other way around. We have accorded to the grand lodge roles which they did not rightfully have nor should they have. It should be of little surprise then, when we accord the grand lodge bureaucracies the role and powers of the lodge and give them monopolies that Freemasonry has failed both at the level of the lodge and the grand lodge level.

Lodges that were more self reliant, rooted in communities or constituencies and responsible for their meeting spaces, furnishings, regalia etc., were much healthier. The reasons are obvious- their membership was responsible, avoided waste and engaged in the care and generosity that come with such a conditions. Each instance more responsibility and authority is vested in a centralized bureaucratic structure the worse it is for Freemasonry.

It can be supposed that the grand lodges are why the reforms and different approaches, such as affinity lodges, traditional observance and European concept lodges are not more prevalent. As grand lodges resist changes and continue to support failed and dysfunctional models and policies (often for the political ends of grand officers) the lodges languish and die. Indeed, the bureaucratic model of the powerful grand lodge saves and protects the sick lodge while driving away the healthy.

One is left to wonder, besides issues of recognition (more on that later) that if grand lodges were denuded of the buildings they inherited that provide for many Masons, convenient meeting places with furnishings- "why would anyone continue to deal with many of the grand lodges of today?"

What is often considered the first grand lodge (UGLE) did not form either with a real or imagined authority to usurp lodges or assume jurisdictional control. The first four lodges that met at the Goose and Gridiron did not start Freemasonry and consisted of a tiny fraction of Freemasons and lodges. (And indeed so did the five "Ancient" lodges that shortly after formed a competing grand lodge.) The UGLE knew they could not make extravagant claims since only a few lodges took part in the UGLE, while many older lodges existed (and lodges exist to this day, in amity in overlapping jurisdiction.)

In America, our grand lodges have taken on more authority and made greater claims than the UGLE when our own lodges sprang from their own authority, abandoning* their European mother lodges which gave authority to operate, if they ever had such authority (and many did not). “The Lodge at Fredricksburg” in which George Washington was initiated, had no warrant or charter until long after the First President was made a Mason. The authority and responsibilities of the grand lodges as they now exist do not find grounding in Anderson's recounting of the constitution and even less grounding in the constitutions and descriptions of Freemasonry of others before him. The frequent splits, schisms, competition, etc., in and among grand lodges probably owe to this.

The argument about the historical role is clear. To trace American grand lodges is to trace exercises in independence, and perhaps usurpation and arrogation from those mother lodges of England, Ireland, Scotland, Germany, France and so forth. Legitimacy in the transfer or external awarding of authority then, is not a valid issue. Features of recognition or amity have not shown themselves to be hard and fast rules and in most cases the actual yardstick for recognition (race, politics, financial gain) have been at best pragmatic and often deplorable.

The real discussion is about the practical work of reforming the grand lodges to be a supportive substructure, in service to lodges. The grand lodge is not Freemasonry, it is support of Freemasonry and to that position it must return for the well being of the Craft. No solutions or alternatives should be off the table as we look to how to achieve this.

I submit that we should look at making use of alternative grand lodges that operate in different jurisdictions. Every American knows and history shows us that without competition deterioration, and corruption generally sets in.

Among the grand lodges we have just such deterioration. This is undeniable. In fact most of that which is today lain at the feet of the lodge- the plummeting numbers, failing lodges, lack of adaptation, repeated stories of mismanagement, and the overall perilous condition of the Craft in America are mostly issues that find their roots not in the lodge but the grand lodges. The grand lodges should not be blamed. It was the lodges that turned over their responsibilities and authority to grand lodges and their centralized bureaucracy, and that had predictable consequences.

Our hope should be to reform the grand lodges where reform is needed. (It should be noted that not all grand lodges are in equal need of reform.) But this begs two questions: If there is no competition and these grand lodges have not reformed themselves to the present date even with the present state of Freemasonry, what hope is there? And what are are alternatives?

Continental style lodges under various jurisdictions have a long history in the U.S. In recent years with the growth of immigrants from countries that have Continental style Masonry, Continental style lodges have become a growing but low profile feature in the American Masonic landscape. It is unclear what authority and what are the practices of these Continental style lodges in the U.S. Some Continental Masonry today leaves issues of religion entirely to the discretion of individual. This has been used as an excuse for some other grand lodges not to recognize these grand lodges but in truth, Anglo-American Freemasonry's denial of recognition of much of Continental Freemasonry has a long history rooted in jurisdictional competition rather than religion. Regardless of the reason, most Continental style lodges in the U.S. suffer from a lack of recognition by Anglo American Freemasonry.

It is natural that for many Americans Masons, Anglo-American amity (and amity with established lodges in the Anglophone world) as it exists is something worth maintaining if at all possible. Anglo-American amity is not a goal that requires working within the present "single grand lodge per jurisdiction" system; there are options for healthy competition.

In much of the country we see Prince Hall (PHA) grand lodges flourishing and doing so in a fashion that most grand lodges can only look at longingly. In some cases race has been an issue. Even with the growth of Whites and Hispanics in Prince Hall grand lodges, not enough people have been willing to join Prince Hall lodges who are not Black to create the sort of healthy, competitive alternative that Prince Hall grand lodges offer. I have spoken to PHA grand lodge leaders and have found them more than amenable to various arrangements that would result in growth without jeopardizing their own character or that of new lodges. Apparently there is a history of PHA grand lodges doing just with Grand Orient lodges and lodges of exile, from the Arab world, Latin America and Asia, as well as one might expect, African lodges.

Further afield, there has been a practice by other major grand lodges throughout the world to abstain from chartering lodges in the U.S. Yet many grand lodges such as the Grande Loge Nationale Française, the Grand Lodge of Scotland or some of Nordic and Scandinavian (distinctly Christian in nature) and Latin American Lodges are in amity with the UGLE and American grand lodges   They also have lodges abroad, often sharing jurisdictions with other grand lodges they mutually recognize (and some they do not.) Usually I hear the same answer when speaking to these international grand lodges: they are more than willing to charter lodges in the U.S. but the key issues are that no one has petitioned them, or their are logistic problems particularly with language and translation (easy to overcome but few attempt to.)

There is another alternative which is the growth of the "national" lodge. By that I mean lodges that operate in one jurisdiction pulling many of their members from other jurisdictions. These lodges do their "work" in a certain jurisdiction but not otherwise hindered from the brotherly actions that occur among Masons of the same lodge and they are free to visit other lodges as well. There have been policies sometime of grand lodges requiring "releases" from territorial jurisdictions but most Americans would find either the practice itself or providing such information to trigger this policy to be insulting and repugnant to the very basic notions of American and Masonic values, since it would put a person in the ownership of a particular jurisdiction like chattel or unwitting inhabitants of territorial divisions devised by con artists and hucksters. National lodges have have a long history and have grown as organizations with Masonic origins have rediscovered their roots and opened affinity lodges.

Then there is option of the formulation of new grand lodges. This obviously is not unheard of; new grand lodges spring forth every few years, some failing, and others succeeding. The success of these new lodges in achieving Masonic goals are seldom assessed or challenged by established American lodges. Instead (because of political and financial interests of), established grand lodges usually dismiss and denounce these efforts. At a time when Freemasonry is in unprecedented decline any new grand lodge that survives should be commended.

New grand lodges in the U.S. often look elsewhere, particularly to Continental lodges for amity where they are more likely to find it if they prove themselves worthy of the same. A valid criticism is that if these lodges were to look to associating themselves under existing grand lodges, they would bring their spirit of reform and the success of their lodges and quality of their work would be easier for other lodges to ascertain.

American values that object what we often see in our grand lodges: excess and ostentation, cronyism, obsession with rank, centralized power, regalism, rule by decree, monopoly. American values of diversity, reform, full participation, checks and balances, freedom, adaptation and localized authority came after the first grand lodge was introduced in Britain but we in America seemed to have gone backward, even from the earliest times when Freemasonry toiled under monarchy but still held its lodges as independent. One of the greatest reforms that can be made is to return the authority of the lodge to the lodge. This would go a log way to rescuing the Craft from its declining state.

*The original Prince Hall Lodge seemed to have been forgotten by their mother lodge rather than the other way round, thus legitimately inheriting authority rather than usurping it, but this article focuses on "mainstream" American grand lodges. It does call to mind the hypocrisy that many American grand lodges with less legitimate historical claim have refused to recognize Prince Hall lodges.

More Freemasonry in Popular Culture

2011-02-01T23:29:00.000-08:00

The late great actor John Edward Thaw, in his popular British series "Detective Morse" plays a police inspector who becomes suspicious of Freemasons in the police department, only to find that a villain used imagery associated with Freemasonry as part of a plot to mislead the inspector while framing him for murder. It is not really a treatment of Masonry but the use of popular perspectives on the fraternity in the U.K. as an incidental plot device.

Best Holiday Wishes Brethren and Friends

2010-12-24T00:08:00.000-08:00

The Passing Of The Year
by Brother Robert William Service (1874 - 1958)

My glass is filled, my pipe is lit,
My den is all a cosy glow;
And snug before the fire I sit,
And wait to feel the old year go.
I dedicate to solemn thought
Amid my too-unthinking days,
This sober moment, sadly fraught
With much of blame, with little praise.

Old Year! upon the Stage of Time
You stand to bow your last adieu;
A moment, and the prompter’s chime
Will ring the curtain down on you.
Your mien is sad, your step is slow;
You falter as a Sage in pain;
Yet turn, Old Year, before you go,
And face your audience again.

That sphinx-like face, remote, austere,
Let us all read, whate’er the cost:
O Maiden! why that bitter tear?
Is it for dear one you have lost?
Is it for fond illusion gone?
For trusted lover proved untrue?
O sweet girl-face, so sad, so wan
What hath the Old Year meant to you?

And you, O neighbour on my right
So sleek, so prosperously clad!
What see you in that aged wight
That makes your smile so gay and glad?
What opportunity unmissed?
What golden gain, what pride of place?
What splendid hope? O Optimist!
What read you in that withered face?

And You, deep shrinking in the gloom,
What find you in that filmy gaze?
What menace of a tragic doom?
What dark, condemning yesterdays?
What urge to crime, what evil done?
What cold, confronting shape of fear?
O haggard, haunted, hidden One
What see you in the dying year?

And so from face to face I flit,
The countless eyes that stare and stare;
Some are with approbation lit,
And some are shadowed with despair.
Some show a smile and some a frown;
Some joy and hope, some pain and woe:
Enough! Oh, ring the curtain down!
Old weary year! it’s time to go.

My pipe is out, my glass is dry;
My fire is almost ashes too;
But once again, before you go,
And I prepare to meet the New:
Old Year! a parting word that’s true,
For we’ve been comrades, you and I—
I thank God for each day of you;
There! bless you now! Old Year, good-bye!

M:.W:. Bro. Richard Fletcher Resigns

2010-11-30T22:22:00.000-08:00

(Photo: From left: Judy Fletcher, Nicolas Cage, Darlene Alban,

and Richard E. Fletcher, at the premier of

National Treasure: Book of Secrets in New York City in December 2007)

M:.W:. Brother Richard Fletcher has announced his resignation as Executive Secretary of the Masonic Service Association of North America, to be effective at the close if the MSA's annual meeting in Denver next February. He has served with great devotion and courage in this position since 1987. Below is an excerpt from one of his initiatives, "It’s About Time!" a report completing a study undertaken by a special task force of the Masonic Information Center Steering Committee that focused on the need for Masonic "Public Awareness". The most important part to me is the part focused on Masons image of themselves and the Craft which is what is excerpted below. (A MSA video follows that.)

Facing the Facts and Accepting the Challenge

“Freemasonry evolved from 18th century European enlightened thinking. Today, Masonry is shaped by the 19th century concept of social benevolence and the 20th century emphasis on ritual as the completion of a Mason’s education about the fraternity.”

— MIC Task Force

In order to evaluate present-day Freemasonry, we had to assess the Fraternity’s strengths and weaknesses. The Task Force proceeded methodically to question Masonry’s past, present and future. We asked a series of penetrating questions, listed our findings, and then completed each section with a summary formed by observations and conclusions. In order to properly determine a course of action for a Masonic Public Awareness Program, we believe it imperative that we understand, as a fraternity, where we have been, where we are today, and what happened in the intervening years.

Forthright answers to the questions we posed did not come easily and required an enormous amount of soul searching and critical evaluation.

Much of the data used in this report came from United States sources because those were the ones most readily available and accessible to our Task Force. We have pointed out where data was specifically from a United States source, but we have reason to believe that data from Canada would be almost identical.

For instance, there were no Canadian membership statistics available to us unless we laboriously went through, year by year, the figures from each Grand Lodge to determine if the same trends occurred as in the United States. Because we have had many discussions with Canadian Masons, there is no doubt in the minds of the Task Force that the data trends are the same.

So this report needs to be considered in the context of North America, including the United States and Canada, even though, on occasion, we list a United States source.

Exploring the patterns of Masonry

The deliberations of the Task Force were lengthy and lively. Below are the questions that guided the discussions and the summaries of our findings.

1. What has Freemasonry done in the past?

For a fraternity that is centuries old, this question is extremely significant. It asks how Freemasonry developed and what Masonic affiliation meant to Masons of an earlier time. The Freemasons of the 1700s set a very high standard. In the late 1700s, Freemasons helped build two new nations founded on Masonic principles.

Patriots chose to help create the United States; Loyalists chose to help strengthen Canada. Both groups had many Masons in their midst. For detailed information, we turned to the historians on our Task Force who led a review of our Masonic past. The key points and summaries are listed below.

In the past, Freemasonry accomplished the following:

Provided camaraderie
Created elite status
Served as a stepping stone to military, arts, business and social contacts
Attracted leaders to its membership

Guilds of Masons (early labor unions) probably originated in Scotland in the 1600s. Early Masons concentrated on the following tasks:

Protecting workers’ interests
Helping Masonic families
Operating lodges
Opening lodges to non-stonemasons
Formally ritualizing the method of creating new members

In colonial America, Freemasonry provided leadership during the American Revolution and throughout the nation’s history. It also provided a moral philosophy relevant to the individual and to communities. In early America, Freemasonry:

Promoted a philanthropic focus supporting fraternal kinship.
Inspired authors to create a body of popular literature, offering satiric views, i.e. Benjamin Franklin and Mark Twain.
Stimulated thought consistent with Masonic values. Lodges became sites of Revolutionary debating, responding to contemporary thought.

We looked for historical trends that reshaped our Masonic identity. We found several pivotal events:

(Speculative) Freemasonry evolved into and eventually from 18th century European enlightened thinking.
In the late 1800s, Victorian values influenced Masonic priorities both in Europe and North America by placing emphasis on heightening social awareness and stressing social idealism.
Twentieth-century Freemasonry sustained Victorian idealism and reinforced philanthropic emphasis of fraternity.
During World War II, President Truman said that men should join the Masonic fraternity before going to war, which reinforced a rise in Masonic membership.
Masonic tradition became locked in ritual as an end, not as a simply part of a process.
Today Masonry is shaped by the 19th century concept of social benevolence and the 20th century emphasis on ritual as the completion of a Mason’s education about the fraternity. (Structured study rather and focus on the ritual but not the free intellectual inquiry that will rise independently in the worthy candidate.)

One thing that tells me a company is in trouble is when they tell me how good they were in the past. Same with countries. You don’t want to forget your identity. I am glad you were great in the 14th century, but that was then and this is now. When memories exceed dreams, the end is near.

2. What is currently happening within Freemasonry?

Obviously, this question has no right or wrong answers because—like public opinion—it asks for personal perceptions and observations. The Task Force members agreed that there were and are tensions inherent in our organization today, including but not limited to the following perceptions:

There is a slight movement toward wanting to educate the public about the fraternity.
There is recognition that traditional communications tools have failed to heighten public awareness.
The inclusion of family members at Masonic events has produced mixed results.
Masonry is no longer identified as an elite organization.
There are disagreements regarding priorities of financial commitments to Masonic buildings and charitable obligations versus starting new programs.
Current Masons generally do not understand the true meaning of our fraternity.
A reliance on historic heroes inhibits Masons from achieving contemporary significance.

UK Freemasonry and UGLE University Scheme's Astounding Success, Challenges

2010-11-09T16:30:00.000-08:00

UK FREEMASONRY: SUCCESS WITH UNIVERSITY SCHEME, CHALLENGES OF GROWTH

from United Grand Lodge of England, (edited for clarity for U.S. readership)

Although still in its early years, the Universities Scheme has tremendously grown and expanded, not so much like a balloon, but rather more like an inflated rubber glove. The thought that (with renewed focus) university masonry would spread in predictable and orchestrated fashion is one that I abandoned in the first few months of the Scheme’s existence, when it became swiftly apparent that it would take on its own life and character, irrespective of what intentions we had for it. We are now seeing lodges taking up participation not only across England and in areas of South Wales but also, potentially, beyond these shores, wherever the writ of Grand Lodge runs.

The stated aim of the Universities Scheme is to establish or enhance opportunities for undergraduates and other (targeted university and college) members to join and enjoy Freemasonry. What that means in practice is creating a network of lodges, each linked to a university to whose suitable members it will offer lodge membership, including while undergraduates and including if under twenty-one. Participating lodges adapt their way of operating to ensure that they are truly undergraduate-friendly, whatever that may mean in the context of their university. As I write, there are twenty-one lodges in the Scheme, but that figure will immediately be out of date.

Although, at the outset, Provinces were approached and lodges were invited to participate, it is now many months since the scope for lodges to apply to participate was first announced and since that offer was first taken up. The Scheme has long outgrown its Steering Group’s capacity to provide one-to-one coordinator support for every lodge. That transformation, which has depended crucially on the skill and enthusiasm of key individuals, both in the lodges themselves and in provincial executives, has allowed the Group to focus its time and resources on the critical issues that are common to university lodges and to university masons.

THE CRITICAL ISSUES TO SUCCESS

One such issue is how to retain these young masons when they leave university and move on. In the Universities Scheme, retention is a subject of special significance as graduates will often move many hundreds of miles to settle into their new lives as young professionals. Unless the Craft takes care to avoid it, the chance that those young masons will lose contact with their lodge is high.

For that reason, we are creating a structure to ensure that university masons will always have a ready welcome into a lodge within easy distance of their new abode, at least while they stay in England or Wales, (albeit that ‘easy distance’ takes on a special meaning for those who choose to dwell, say on the Lizard or the Lleyn Peninsular.)

Scheme lodges have an important mentoring duty to provide detailed advice and practical support for their young members’ future masonic careers and various areas of personal development and advancement.

In most cases, and particularly for London-bound graduates, a lodge will develop a few ‘standard’ routes which are expected to become well trodden in time.

The link with London is especially important, as that is the destination for a large proportion of graduates. There, the Steering Group has identified a number of ‘receptor’ lodges whose character makes them suitable for graduates moving to the area, and in the vanguard of these are the Lodge of Honour and Generosity, No.165; Phoenix Lodge, No.173; and Tetragon Lodge, No.6302. All of these meet in Great Queen Street. For graduates moving elsewhere, Scheme lodges exist in many cities and may be able to offer them membership.

Many graduates will find that their old (secondary) school has a lodge, many of which are affiliated to the Federation of School Lodges or the Public School Lodges’ Council, while some universities have lodges for their alumni that meet in London. Graduates can also look to their future careers when identifying a suitable receptor lodge, as many ‘specialist’ lodges welcome members of particular professions. As the need grows or befitting changes that are welcomed, the development of more specialist lodges and receptor lodges will be necessary.

Meanwhile, in London, groups like the Connaught Club, informal social groups for younger masons which meets regularly and is well placed to offer advice.

The process of retaining these young men in masonry involves an element of altruism for Scheme lodges, particularly in those university towns where many students pass through rather than stay. It is a duty to the Craft in general and the long term rather than to their own immediate well-being, and includes the need to stay in touch even after a graduate has moved on. (This also may involve programming a limited number of special or home-coming events, including those corresponding to university alumni programming.)

FUTURE DEVELOPMENT

If that represents the present and perhaps the immediate future, what will these arrangements look like in ten or twenty years? Will the receptor lodges grow out of all recognition? That will depend on a number of factors, the most important of which is whether that is their wish.

Were each receptor to receive a larger number of joining graduates per year than they might otherwise receive from any other source, in a few years they would be well above average size with many joiners not offered the opportunity to take office. Is that a problem? Yes and no.

Large lodges can provide much enjoyment, as the Grand Stewards’ Lodge with its four hundred members can well attest. And progressive office is not universal and receptor lodges may choose to introduce alternatives to that norm. And lodges have many equally important functions with office holding being only one, and one that does not appeal to many.

The receptor lodges may also recognize that one function that they perform is as a conduit, or perhaps bridgehead, in the graduate’s new location, providing the opportunity to meet other masons locally and to join other lodges either as informal "secondary receptors" or not.

It is possible that receptor lodges may resolve at some point that they need to change their status once more and withdraw from that particular role, either permanently or temporarily, while digesting their new cohort of members.

Or they may operate on the basis of an annual limit, but in doing so forgo the benefit of a prompt build-up of members of similar age and aspiration, with its valuable scope for attracting the like-minded. Just as there are many questions; there will be many different solutions.

The Universities Scheme has always avoided, and will continue to avoid, prescription. The Steering Group’s role is to guide and encourage, never to rule, the lodges that participate in the Scheme. Each lodge, having made its own decision to take part, determines its own course to achieving the Scheme’s objective. And with that number growing as it is, the future looks fascinating and very bright.

We Direct You to this Post from the Online Journal "Millennial Freemason"

2010-10-24T14:21:00.000-07:00

The University Scheme and College Lodges (Reprinted) Below

The University Scheme is a program developed a few years ago to give men that are attending a university a chance to join a Masonic Lodge even if they are not 21. These brothers pay a lower amount in dues and are around other young men interested in the Fraternity. This program is, in my mind, brilliant. Our Fraternity is just that, a fraternity. Yet, we offer something that the Greek system often fails to, the unity of lifelong brotherhood.'

It is true that a man or woman can go about their lives meeting others from their Fraternity or Sorority; the problem is that once you graduate from college, that’s it. No more meetings, no more living together in a house, nothing but fond memories of your time in the college fraternity (but not much structured beyond). Freemasonry offers more to its brothers.

Once you become a Freemason, you are one forever. You can travel to different Lodges, meeting new brothers and know that anywhere in the world, a brother is watching out for you and your family. Once a man gives the obligation, he makes a commitment to the Fraternity for the rest of his life. The values and storied past of our Craft gives us prestige over other Fraternal organizations. (The Mason is often able to bring other older men into his Masonic chapter as he proceeds with his personal life and career.)

The University Scheme is a great system but it is not “new” in the sense that Freemasonry has never existed on campus. In fact, Freemasonry and Universities have gotten along together on both sides of the pond. There are many examples of Academic Lodges in the United States and Canada, including University Lodge #496 at the University of Toronto, University of Washington Lodge #141 in Seattle, Richard C. Maclaurin Lodge A.F.&A.M., and Harvard Lodge A.F.&A.M. There are now and have been many, many others. Richard C. Maclaurin Lodge was the first college Lodge, having been formed in 1920, while Harvard Lodge was the first Academic Lodge, having been formed in 1922.

Richard C. Maclaurin Lodge formalized what was originally “the Masons at MIT” club into a Lodge in 1919. Harvard Lodge AF & AM was formed, in part, from the efforts of Dean Roscoe Pound and Professor Kirsopp Lake as a way to join the myriad number of Masonic organizations at Harvard University into one Lodge. Harvard Lodge, as an academic Lodge, is very distinctive in its methods, including wearing academic robes during most regular stated meetings. Both Richard C. Maclaurin Lodge and Harvard Lodge require that a University connection be established, whether it be administrator, student or alumnus, to be eligible to receive the degrees.

College and Academic Lodges are, in my opinion, one of the best ways to create the strong connection between men and Freemasonry at a young age. It is true that a young man could join De Molay but it is the connections that we make in our years at a university, college, trade school, or our first job that last the longest. The UGLE has, in my opinion, committed itself to a laudable and important goal, using these intimate associations formed during these years as starting blocks for making Freemasonry not merely a Fraternity, but a lifestyle.

The current Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of Minnesota, AF & AM, Most Worshipful Brother Thomas Jackson, has stated his commitment in creating connections among brothers that were members of college fraternities and I agree with him fully. My advice for my own Grand Lodge and Grand Lodges around the globe would be to encourage the formation of College or Academic Lodges.

In Minnesota, we have one of the largest University systems in the country, so it would seem appropriate to me that a Lodge be formed in this state called the University of Minnesota Lodge. I am an alumnus of the University of Minnesota system (I went to University of Minnesota) and would love to see a Lodge, even one that meets only a few times a year, formed for the benefit of students, staff and alumnus of the U. But it needn’t stop there. If a brother is a student, staff, or alumus of one of the many private colleges or the MNSCU system, such as Hamline (my Law School Alma Mater) or Moorhead State, a Lodge could be formed to serve the students of those colleges and could continue to foster those connections made as students.

I believe one of the best ways to continue growing and strengthening the brotherly bonds of our Fraternity will be to create these Lodges based upon school affiliation. I hope that we see a continuance of the University Scheme started by the UGLE, the coming of fruition of Grand Master Jackson’s college fraternity goal and the continued prosperity of North America’s College and Academic Lodges. Connections are what makes our Fraternity what it is and using collegial affiliation is just one way to continue fostering these connections.

Posted by The Millennial Freemason

2010-09-05T01:44:00.001-07:00

Notes on the One Day Class or Grand Master's Class (One Side of the Discussion)

2010-06-26T06:41:00.000-07:00

The One Day Class (ODC) whereby several the three Blue Lodge degrees, (or in other cases a group of York or Scottish Rite degrees) are offered by a number of jurisdictions. Some form or the other has been carried out for hundreds of years.

The all-day affairs are offered in various formats.Champions of the ODC tend to be affinity lodges, military lodges, collegiate lodges, lodges made up of largely young and mid career professionals and lodges that serve a constituency of brothers that tend to be more geographically spread out. Grand lodges interested in introducing candidates into the Craft with the best quality degree work and a large assembly of brothers often look to the One Day Classes. Whether judged by numbers or retention, the ODC has been successful overall, all told significantly more so than single degree sessions.

However there are some vocal critics of the practice. Some opponents fail to differentiate between how the ODC degrees are awarded or conducted or whom they are offered to, instead finding that the act of single day scheduling inherently "lessens" Freemasonry. One wonders if in their criticism these Masons considered the many notable Masons who have been "made" in expeditious fashion, including many of our U.S. President Masons, Congressman, high ranking military officers and other distinguished Brothers.

It would seem that critics of the ODC judge the Mason by the time between the taking of degrees instead of the quality of the man brought in.

Perhaps resistance to One Day Classes is to some extent a class and age issue. For some who may be employed at more traditional "blue collar" 9-5 employment or those that are retired there may be a feeling that they give time instead of money and participation in activities outside of the lodge which they cannot afford. The lodges most likely to use One Day Classes tend to be white or gray collar lodges, especially professional affinity lodges, historic lodges, military lodges, collegiate lodges, and research and scholarly lodges. If this is the case, the time pressed young and mid-career professional, business owner and member of the managerial class may want One Day Classes but they should be careful not to mistakenly give the impression that their support for One Day Classes has to do with superior social position or a lack of appreciation of the time that others give.

Though Masons are split with neither group being a majority and most having no opinion, proponents of the ODC tend not to be as vociferous, so here we offer excerpts of correspondence, from the other side of things on the topic of the ODC, or more properly, Grand Master's Class (GMC) particularly as offered in Affinity or Academic lodges:

...As often noted, Masonic jurisdictions continue to lose members, whether through death, non-payment of dues, or demit while the number of new Masons who stay active is relatively small. Some of this may stabilize to some degree; and to that end I have seen some well-rewarded efforts after a certain manner in neighboring jurisdictions, which is why I am inquiring about the Grand Master's class.

We have been directing a number of young men to the Masonic collegiate affinity lodges and programs in surrounding jurisdictions --New Jersey and Pennsylvania, as they use the limited, collegiate Grand Masters Classes. For some in the requisite collegiate fraternities I also have sent to the District of Columbia's Fraternity Lodge and Magnolia Lodge and for others in the military, military friendly lodges (in D.C. and N.J.), because their schedules and one day classes, tend to actually be easier to accommodate even with travel, and the young men have a chance to meet with individuals nationally. These lodges have superb brother retention for such candidates with their Grand Masters Classes whether they are formal or informal affinity lodges or lodges simply accommodating those with the particular need.

In all of this one thing has been regrettable for me: that of the many young men, I have not been able to direct them to similar situations in my own Grand Lodge.

As an illustration- the NJGL's Collegiate One Day Class focusing on young men who are attending a four year college that petition a lodge of choice has been remarkably successful not just in numbers or even participation but in spirit. They accept along with the students, any college professor, administrator or other staff member of college, focusing specifically on Rutgers University. This is modeled on the successful Harvard Lodge and Harvard Masonic Club on that campus as well as many like them nationally. W.B. Howard Dumhart with the assistance and support of the DDGM of the NJ's 12th Masonic District, the brethren of Union Lodge, and Philo Lodge, which opens its doors to host the One Day Class petitioners; these men experience a very fine introduction into Freemasonry. It is very encouraging to see their success.

With this approach the young men have the inspiring, invigorating experience of spending a full day with other Masons sharing their background, as well as with veteran Masons from various lodges and districts. They are able to observe and participate in first-rate ritual and learn first-hand about genuine friendship, fellowship and brotherly love with a larger gathering. Otherwise the young men often first encounter a limited number of brothers, most or all of whom are decades older who may struggle to put on a ritual due to so many lodges having very limited numbers of active, proficient brothers.

Their education, youthful energy and idealism provides them knowledge of the historical and philosophical ideas presented in Masonry. Crucially, they have a proficiency that we see far too seldom in reviewing the degree: reading with understanding. It is good that this is being appreciated by having a small program that facilitates things for these candidates, in terms of the special dispensations for the size and single day scheduling.

Structurally I think, many lodges are not equipped to process this number of men who want to come into a lodge together due to the limits on men undergoing degrees at one time and the ability of lodges to put on degrees. (There are exceptions of course but this seems to be the general rule.) This creates an obvious "catch 22".

Lodges now might continue to be flexible and expeditious (as with the Grand Master's One Day Class) at a time when young men are most likely to need expeditious scheduling-- fellows in new jobs, and graduate school and /or working. It is a perfect time for these young men- without extensive family obligations, etc. to commit their energies.

These young men however find themselves at a time when scheduling is more complicated, working for corporate employers who require extended hours during the week or attendance in law or medical schools where exams come up. (It becomes then easier to take a full weekend day with good advanced notice than multiple days with little advance notice during the week.) In lodge culture where so much time can be wasted in agenda-less meetings, is it not better to tighten up the time?

Interest (even in the face of such waiting) among these young men continues because that the core group provides a natural basis for "recruitment" and familiarity. These candidates are usually much better informed than the average candidate. Candidates are often already familiar with the brothers and Masonic ritual (it is all public today for good or bad) and thus the candidates have contemplated their decision and are whole-heartedly committed, and they have a lodge with familiar faces to join, even if right now most of them are being separated as I mentioned, to suburban lodges in four jurisdictions.

As with the Lodges mentioned, it also helps that they have clubs to form the basis of unusually successful convivial calendar (with dinners, mixers, cocktail parties, nights out, family nights, business networking, job boards, discussion groups and internet forums.) Surely to practice Brotherhood does more than reciting words about it.

This in my humble opinion is why lodges who have taken the approach of Grand Master's Classes, particularly for this demographic have been so successful and why this or any jurisdiction does well in embracing it.

--------------------

Following is a discussion on the topic of Grand Master or One Day classes. A Mason who rails against the "GMC" or "ODC" receives responses.

Bro. Klaus Replies

Dear Bro.,

WOW! I'm impressed by such a rapid reply! Thanks!

I thoroughly appreciate your thoughtful reply. In many ways I think our positions are pretty close together, if they are on opposite sides of this issue.

Yours are very much the arguments I understand were presented during the (time) it took to amend the Masonic Code of Iowa to include these classes. Here I can't speak from personal experience because I had not yet joined the fraternity when these discussions occurred. I have, however, had in-depth discussions with many of the "movers and shakers" on both sides of the issue in Iowa, and feel I have at least a partial handle on the situation.

As I understand things, declining membership was only one of a number of issues involved. Like so many Grand Jurisdictions, Iowa's death rate among Brothers exceeded the initiation rate for a number of years. Over a decade or so, several changes were put in place. The first two were actually more important than the institution of ODCs. The first to occur, as I understand it, was the removal from code of the injunction against "recruitment." Indeed, many of my senior Brethren here are still suspicious of the notion that we may now discuss Masonry--with several proscriptions, of course--with non-Masons.

The days when Lodges were prominent in almost every city and village in Iowa are, sadly, long past. Moreover, the days when many residents of a given community had deep family and business roots in their places of residence have disappeared in proportion to our society's increasing mobility and our less-secure job market. In addition, and probably because of greater mobility, men are less inclined to ask the "right question" about how they may join a Lodge--there seems simply to be greater reticence about discussing such matters with mere acquaintances.

At the same time, there are indications that the present generation of men between the ages of (approximately) 18 and 30 are actually MORE potentially inclined toward Masonry than any generation since WWII veterans returned to civilian life. (I recently attended a very interesting seminar presented by M.W.B. Bob Conley, P.G.M. in Michigan, who suggests rather convincingly that the present generation of young men has more in common with men at the beginning of the twentieth century than with any generation between them.) Whatever the reason, we in Iowa are seeing a significant increase in interest among younger men. Being able
to approach men openly and honestly to discuss Masonry is, in my opinion and experience, a very good thing.

The second important change to our code is the institution of the "Invitation to Petition." Because of Masonry's decline in Iowa (and this applies rather specifically to my home Lodge), there were often well-known, highly-respected, highly-qualified men in communities who had never considered joining a Lodge. In Iowa, these men can now be brought up in open Lodge and discussed prior to their petitioning for admission. Three Brothers in good standing sign the Invitation to Petition. They must have known the potential candidate for at least two years. I have attached the form in PDF format. While we certainly do not use this method indiscriminately, it has been a very valuable tool: when one can approach a friend after he has already been "approved" by the Lodge, it has proved generally to be viewed by the potential candidate--as it should be--as a great honor.

And then came the ODC. In my experience, your credit-card analogy has not proved accurate, at least in our Lodge. As I noted previously, in three years we have probably Raised about 20 new MMs in ODCs. Of these, one is now serving in the Mid-East. Several have moved out of the area. A couple of them have not been very active. One has demitted. However--and I just went through our membership list--fully 15 of these Brothers are actively involved in the activities of our Lodge, attend the majority of Communications and participate actively, serve on committees, assist enthusiastically in community service projects, and so forth. Several have also joined the Scottish Rite (more active in this area than is the York Rite) and are equally as active in the Consistory. One is presently serving as Venerable Master of our local Knights of St. Andrew chapter as well as being Junior Deacon in our Lodge.

Thus my personal experience has been that we have Raised some really good Brothers via the ODCs, and most of these neophyte Masons have involved themselves enthusiastically in our Lodge's work. Moreover, I know for a fact that at least five of these enthusiastic new Masons WOULD NOT have joined us had the ODC not been available; two of these had dropped out previously, one after the Entered Apprentice Degree, and one after the Fellowcraft.

In short, and arguing from a huge sample of a single, rather rural, small Lodge, the Iowa ODC has breathed new life into our Lodge. In a Lodge with a total membership of 83, with only about 40 within a cable tow, this is a major turn-around. Interestingly enough, it is the OLDER Brethren who seem most reinvigorated by this influx of "new blood." Our oldest active member is 91, never misses a meeting, has served several times in every chair, saw his Lodge reach the brink of extinction less than a decade ago, and now can't stop grinning about belonging to such an active and enthusiastic Lodge. His joy alone is enough to make this worthwhile. (Can you tell he's a dear friend?)

Meanwhile our in-Lodge Degrees have probably tripled in number, In 1999, two years before I did my work, our Lodge had NO degree work. The next year two candidates went through the work. This year we have already Raised five Brothers in-Lodge, and have several still on the agenda. So, far from diminishing our local work, the ODC seems to have increased it, since some of these candidates had ODC members as top-line signers. Increased in-Lodge work, of course, increases the frequency of our ODC Brothers to see--and participate in--Degree work regularly, and that was NOT available before, simply because there WAS almost no Degree work.

Yes, technically speaking, the old "sponsor system" was supposed to enroll new Brothers. Here, at least, it didn't, probably because there was no real structure. The enlightenment course HAS structure, but it is open-ended; it probably raises more questions than it answers, and leads easily, in my experience, to more extended discussions.

As you know very well, the more one explores the craft, the more excited--and committed--one becomes. So I think it's not so much having the MEC replace sponsorship, but rather the structure of the MEC. The MEC is now required by Iowa code, as is its mentoring structure; not to follow this procedure with some care is thus potentially a Masonic offense. In almost every case, the top-line signer serves as mentor. And all too often in the past, it seems to me that rote memorization of obligations was simply that: rote without reflection. The MEC forces reflection and discussion. Curiously enough, many of our newer Brothers have CHOSEN to memorize the Q & As and the obligations, and I find that vastly superior to rote.

And yes, we probably DO remove some individual attention with the ODC. In fact, some of our local and active ODC Brothers have some regrets about having taken the ODC route. HOWEVER, this is with hindsight--and they freely admit this. WITHOUT the ODC, they would never have become Master Masons at all. So, when they discuss joining the fraternity with their friends, they often recommend doing the work in-Lodge. Interestingly, they don't really feel they were "cheated," only that, knowing what they now know, they'd have stayed at home and joined here.

And since there does seem to be some correspondence between the institution of the ODC and an increase in in-Lodge work, the ODC Brothers have a greater opportunity to see and participate in work at home than was the case before. The ones with time problems--and I maintain that these can be very real, having spent a career in a job that often required 90 hours of my time per week--are eternally grateful for the ODC.

So it's a mixed bag. I do not feel, speaking only for myself, that the GL has cheated our ODC Brethren or ourselves. Like the Invitation to Petition and the ability to recruit, the ODC is a tool. It doesn't work for every job, any more than a screwdriver can drive a nail better than a hammer, but then, a hammer's pretty ineffective at driving a screw too... I don't feel, again arguing from a sample of one, that we have somehow "swindled" our ODC Brethren. Several of these new Brothers are close friends of long standing. We regularly discuss Masonry over coffee (sometimes even over a snort!).

Their experience in the INITIAL stages of Masonry is certainly different from yours or mine. Because I haven't been in their shoes, I can't say whether that's good or bad. What I DO know is that these are good Brothers, vitally interested in and involved in our craft. They are accumulating libraries of books on Masonry, and reading them. They follow to the letter the admonition to discuss Masonry with their senior Brothers. They can participate in MANY more local degrees than they could have just a few years ago. And, because they were raised with Brothers from all over the state, they are more excited about attending state-wide functions, such as the annual GL Communication, if only to renew friendships formed during the ODC.

The mentoring program is, as noted, a part of Iowa Masonic Code, and was instituted prior to our ODCs. Thus the two issues are divisible. And, with all due respect for your point of view, and while the mentoring program is, in fact, very successful, it does NOT address several concerns the ODC addresses head-on: isolation of individual Lodges, dangerously declining membership numbers, the PERCEPTION of the amount of time required to become a Mason, and introduction of a truly state-wide (and, by implication, world-wide) brotherhood. Attending the first-ever ODC in Iowa at the Des Moines Scottish Rite Temple, candidate in tow, with 400 prospective Brothers and 600 Brothers present, was an awe-inspiring experience, even for my jaded world-view. That kind of cumulative fraternity simply cannot occur is a Lodge with 15-20 Brothers present. 1,000 male voices singing the National Anthem, accompanied by a noteworthy pipe organ, beats our local Pledge of Allegiance all hollow! And the ritual was--and has continued to be--excellent. The degrees are, of course, somewhat longer, because there are appropriate pauses in ritual for the mentor and candidate to exchange signs of recognition and so forth. EACH candidate repeats the obligations, with the Book of Holy Law held by his mentor.

I paint a rosy picture. I genuinely believe the ODC has been a very good thing FOR THIS JURISDICTION, and certainly for Mount Vernon Lodge. It does NOT work for every Brother--but then, I submit, neither do in-Lodge Degrees. Who knows how many potentially excellent, committed Brothers we may have lost in the past? I think it's a tool, not a revolution... After all, most Lodges no longer have a box of cigars on the Tyler's table, or spittoons spread around the Lodge, nor do most Lodges have their own supply of wine and Scotch to use following meetings. Do we cheat those Brothers who anticipated their monthly fine cigar with such glee? (Sorry! Those analogies are also unkind!) Ed Note: Lodges would do well to return to such provision of fine wines, Scotch, cigars as well as taking the time taken to enjoy them together!

Thanks so much for the discussion! It's almost as invigorating as our area outdoor Third Degree last night, where one of our own local Brothers was Raised by the Grand Lodge. The ritual, food, and fellowship were as good as it gets!

Sincerely and fraternally,
John M. Klaus
Junior Warden, Mount Vernon Lodge No. 112
Past Grand Musician, Grand Lodge of Iowa

Brother John Noted the following in his other correspondence:

1. Inability to memorize long examinations is a genuine problem, at least in Iowa, and has been the reason some otherwise well-qualified men have "dropped out" after the First or Second Degree. As noted above, we have reclaimed several Brothers locally who fall into this category.

2. The question of time—or at least the PERCEPTION of the time required—can also be a very real one. There is certainly a perception among the "profane" that becoming a Master Mason is a long, arduous journey. Certainly this is the case, if one is truly to become a Master Mason (it takes more than a lifetime), but the opportunity for me to assure a potential Brother than he can, in fact, become a full member of our Lodge by completing a One-Day Class and completing the enlightenment course can be a potent recruitment tool. During the enlightenment course I have the opportunity—indeed, the obligation—as the new Brother's mentor to explore what it means to be a Mason, and to discuss these matters for as long as he wants to talk.

3. Far from diluting our in-Lodge Degrees, the One-Day Class seems actually to have increased this work. Now that a potential Brother can CHOOSE either the One-Day or the more personalized in-Lodge approach, many have opted for the more personal in-Lodge approach. The important thing—at least for us—has been his OPPORTUNITY to choose.

4. A palpable excitement and enthusiasm for the Fraternity has been apparent at all One-Day Classes I have attended...

5. One-Day Classes have, if anything, improved our local proficiency in conferring Degrees, perhaps because the classes have afforded many of our local Brethren the opportunity to see excellent ritual and to encourage them to a higher level of proficiency.

----------------

Some words from various jurisdictions about the GMC or ODC:

The Washington State Grand Lodge Proceedings for 2001 (pages 50-52, Grand Secretary's report from several years ago comes to mind. He said of the work:

(1) The quality of the work is uniformly good.

(2) The candidates are placed in an environment where they are assured of
success and generally free from criticism.

(3) The instruction offered candidates between degrees is generally to the point, well
delivered, and does not give the candidate any opportunity to slide off
into the distant world.

". . . The one-day conferral is a lot like going through basic training with a rather kindly SDI. And that is why it works. Most Lodges virtually ignore candidates between Degrees. As a generality we put emphasis on the presentation of the material. That is, we focus all of our attention on the ability of the guy conferring the Degree, giving the lecture . . . Many of them do a flawless job but the real purpose of the exercise is to communicate to and with the candidate what Masonry is all about and how he - the candidate - fits in the Lodge. In the one-day conferral the candidate is surrounded by people, made to feel important, and humanely indoctrinated in the tenets of Masonry. . . . the rate at which one day Degree recipients proved up exceeded the rate at which Lodge conferrals proved up. I would earnestly recommend, therefore, that at least four one day conferrals be scheduled annually."

I know many individuals who have also spoken highly of the practice in the District of Columbia GL that since 1992, has held a Grand Master's Class. In most years this has consisted of conferring all 3 degrees conferred several times a year. In DC the 1-day class is done in an manner so that each and every candidate goes through almost all the ceremonies of each degree. (Each candidate is dressed the same as all candidates in traditional degrees, each is received in lodge in the same manner as in traditional degrees, each is conducted by a personal conductor for that candidate alone, each has a separate area of a table (altar) with a separate copy of the 3 Great Lights, each takes the obligations exactly the same way as at traditional degrees, and each goes through the 2nd section of the 3rd degree in exactly the same manner, with the same raising, as in traditional degrees.) Many of the members of these classes form a bond, and many have become officers of their Lodges and Grand Lodge.

A brother once asked me, “Since over the hundreds of years, the ritual has changed, lectures added, the number of degrees have changed, the rules for candidates have changed, what then remains the same.’ His reply, “The brotherhood has not changed”. So we are doing things that assist the brotherhood that causes no change except in our routine and way of thinking.

Some want membership to include difficulties- if they could they might introduce physical torment and exercises in mental dexterity and duress that even would surpass their own endurance but of course would have nothing to do with Masonry and Brotherhood or quality of the candidate. What these Brothers may be ignoring is that in Freemasonry it is for us to choose the best candidate and to improve that already worthy and well qualified individual by involving him in the work of lodge toward building Brotherhood. The sooner we get our well chosen brothers active in the business of the lodge the better.

American Freemasonry from 1730 to 1830 (abbreviated from lecture by S.B. Morris)

2010-06-23T22:59:00.000-07:00

1730: The Beginnings of American Masonry

Like so many Masonic events, the first American appearance of Freemasonry is not precisely known. Jonathan Belcher (1681–1757), a native of Cambridge, Massachusetts and later Governor of the Colonies of Massachusetts and New Hampshire from 1730–41 and the Colony of New Jersey from 1747–57, was made a Mason in London ca. 1704.

It is possible he held private Lodges at his residence before time-immemorial or chartered Lodges appeared. On 5 June 1730, the premier Grand Lodge appointed Daniel Coxe (1673–1739) Provincial Grand Master for New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania, giving the first official Masonic recognition of the English colonies. Bro. Coxe does not seem to have exercised his authority, even though he lived in New Jersey from 1731–1739.

The Grand Lodge of Pennsylvania possesses a book marked “Liber B” which contains the records of the earliest known Pennsylvania and American Lodge. The first record is for 24 June 1731, and in that month Benjamin Franklin (1705–1790) is entered as paying dues five months back. Franklin’s entry implies Lodge activity from at least December 1730 or January 1731. No earlier Lodge records exist in the United States, though there are suggestive comments in newspapers.

Provincial Grand Masters were appointed after Daniel Coxe from 1733 through 1787: twenty-two by the moderns, six by the ancients, and four by Scotland.

In 1775 John Batt initiated fifteen free African-Americans in Boston. Batt was Sergeant in the 38^th Regiment of Foot, British Army and Master of Lodge No. 441, Irish Constitution. When the Regiment and Lodge departed in 1776, the fifteen new Masons were left with a permit to meet, to walk on St. John’s Day, and to bury their dead. They in turn applied to the Grand Lodge of Moderns for a warrant and were chartered as African Lodge No. 459 on 29 September 1784 with Prince Hall as the first Master.

In 1792 when the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts was formed, African Lodge did not join but remained attached to England. This could be due to loyalty to the premier Grand Lodge or to racism from the newly formed Grand Lodge. However, the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts also didn’t recognize St. Andrews Lodge, which had a Scottish charter. There is evidence that white Masons visited African Lodge and that England relied on Prince Hall for information on Boston Lodges. In any event African Lodge continued its separate existence until 1813 when it and all other English-chartered American lodges were erased from the roles of the newly formed United Grand Lodge of England. Then in 1827 officers of African Lodge declared themselves independent and constituted themselves as a Grand Lodge. From these origins grew the large Masonic organization known today as “Prince Hall Masonry.”

Most American Lodges originated from one of the British Grand Lodges—England, Scotland, and Ireland, though Germany, France, and other Grand Lodges issued charters. Traveling British military Lodges spread Masonry through much of North America as they initiated civilians in the towns where they were stationed. Also imported from England was the rivalry between the Ancient and Modern Grand Lodges. Many states had competing Grand Lodges that eventually merged after the Union of 1813 in London, though South Carolina did not see Masonic unity until 1817. Modern Masons tended to be conservative in promoting the fraternity, prosperous, and loyalists, while Ancient Masons were aggressive in expanding Lodges, working-class, and revolutionaries.

The early forms of Masonic ritual in the United States are less known that those in England and France. We do not have the large number of 18^th century documents—Gothic constitutions, manuscript catechisms, memory aides—that can be found in Europe. Presumably the first rituals were transmitted mouth-to-ear, and Lodges may have patterned their ceremonies after some of the exposés, either imported or printed domestically.

The first American exposé was Benjamin Franklin’s 1730 reprint of The Mystery of Freemasonry (intended as an attack upon rivals), but there do not seem to have been any exposés of American ritual practices until the anti-Masonic period, ca. 1826–1840.

The Influence of Itinerant Masonic Lecturers

With a diversity of ritual sources, the work in American Masonic Lodges must have been variegated during the 1700s. This began to change in 1797 when Thomas Smith Webb (1771–1819) published The Freemason’s Monitor or Illustrations of Masonry. It acknowledged that “The observations upon the first three degrees are many of them taken from Preston’s ‘Illustrations of Masonry,’ with some necessary alterations” to make them “agreeable to the mode of working in America.”

Webb was the first and most prominent of several Masonic Lecturers who toured the country teaching a uniform of ritual to Lodges, Chapters, and any other body they could convince to pay their fees. These lecturers often had “side degrees” available for sale or as gifts. Webb trained Jeremy Ladd Cross (1783–1861) who succeeded Webb as the generally recognized chief ritualist. Cross’s great contribution was his 1819 The True Masonic Chart or Hieroglyphic Monitor. It was largely Webb’s Monitor with a few small textual changes and one major visual addition: forty-two pages of engravings by Bro. Amos Doolittle.

Doolittle’s engravings did more than illustrate Cross’s text, they provided a memory map for students learning the ritual. Each image on a page was a milestone in the lectures. By associating an image with a portion of ritual, it was possible to mentally review an entire lecture by thumbing through a few pages of Cross’s Chart. The book was very successful and has influenced the artwork in almost every subsequent American Masonic monitor.

Other Masonic lecturers trained by or with Webb and Cross include John Barney (1780–1847), James Cushman (1776–1829), David Vinton (d. 1833), and John Snow (1780–1852). They each seemed to concentrate on a different part of the country, much as salesmen have defined territories. There was some cooperation among the lecturers and not a small amount of competition.

The Royal Arch

The first “high degree” to appear in America was the Royal Arch Degree. In fact, the first recorded conferral of this degree anywhere occurred in December 1753 at Fredericksburg Lodge in Virginia, where George Washington (1731–1799) was initiated an Entered Apprentice in 1752. The American Royal Arch ritual is based upon the story of Jeshua, Zerrubabel, and Haggai and the rebuilding of the second Temple in Jerusalem. The degree began to spread steadily throughout the colonies:

1758—organization of Jerusalem Chapter in Philadelphia;

1769—organization of St. Andrew’s Chapter, Boston;

1790—organization of Cyrus Chapter Newburyport, Massachusetts;

1792—organization of a Chapter in Charleston, South Carolina;

1794—organization of Harmony Chapter, Philadelphia.

Other unrecorded or forgotten degrees and chapters doubtlessly occurred. In 1795 the First Grand Chapter was formed in Pennsylvania, and in 1797 the first national American organization was created—the General Grand Chapter of the New England States, which is today the General Grand Chapter of the United States. Additional Grand Chapters quickly followed in Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, and Rhode Island in 1798. By 1830 there were twenty-one Grand Chapters in the United States.

The early conferral of the Royal Arch Degree seemed to be based on the authority inherent in the charter of a Lodge. Not surprisingly, it was Ancient Lodges that were most likely to see this high degree authority inherent in their charters. Royal Arch Chapter in the United States, in contrast to their English counterparts, quickly organized themselves into state Grand Chapters and, with the exception of Pennsylvania and Virginia, quickly placed themselves under the authority of the General Grand Chapter.

A quirk of American Royal Arch Masonry is worth noting: (unlike elsewhere) the American presiding officer is not the King, representing Zerrubabel, but the High Priest, representing Jeshua.

The Growth of the Chapter Degrees

As Lodges had a “chair degree,” the Past Master’s Degree, it only made sense that the Royal Arch should have one too, and so the Order of High Priesthood came into being. It is not mentioned in Webb’s 1796 Monitor, but it is in his 1802 edition as well as Cross’s 1819 Chart. It is usually conferred on High Priests before they can assume the Oriental Chair of Solomon. The degree, still worked today, may have had European ancestors, but its genealogy is uncertain.

As in England the Royal Arch Degree in the United States can only be conferred on Past Masters. American practice soon required the conferral of the chair ceremony to qualify candidates as “virtual Past Masters.” The Chapter degree seems to have contained the essential elements of the Lodge degree, but the candidate was given humorous trials and tribulations to endure.

The Growth of the Chapter Degrees

The earliest record of the Mark Degree is in 1783 at the Royal Arch Chapter in Middleton, Connecticut. Soon the Mark was adopted by Royal Arch Chapters as the first in their sequence of degrees. This is in contract to most European jurisdictions where the Mark is independent and controlled by its own Grand Lodge.

The Most Excellent Master Degree, a uniquely American degree in origin, first appeared by name at the Middleton Chapter with the Mark Degree in 1783. Its legend revolves around the completion of the Temple of Solomon and the placement of the keystone in the Royal Arch. It may contain elements from older European degrees, but its current organization is unique to the United States. Thomas Smith Webb published a description of this degree in his 1797 monitor as the third of three degrees leading to the Royal Arch, and it has remained in that position until today.

The sequence of degrees conferred in American Royal Arch Chapters since then (except for Virginia and West Virginia) is

1. Mark Master Mason,

2. Past Master,

3. Most Excellent Master,

4. Royal Arch Mason,

5. Order of High Priesthood for High Priests.

The Cryptic Degrees

The Degrees of Royal and Select Master seem to have originated as side degrees available from itinerant Masonic lecturers. They are known collectively as the “Cryptic Degrees” or the “Cryptic Rite” because their legend deals with the secret vault or crypt beneath King Solomon’s Temple.

Cross included these two degrees in his popular 1819 illustrated monitor, producing a nine-degree system extending from Entered Apprentice to Select Master. The degrees were some times conferred in Royal Arch Chapters, but slowly emerged as independent Masonic bodies, governed by state Grand Councils of Royal and Select Masters and a national General Grand Council. The earliest independent Councils were formed in

1810—New York City,

1815—New Hampshire,

1817—Massachusetts, Virginia, and Vermont,

1818—Rhode Island and Connecticut.

By 1830 there were Grand Councils in ten states. Under the influence of Cross’s Chart and other monitors, the Select Master’s Degree came to be viewed at the culmination of “Ancient Craft Masonry,” even if Councils were found in only a few metropolitan areas and their degrees available to only a few. This is probably the beginning of the American “York Rite,” consisting of the Chapter of Royal Arch Masons, Council of Royal and Select Masters, and Commandery of Knights Templar.

Knights Templars and the American York Rite

The first reference to a Masonic Templar degree is found in the minutes of St. Andrews Lodge, Boston, an Ancient Lodge, when on 9 April 1769, William Davis received the Excellent, Super Excellent, Royal Arch, and Knight Templar Degrees. In 1796 the first Commandery (or Encampment or Priory) was established in Colchester, Connecticut, and eventually received a charter from England in 1803.

Today in America a Commandery of Knights Templar confers the Order of the Red Cross, the Order of Malta, and the Order of the Temple on Christian Masons. In 1816 the Order of Malta was placed as the last degree in the series until 1916 when it returned to second place.

The Red Cross legend is similar to the Knight of the East and Prince of Jerusalem detailing the return of Zerubbabel from Babylon to Jerusalem to rebuild the Temple. It is entirely out of place among Christian chivalric orders. Nonetheless it remains and provides an important part of the York Rite legends.

Taken together, the Craft Lodge, Royal Arch Chapter, Royal and Select Council, and Knights Templar Commandery form the American “York Rite.” The name is inexact as the degrees did not originate in York, England, but then again the Scottish Rite did not originate in Scotland.

Reflecting the widespread belief that the York Rite was the purest and oldest form of Masonry, some American Grand Lodges originally styled themselves, “Ancient York Masons” (A.Y.M.)

The Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite

A high degree event in the United States occurred on 31 May 1801 when John Mitchell (ca. 1741–1816) elevated Frederick Dalcho (1770–1835) to the 33^rd Degree, and they then elevated another seven until there was a constitutional number to open a Supreme Council. Their actions were announced to the world in a circular dated 4 December 1802. The opening of the first Supreme Council 33° was preceded by considerable “Scottish” activity.

Etienne Morin (1693?–1771) received authority in 1761 from Paris or Bordeaux to promote Masonry throughout the world. This included propagating a rite of twenty-five degrees, sometimes known as the Rite of Perfection. Morin moved to San Domingo and soon appointed six Inspectors General. The most successful of these was Henry Andrew Francken (d. 1795), from whom fifty-two Inspectors descended, though he only appointed six.

After Morin’s arrival in America, bodies of his rite were soon established:

1764—Loge de Parfaits de Écosse, New Orleans, Louisiana;

1767—The Ineffable Lodge of Perfection, Albany, New York;

1781—Lodge of Perfection, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania;

1783—Lodge of Perfection, Charleston, South Carolina;

1788—Grand Council, Princes of Jerusalem, Charleston, South Carolina;

1791—King Solomon’s Lodge of Perfection, Martha’s Vineyard, Massachusetts;

1792—Lodge of Perfection, Baltimore, Maryland;

1797—Sublime Grand Council, Princes of the Royal Secret, Charleston, South Carolina;

1797—La Triple Union, Chapter of Rose Croix, New York. (17)

Inspectors propagated the degrees of this rite with little organization, often for the fees they could negotiate. The Supreme Council’s motto, Ordo ab Chao, is indeed appropriate for the situation.

Webb’s Monitor had monitorial instructions for the ineffable degrees, which served to make American Masons aware there was more than the York Rite. Thus when the Mother Supreme Council formed itself in 1801, it did not operate in a vacuum.

In August 1806 Antoine Bideaud, a member of the Supreme Council of the “French West India Islands,” visited new York City and found an opportunity to make a little extra money.

He conferred the Scottish Rite degrees on four Masons for $46 each and then created a “Sublime Grand Consistory, 30°, 31°, and 32°.” Bideaud’s authority was for the islands only and certainly did not extend into New York, which was under the jurisdiction of the Charleston Supreme Council. (18)

In New York City in October 1807, Joseph Cerneau (d. 1827?), a jeweler from Cuba, constituted a “Sovereign Grand Consistory of Sublime Princes of the Royal Secret.” Cerneau was a “Deputy Grand Inspector, for the Northern part of the Island of Cuba” under Morin’s rite. His patent limited him to confer the 4° through 24° on Lodge officers, and the 25° once a year. Early records are sufficiently vague that it cannot be determined if the original members of Cerneau’s Consistory thought they had the 25° or the 32°. With even less authority than Bideaud, Cerneau launched his foray into high degree Masonry in New York.

The Bideaud organization was “healed” by Emmanuel de la Motta, Grand Treasurer of the Mother Supreme Council on 24 December 1813. This group assumed control of what is today known as the Northern Masonic Jurisdiction.

The Cerneau Consistory ignored de la Motta’s actions, but decided they had to expand their degrees to thirty-three to “keep up with the competition.” They eventually claimed jurisdiction over the “United States, Their Territories, and Dependencies.” Thus in 1830 there were three competing Supreme Councils in the United States. All three became dormant during the anti-Masonic period.

Side Degrees

The last category of pre-1830 degrees is “side degrees,” conferred under irregular circumstances with little formal authority. They sometimes were communicated by itinerant lecturers, sometimes by Masons who possessed the degree, sometimes for a fee, sometimes for free.

Some of these degrees could have coalesced into a rite if anti-Masonry hadn’t crushed them. There is scant information on them, sometimes little more than a title mentioned in passing. A search of all American Lodge minutes before 1830 might yield a few more names, but probably no more rituals.

Some of our information comes from two exposés from the anti-Masonic period, David Barnard’s 1829 Light on Masonry and Avery Allyn’s 1831 A Ritual of Freemasonry. Both authors seemed to been originally motivated in “saving” the American public by exposing the “evils” of Freemasonry. However, general interest in Masonry was spurred on by the public conferral of the degrees by anti-Masonic troupes.

This interest, in turn increased demand for exposés, especially those complete with passwords and grips. Bernard obliged this demand by adding the secret work from Delaunaye’s Thuileur, without regard for whether it matched the American degrees he described. It is often difficult to know if the degrees described were widely worked, if at all. Of these many degrees, only the Heroines of Jericho seems to be an American original. It survived and is worked today by Prince Hall Masons.

Another source of pre-1830 side degrees is a series of newspaper articles, “Recollections of a Masonic Veteran,” by Robert Benjamin Folger (1803–1892). Published in 1873–74, these articles describe his fifty years in Masonry with a few comments about side degrees. Finally, there is tantalizing evidence that Zorobabel Lodge No. 498 in New York City worked the Rectified Scottish Rite and may have conferred the fourth degree, Scottish Master.

Pre-1830 American Masonic Side Degrees:

Knight of the Christian Mark Bernard, Allyn

Knight of the Holy Sepulchre Bernard, Allyn

Holy and Thrice Illustrious order of the Cross Bernard, Allyn

Knight of the Three Kings, Allyn

Knight of Constantinople Allyn, Folger

Secret Monitor Allyn, Folger

Ark and Dove (RAMs only), Allyn

Mediterranean Pass Folger

Knight of the Round Table (fun degree), Folger

Aaron’s Band (similar to High Priesthood), Folger

Master Mason’s Daughter (for women), Folger

True Kindred (for women), Folger

Heroine of Jericho (RAMs, wives and widows), Allyn

1830: The End of the First Era of American Masonry

As early as March 1826 a New York Mason named William Morgan began plans to publish the “secrets of Freemasonry.” This created quite a stir in his small town of Batavia, New York. Neither Morgan, nor his potential readers, nor the local Lodge seemed aware that ritual exposés had been available in the United States since at least 1730 when Benjamin Franklin republished The Mystery of Freemasonry. Masons tried to purchase the manuscript from Morgan’s publisher, David Miller, a former Entered Apprentice Mason. When this failed, Miller’s printing company was set on fire twice, presumably by Masons.

Morgan, a ne’er-do-well in frequent debt, was jailed in Canandaigua, New York, for a debt of $2.00 assigned to Nicholas G. Chesbro, Master of the Lodge at Canandaigua. On the next day, 12 September 1826, Chesbro appeared at the jail with several other Masons and discharged his claim against Morgan. They escorted Morgan outside and into a waiting carriage. Before entering the carriage, Morgan was heard crying during a scuffle, “Help! Murder!” He was driven north to Niagara County and held in the old Powder Magazine at Ft. Niagara until 19 September. Morgan was never seen thereafter.

Morgan’s abduction, disappearance, and presumed murder set off a social and political crisis in the United States. Many came to believe that Freemasonry was a secretive power behind the government, murdering those who dared cross it. Soon the fear of Masonry manifested itself in the creation of the first major “third part” in American politics: the Anti-Masonic Party. The party attracted reformers, abolitionists, and idealists, but its primary purpose was the destruction of Freemasonry and other “secret societies.” From about 1826 to 1840 the anti-Masonic movement swept across the country. The northeastern states, where the Craft was most prosperous, endured the worst destruction, but few parts of the country was spared. By the time the Anti-Masonic Party collapsed as a political force in 1840, Freemasonry began to reemerge, but as a more conservative organization.

Appreciating Diversity, Focusing on What's Important

2010-05-02T01:15:00.000-07:00

"'In non essentials, variety; in essentials, unity' might have been written of Masonry. It matters little how we wear the apron in given degree - so be it that it is worn with honor. The method of giving a sign or a pass matter much less than that what we do is done with understanding." MSA, 1934

According to the General Regulations published by the Grand Lodge of England in 1723 "Every Annual Grand Lodge has an inherent power and Authority to make new Regulations or to alter these, for the real benefits of this Ancient Fraternity; provided always that the old Land-Marks be carefully preserved." However, these landmarks were not defined in any manner. An early attempt at this was in Jurisprudence of Freemasonry 1856 by Dr. Albert Mackey. He laid down three requisite characteristics:

   1. notional immemorial antiquity
   2. universality (of usage)
   3. absolute "irrevocability"

He claimed there were 25 in all, and they could not be changed. However subsequent writers have differed greatly as regards what they consider the Landmarks to be. In 1863, George Oliver published the Freemason's Treasury in which he listed 40 Landmarks. In the last century, several American Grand Lodges attempted to enumerate the Landmarks, ranging from West Virginia (7) and New Jersey (10) to Nevada (39) and Kentucky (54).

One Grand Lodge even added ritual as an unchanging landmark when they were in the process of making drastic changes in their ritual! Rituals today of course bear little resemblance if at all to rituals of old, and the lectures are relatively modern appendages added to make the degree work more meaty (some say boring and dull) and also to give various brethren in the lodge something to do.

There is much to be said for doing away with these lectures that are now often longer than the ritual itself; particularly that they trample on the individual's freedom to draw meaning from the rituals as they choose, not as some long winded 19th or 20th century lecturer chose.

Joseph Fort Newton, in The Builders, offers a simple definition of the Landmarks as: "The fatherhood of God, the brotherhood of man, the moral law, the Golden Rule, and the hope of life everlasting." While that sounded fine and expansive, Newton excluded blacks (along with women and the disabled and others considered undesirable.)

The noted American 20th century jurist and influential Freemason Roscoe Pound subscribed to six landmarks:

   1. Belief in a Supreme Being
   2. Belief in the immortality of the soul
   3. A "book of sacred law" as an indispensable part of the "furniture" (or furnishings) of the Lodge
   4. The legend of the Third Degree
   5. The secrets of Freemasonry: The modes of recognition and the symbolic ritual of the Lodge
   6. That a Mason be a man, freeborn, and of lawful age.

Pound omits however that the legend of the Third Degree itself changed and in fact the expansion to three degrees was itself an "innovation". Pound assumed a Bible would be that book of sacred law which is hardly an innovation considering Freemasonry in its early days was not at all religiously tolerant but overtly and uniformly Christian. Moreover the modes recognition were repeatedly changed from time to time due to them becoming too well known by non-Masons in any particular jurisdiction. The modes of recognition were also different from place to place due to the difference in origins of various jurisdictions.

As for "freeborn", the notion was used as an argument for years that blacks under various governments did not enjoy the full rights of a freeman (even when said men were not born enslaved and slavery had been abolished.) This meant that the idea of "freeborn" was hardly one tied to innate rights but to the political situation of any given time and a lodge's interpretation.

Masonry thus simply was not and in some cases is not recognizing groups of men as born with the same innate right to freedom. There has been great progress. And it has been diversity at the lodge level rather than jurisdictional conformity that has led to an evolution away from those policies.

In the 1950s the Commission on Information for Recognition of the Conference of Grand Masters of Masons in North America arbitrarily looked to three "ancient Landmarks":

   1. Monotheism — An unalterable and continuing belief in God.
   2. The Volume of The Sacred Law — an essential part of the furniture of the Lodge.
   3. Prohibition of the discussion of Religion and Politics.

Addressing these in reverse order; the third item as a Landmark can be dismissed easily since the whole notion was added long after the founding of the Grand Lodge of England and does not appear in original manuscripts. As for the second item, we need only to recall the evolution of Anglo-American Masonry from a Christian institution to a "religious" one.

The first item is of more interest not just for its status as a Landmark but because of its effects on the culture of the lodge. The terms "Monotheism — An unalterable and continuing belief in God" are specific, as it precludes "doubt" which is usually an acknowledged part of the path of faith in major religions. Also this specificity Monotheism may run contrary to Christian trinitarian doctrine.

We must accept that Freemasonry is neither a religion (for it does not have a set of basic and unchanging tenets) nor an inerrant and unchanging institution. Those who try to make Freemasonry something it is not and those who try to foist that upon others do Freemasonry and their brethren a great disservice.

Too often we see Masons dry, quiet and deadly serious about something that frankly draws its real meaning from lively, convivial engagement. Even the language of the business meeting, once perfunctory and common place becomes exalted in its strangeness though it was never intended to be. It is likely that these Masons who exalt function are seeking to bring something they lost in the Church, or personal religion into lodge; just as it is that those Masons who are the least intellectually developed or least academically successful take pride in uselessly exact memorization and recitation of procedural items in the lodge. (Stricken indeed are lodges dominated by such men, for they are the clear conscience but bloody handed assassins of many a lodge.)

It is important then that we remember: Masonry makes a claim of good will and brotherhood. It makes no certain moral claim nor does it aspire to spiritual deliverance in its own words and observances, as religions do.

In fact Freemasonry has had many errors in its past and has so today whether that be in its regulations or its operation. And perhaps the only thing that is universal and unchanging is paradoxically that that it is never universal nor unchanging.

Unfortunately, grand lodges and busy individuals have sought to not only make their changes but to enforce whatever their version of orthodoxy at the time. The various victims have been neighborhood lodges, lodge traditions, various historical rituals, internal charity, bonhomie, religious or irreligious environment as fitting particular lodges, individual lodge character and the ancient rights of lodge autonomy.

Naturally there will be brethren who stand by their version and interpretation of Freemasonry. That is the way it should be. In diversity not uniformity there is tolerance and respect of different interpretations and traditions. The administrative energy used in enforcing conformity in our lodges is probably best used to righting ourselves.

Eagerness to reproach or correct others is an ugly flaw inside or outside of the lodge, though many Masons can attest, it is flaw that rears its head often in lodges whether concerning more consequential business or inconsequential procedural issues. Lodges would likely run in greater accord if Masons took to heart the words in the Book of Matthew, why behold you the speck of sawdust that is in your brother's eye, rather than the bit of wood that is in your own eye?

So it holds in the true practice of Freemasonry that we cannot forbid those Freemasons from rejecting among their own other versions and interpretations. This is when we find the true test of Masons: one group clings to something finds another objectionable and another is just the opposite yet both groups maintain their perspectives. Can each group still hold the other in fraternal regard even if in cool disagreement? We show our own ignorance of the variety in the history of Freemasonry when we try to stamp out or denounce other practices.

What we can do is to appreciate the variety. The more varied Freemasonry is, the more opportunity there is to have something which brethren support. And should we find certain procedures in a lodge to be in some ways wrongheaded or tiresome we may find it best to avoid this part of lodge life or even to leave that lodge altogether for one more to our disposition; but we may also stay knowing that someone who we care about in the lodge actually finds good in the lodge's practices.

- J.S., Charles Kyte

Freemasonry and British Imperialism, A Book Review

2010-01-24T23:48:00.000-08:00

In 1925, Rudyard Kipling wrote in the London Times, "I was Secretary for some years of Hope and Perseverance Lodge No. 782, E.C. Lahore which included Brethren of at least four creeds. I was entered by a member of Bramo Somaj, a Hindu; passed by a Mohammedan, and raised by an Englishman. Our Tyler was an Indian Jew. We met, of course, on the level, and the only difference anyone would notice was that at our banquets, some of the Brethren, who were debarred by caste from eating food not ceremonially prepared, sat over empty plates." The Lodge minutes prove the details of his Entry to be wrong and that Kipling was in fact entered, passed and raised by Englishmen. What is more interesting however is that Kipling, despite writing much that many now consider deeply racist and hateful toward non white, Christian Englishmen, would feel compelled to create a false story to illustrate a cosmopolitan brotherhood, albeit one that existed within a distinctly English institution that was strictly administered along the same racial and class hierarchical arrangements that existed in every other aspect of British colonial life. This phenomenon is examined in the book "Builders of Empire" (interview podcast with the author, book abstract and several reviews to follow):

Author and professor Jessica Harland-Jacobs interview podcast– Author of “Builders of Empire: Freemasons and British Imperialism, 1717-1927”. In the interview Ms. Harland-Jacobs is taken off track from her main thesis and even bloodied a bit. Unfortunately the interview barely addresses her thesis but it is posted here.

FREEMASONRY AND BRITISH IMPERIALISM

AUTHOR(S): HARLAND-JACOBS, JESSICA LEIGH DEGREE: PH.D. YEAR: 2000 PAGES: 00347 INSTITUTION: DUKE UNIVERSITY; 0066 ADVISOR: SUPERVISOR JOHN W. CELL SOURCE: DAI, 61, NO. 12A (2000): P. 4899 Abstract: Emerging in Britain during the seventeenth century, the Masonic brotherhood—which claimed to admit any free man, regardless of his religion, social status, political orientation, and race (provided he believed in the existence of a supreme being)—taught its members lessons of self-improvement, spirituality, and benevolence. During the eighteenth and nineteenth century, the fraternity suited itself remarkably well to the British Empire. It spread primarily through the activities of lodges in British Army regiments, which resulted in the development of a vast service network that was fundamentally global and masculine in nature. Looking at the British North Atlantic world between 1751 and 1918, this dissertation explores the reciprocal relationship between Freemasonry and imperialism. It asks how Freemasonry contributed to the building and consolidation of the British Empire and what the fraternity reflected about the broader imperial context. Having conducted research in Masonic and public archives on both sides of the Atlantic, I draw on a wide range of manuscript and published sources, including correspondence; private papers of prominent Freemasons; British government documents; proceedings of the English, Irish, Scottish, and Canadian grand lodges; and Masonic speeches, sermons, periodicals, pamphlets, and monographs. I deploy the methodology of world networks history to argue that cultural institutions played a critical role in British imperialism and that the imperial and metropolitan spheres were highly interconnected arenas. As it underwent the simultaneous processes of bureaucratization in the metropole and global expansion, Freemasonry experienced a transformation. Despite its consistent cosmopolitan claims, it became increasingly Protestant, middle-class, loyalist, and white over time. From the mid-nineteenth century on, Freemasonry marched hand in hand with the British imperial state. Its network connected the metropolitan and colonial spheres, fostering what I describe as an imperialist identity among its members and becoming implicated in the increasingly racialized imperialism of the late nineteenth century. Like cosmopolitanism, imperialist identity is an example of an under-studied supra-national identity. Appreciating its role in imperialism is crucial for understanding the timing and location of national identity formation and the hegemonic function of cultural institutions in the imperial arena.

-------------------------------

The Lodge Room's Review:

“Builders of Empire: Freemasonry and British Imperialism, 1717-1927″ by Jessica L Harland-Jacobs (Univ of N Carolina, Chapel Hill, 2007)

Freemasonry began in the pre-"Enlightenment" period and in time became very much a reflection of the Enlightenment era. Freemasonry displayed all the era's ennobling ideals, intellectual advancement, liberating sentiment and advancement of thinking. It also shared Enlightenment's deep hypocrisy, historical and cultural blindness, inflexible thinking and ultimate failure to reconcile lofty ideals with behavioral realities and conditions.

Modern, post-Enlightenment thinking tends to characterize, in hindsight, an intellectual movement that became a veneer of noble sentiment for the prevalent power arrangements, abuses and injustice. Post-Enlightenment modernists over the better part of the century have pointed to ample evidence for this view. Imperialism, colonialism, neo-colonialism, slavery, genocide, racial and ethnic disparity and economic, political and social injustices seem to coincide with the rise and decline of the Enlightenment. Barely a single institution of major significance has been unexamined for its role in that problematic era.

There is one major institution that has escaped serious examination: Freemasonry. Historian Jessica Harland-Jacobs has undertook to right this omission. Her “Builders of Empire: Freemasonry and British Imperialism, 1717-1927″ examines particularly the role of Freemasonry through the rise and height of British imperialism. The results are hardly surprising.

From a pre-Enlightenment, Christian brotherhood with the presence of some random moral speculators, British Freemasonry quickly transformed to imperialist state machinery. If there is anything surprising perhaps even to the well informed student of the period, it is the major role of Freemasonry in reinforcing the imperialistic social order.

There may be an aspect of "blaming the plate for the meal" in Ms. Harland-Jacobs' book. Institutions evolve with society, their framework being used for whatever the energies and the imagination of the time order. Freemasonry can be no more (or less) condemned for its role as the church or educators in British public schools. These institutions however have examined themselves, as they are still crucial to modern society whereas Freemasonry is not. A book like this does a great deal of good for all concerned to understand the era of British imperialism and its underpinnings. It does even more for our understanding the continuing evolution of Freemasonry.

A final note. It is lamentable that a Freemason did not write such an excellent and needed work in this field. Such authorship could have been an indication that Freemasonry is moving into a new period of intellectual and societal relevance. The popularity of Ms. Harland-Jacobs' book in the Masonic community nevertheless may be reason to take heart.

------------------------------------------

Bruno Gazzo
Editor, Pietre Stones Review of Freemasonry. Builders of Empire: Freemasons and British Imperialism, 1717-1927 (review)

British Masonic or Academic historians have always forgotten to investigate in depth the Freemasonry's role in the Empire and it is not surprising to me that only a woman and an American professor has fulfilled this task writing such a significant and sophisticated book, with some shortcomings.

Examining the fate of Freemasonry's inclusive promise - the Universal Brotherhood of Man - in the diverse historical circumstances presented by the British Empire is the central hinge upon which this valuable book by Pro. Harland-Jacobs unfolds.

The British Empire of the eighteenth century provided fertile ground for the building and functioning of an extensive Masonic network. In this period, the fraternity remained a relatively fluid and inclusive institution that did, at times, live up to its ideology of cosmopolitan brotherhood.

Although white Protestant men of the upper classes vastly predominated with Freemasonry much less established abroad, eighteenth century British Masonry did have room in its some of its lodges for Jews and Muslims, African Americans, South Asians and others. Freemasonry's cosmopolitanism was by definition fraternal. Eighteenth-century Masonry also included men of a diverse range of political opinions who both supported and challenged the imperialistic Whig oligarchy running Hanoverian Britain and its growing empire.

As Britain withstood the Age of Revolution and emerged victorious from the Napoleonic Wars, Masonry underwent a major transformation that reflected the strengthening currents of nationalism, capitalism, and imperialism. Like their eighteenth-century brethren, nineteenth-century Freemasons continued to champion an ill defined Masonic ideology of openness, but in practice the brotherhood virtually abandoned its radical past of open, even dangerous intellectual inquiry and political discourse.

Reacting against Freemasonry's elasticity during the previous century, grand lodge officials fought and won a struggle to gain control over the brotherhood by consciously identifying the brotherhood with loyalty to the state, with any political or philosophical discourse otherwise ended. Meanwhile, as the Catholic Church waged a sustained campaign against worldwide Freemasonry, the brotherhood became a primarily Protestant institution.

In the colonies, Masonry's long-established associations with men of prominence ( such as military officers and colonial governors) made it attractive to rising men who sought status and power to accompany their wealth. Local lodges were willing to admit some men of humble origins, but colonial Masons made every effort to ensure the respectability of the brotherhood by regulating the membership, conducting elaborate public ceremonials, and keeping leadership positions in the hands of the most respectable brethren.

The brotherhood was thus instrumental in the making of a colonial middle class and defining its boundaries at the very moment its male constituents were entering into power sharing arrangements with traditional elites The brotherhood that was initially open to all men was, after the age of revolution, dominated by loyalist, Protestant, respectable white men. Status, wealth, free time, and of course race and sex were all determinants to the "representative" process in the lodge. If anything, the black balling process, conventions against openly campaigning for a seat, and the status recognition lodges gave to high ranking or distinguished visitors reinforced the necessary social environment for imperialism.

The acceptance of the "natives" neo-colonial functionaries in the lodges where they were told they were brothers and equals assisted in psychologically co-opting that class. Despite the real inequality in the Freemasonry of the day, membership provided a reward and a re-enforcing concept for the whole practice of neo-colonialism itself. Masonry thus reflected and contributed to the "fundamental reordering of the Empire" as the old Atlantic empire transformed into the so-called "Second British Empire" of the nineteenth century.

It is not surprising then that so many leaders of liberation movements in the Third World spent time in lodges where the discerning eye might realize in a scaled version of the world of British imperialism. This could have only illustrated the differences between stated values and practice among the British.

By the last third of the nineteenth century, the Masonic brotherhood had become an unquestioning ally of the British imperial state. It took part in various efforts to shore up the empire in the face of internal and external pressures during the age of high imperialism. Imperial proconsuls like Kitchener, Wolseley, and Connaught considered Freemasonry a valuable ally not only as they governed and defended the empire but also as they pursued the imperialist mission of making the empire a source of national strength. In places like Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, the brotherhood helped turn men into ardent citizens of the empire who contributed their energy, money, and even their lives to the imperial cause.

Meanwhile, outside the settlement colonies, indigenous men of various religious and racial backgrounds had begun seeking admission into Masonry. The empire became a practical testing ground of Freemasons' commitment to their ideology of cosmopolitan brotherhood in an age of increasingly racialized attitudes. British Freemasons on the imperial periphery ultimately and reluctantly admitted native elite but they did so - Professor Harland-Jacobs reminds us - specifically because they believed it would help strengthen the Empire.

The book deals with all of the above subjects and makes a significant contribution to the history of the Freemasons and imperial Britain.

Note: Specifically in some of her scholarship on pre-1717 Freemasonry (which has some bearing even for a book covering post 1717), Harland-Jacobs has not moved research forward and may have done inadequate study in keeping with this exhaustively well researched area. She fails to understand or explain the complex rivalry with the increasingly egalitarian London based "Moderns" and the at least one faction of conservatively Christian "Antients" who many understand as largely Anglo-Irish and to some degree Scotch-Irish, as well as the alleged Jacobite element in some Scottish and some Anglo-Irish lodges. These issues are complex and cloudy and thus might have been best avoided by dealing with British imperialism outside of the British isles. It is Masonry's influence in the overseas empire in fact where her work is unrivaled in its research and informative in its interpretations.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Fozdar, Fahid. Builders of Empire: Freemasons and British Imperialism, 1717-1927 (review) Journal of Colonialism and Colonial History - Volume 8, Number 3, Winter 2007

The Johns Hopkins University Press

Vahid Fozdar | Journal of Colonialism and Colonial History Vahid Fozdar on Jessica L. Harland-Jacobs Journal of Colonialism and Colonial History | 2008 Vahid Fozdar Builders of Empire: Freemasons and British Imperialism, 1717-1927. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2007.

Jessica Harland Jacobs' Builders of Empire explores the reciprocal relationship between British imperialism and the institution of Freemasonry over two centuries. She argues that eighteenth-century Freemasonry's transformation from a cosmopolitan and politically inclusive institution into a loyalist, Protestant, white, middle-class fraternity had, by the early nineteenth century, made it a fit instrument and key bulwark of British imperialism. In turn, the imperial government, through officials and royal family members who were Masons, helped protect and extend the Masonic network throughout the empire.

-------------------------------------

Rowan Berkeley
Builders of Empire: Freemasons and British Imperialism, 1717-1927 (review)

If you want to understand — if you think you can bear to understand — the hypocrisy of liberal, Anglo-American imperialism, I think there is no better way of doing it than studying the history of Freemasonry, (and to a slightly lesser extent, the history of post-1688 ‘Glorious Revolution’ Anglicanism). Freemasonry, in its Anglo-American form, is the absolute quintessential representation of liberal hypocrisy, in every single respect: religiously, racially, sexually, geopolitically, culturally, and intellectually. Its ability to deploy terms like “Freedom”, “Justice” and “Equality” quite unblushingly to mean whatever it wants them to mean is absolutely unrivalled. “Builders of Empire: Freemasonry and British Imperialism, 1717-1927″ by Jessica L Harland-Jacobs (Univ of N Carolina, Chapel Hill, 2007) makes this absolutely clear.

There are loose ends and errors in tangential subjects that may irk anyone familiar with early Freemasonry and politics in Britain: she does not in give enough attention to the other streams of Freemasonry, those not in accordance with the criteria of the Grand Lodge of England, French Freemasonry in particular. She minimises the extent to which non-English Freemasonry went its own, rather less hypocritical and more interesting way. She makes it clear that in practical terms North American Freemasonry has managed to be very closely allied with the English, in a sort of woolly ‘fraternal’ way. It has never, to put it the other way, been actually hostile to English Freemasonry. North American Freemasonry has been distinctly hostile to French and other continental European Freemasonries, and the various extra-European Freemasonries allied to them, have not accepted Anglo-American presumptions. To quote an interesting but regrettably brief passage from the book:

“Latin Masonry” was the term twentieth-century British Masons used to describe European Grand Lodges and their offshoots with which the English Grand Lodges had broken off communications in the late 1870s. The original cause of the rift was the decision on the part of the Grand Orient of France to admit atheists into the brotherhood in 1878. British Masons and their allies throughout the world had therefore refused to take part in various internationalist movements undertaken by the representatives of “Latin Masonry” in the 1890s and early 1900s. In 1919 the European Masons proposed the formation of a Masonic International Association. At the first congress, held in October 1921, representatives from most European grand lodges, as well as the Grand Lodge of New York and the Grand Orient of Turkey, met to discuss their common aims. The grand lodges of Britain, the empire, and the United States (except New York) refused to send representatives to the congress.

It is not altogether clear whether this dispute was ever really resolved, see here. An amusing footnote from the same book:

Recently returned from Africa in 1922 General Sir Reginald Wingate (governor general of the Sudan between 1899 and 1916, High Commissioner for Egypt from 1917 to 1919, District Grand Master of Egypt and Sudan from 1901 to 1920) noted the existence of many lodges that worked in Arabic and “various European languages.” Describing some of these lodges as “centres of sedition and even of revolution,” he happily reported that “British Freemasonry is entirely free of any such taint.” (Our emphasis.)

Wednesday, March 3rd, 2010

Related: Mystical Imperialism

Explanation of Some Terms and Expectations

2010-01-14T05:13:00.000-08:00

What does the term, Entered Apprentice (EA) mean?

Entered Apprentice refers to someone who has received the First Degree in Masonry. When builders had beginners who were learning their work they called them apprentices. Often these were young men of good reputation who were willing to listen and learn in the Lodges of builders and they were evaluated by the members. If the Entered Apprentice learns what he is required about Freemasonry, he will advance to the Degree of Fellowcraft. Entered Apprentices are expected to abide by the rules of Freemasonry, show caution and industriousness.

Where is a man first prepared to be made a Mason?

We say he is prepared in his heart, because becoming a Mason involves a commitment.

How are Entered Apprentices then prepared?

They are said to be duly and truly prepared. This phrase means wearing special garments furnished by the Lodge to emphasize our concern with the equality of all candidates.

What is a hoodwink?

It is a blindfold and a symbol of darkness denoting the fact that the candidate has not yet had the opportunity to learn the lessons of Freemasonry.

What is meant by the length of your cable tow?

A cable tow is a strong rope symbolizing our Masonic obligation to every Mason to every other Mason, given his reasonable ability to help or respond. It also is a symbol of the external restraints that are placed upon all of us during our lives.

Why does Masonry ask in whom a candidate puts his trust?

A fundamental principle of Freemasonry is a belief in God. It is necessary, in order to become a Mason, for each candidate to state that he puts his trust in a Supreme Being.

Why are Lodges dedicated to the Holy Saints John?

Because of the religious traditions in this country when Freemasonry was established in Virginia, Lodges are said to be dedicated to the Holy Saints John: Saint John the Baptist, representing morality, and Saint John the Evangelist, representing love and zeal.

What is the Masonic significance of the East, West, North and South?

The Worshipful Master, the presiding officer, sits is symbolically called the “East”. The sun rises in the East, and the East is symbolically a place of light and learning. The Senior Warden sits in the “West” and the Junior Warden in the “South.” No officer of the Lodge sits in the North, which symbolically a place of darkness

What is the purpose of an altar in the Lodge?

The altar with the Holy Bible is the place where candidates are brought to light. We place the Bible or other Holy Books in the center of the Lodge to symbolize that faith should be at the center of our lives. Square and the Compasses- The Square symbolizes morality and honesty. The Compasses symbolize self-restraint. Together they are called the Three Great Lights in Masonry.

What are the three Lesser Lights in Masonry?

They are the Sun, Moon, and Worshipful Master, and are represented by three lights placed in the East, West, and South around the altar (the North is Dark.) The Worshipful Master should rule and govern his Lodge as reliably and orderly as the Sun and Moon rule and govern the day and night.

What does a Lodge represent, and what is its form?

The Lodge is said to represent the world, which is checkered, (a struggle between) good and evil.

What is a Masonic obligation?

Obligation is another word for oath, affirmation, or promise. In the Masonic Degrees, candidates are asked if they will agree to be obligated to undertake certain duties such as helping their fellow Masons.

What are the physical penalties included in the Masonic obligations?

Masons to show how serious they are when we swear to do certain things, people state that if they do not keep their promise, they hope they will die or suffer certain penalties.

What is the purpose of the Masonic apron?

The Masonic apron symbolically points to man’s physical and spiritual nature. Historically, builders’ apprentices wore aprons to protect their clothing. Masons today wear their aprons to symbolize the fact that they are trying to protect their characters and improve themselves. The white color of the apron symbolizes purity of character for which we should strive.

What is the Rite of Destitution?

When candidates are brought into the Lodge, they are asked to remove all metals on their person. It teaches Masons that they should not bring anything into the Lodge which might disturb peace and harmony, and that we are all viewed as equal brothers.

What are the Working Tools of an Entered Apprentice?

The Working Tools are the 24-inch Gauge and Common Gavel. In Freemasonry the 24-inch Gauge is to teach us to use the hours of the day for important purposes. The Gavel is to smooth out the rough edges of our character.

What are the requirements to be an Entered Apprentice?

A man must come to Freemasonry of his own free will and accord. This means that he has not been coerced to join, and wants to be a Mason to better his own character.

What does it mean to say that Masons are Brothers?

Freemasonry teaches that there is a special bond between Masons, brought about by our shared experiences with Masonic ritual and teachings and by certain obligations we have accepted to help and support each other, and to try to do everything we can to assist our Brother Masons. We try not to become angry with another Mason, but if we do, we go out of our way to resolve our differences. We should never harm a Brother and always seek to treat our Brethren exactly as we would want them to treat us.

How do you know when to rise and when to be seated in a Lodge?

When the Worshipful Master raps his gavel once, this rap indicates that all the Brethren should come to order. When he raps twice, the officers (and only the officers) rise. When he raps three times all the Brethren stand. When all are standing and the Worshipful Master raps once, everyone is seated. If the Worshipful Master addresses a member of the Lodge by name, he should stand, salute the Worshipful Master with his right hand below his heart and listen. You are encouraged to speak. When you wish to, wait for an appropriate pause and rise while saluting the Worshipful Master, and speak. If you need to leave the Lodge before it is closed, do the same (you may do this by a subtle gesture when needing to go to the restroom or if you have previously made the Worshipful Master aware.)

Can a Mason enter a Lodge meeting after it has begun?

Yes. Identify yourself to the Tiler outside the door and prove that you are a Mason in the manner in which you were taught. Wait until the Tiler has informed the Lodge and has been instructed to admit you. When you enter the Lodge, approach the altar, salute the Worshipful Master, and then follow his instructions. Most Lodges operate at the Third Degree so be prepared to wait if you are an Entered Apprentice or Fellow Craft.

Are there subjects that cannot be discussed in Lodges?

Religion and politics are frowned subjects in the Lodges unless it is part of a philosophical or historical program. Business discussions are also best discussed outside of the lodge room itself unless it is part of the Lodge program. As a matter of good taste one ought to be very cautious about pursuing divisive subjects around lodge meetings. These two subjects can cause disputes and disharmony. One of the main points of Freemasonry is to provide an oasis from the discord and divisiveness of the world, where men can come together and enjoy each other’s company in peace.

Masons are encouraged to do business with each other on the principles of fair dealing and mutual assistance. Masons are also strongly encouraged to take part in political life and religious life. So relationships with Masons outside of the Lodges may often include political and religious considerations and business involvement but it is important that you heed the first word you heard when you came into the Lodge to become a Mason- CAUTION.

Traditional Observance, European Concept, Affinity

2009-11-09T01:00:00.000-08:00

Going in circles? "If we examine where Freemasonry is at the moment, to put it bluntly, we are engaged in initiating ever more men into the craft and conferring second and third degrees on them, so that they shall in their turn confer more degrees to a new lot and be Appointed To Offices on to the Masters Chair. To what end? Is it too much to ask 'what advancement'?" -Julian Rees PGM

"What will keep them? More mindless, boring meetings? Only good will and respect keeps many brothers from walking out and it is often not enough to keep them coming back. Lodge meetings are essentially ritualized business meetings but too often there is little business being accomplished. The Master of the Lodge opens and closes in Long Form because without that tedious recital nothing would occur. This is Freemasonry in name only." - James Garland PGM

A struggling lodge is an opportunity and a rare one when there is leadership available. When a Lodge is pared down of excess it is an opportunity to bring in best practices and to look for a new path with new blood while giving committed brothers the chance help set things aright. Far too many lodges just fold up their tent or consolidate with another struggling lodge only for that lodge to do the same in another five or ten years. Many potentially good or worthwhile members are likely to see the handwriting on the wall and get out. The answers for a lodge's problems are most often to be found internally not externally. -George Brat, PGM

Old and New Concepts Give Lodges Direction

European Concept

European Concept lodges infuse themselves with the Continental European system of candidate education, i.e., discussions, essays and reading on the philosophy and history of Masonry. "Short form" language is often used by the Master in non-degree meetings to get to the heart of the Masonic program, i.e., discussions and presentations. There is focus on convivial activities outside of lodge such as meals and mixers as well as events with guests and speakers.

European Concept lodges were pioneered in the 1990s both in the United States and Australia. These lodges differ by means of stricter dress code, and formal festive boards. The term "European Concep t" is regrettable, as this format exists all over the world, and it is not terribly unlike the Masonry found in the early days in America.

European Concept (EC) lodges offers its members an opportunity to partake in a thoughtful approach to ritual and emphasis on sociability that can hardly be found anywhere else today. The lodges maintain a dignified and intellectually engaging atmosphere, where the members can study the lessons of Freemasonry and learn to enact them in their daily lives.

Many EC lodges prefer to be selective in their encouragement of visitors (while adhering to the Masonic "open door policy") to maintain and enjoy the particular atmosphere of these lodges. EC lodges are often involved in social activities in conjunction with organizations organizations other than the blue lodge.

In New York state, the Independent Royal Arch #2 is a notable example of a EC lodge though its character as such is a result of history rather than adaptation. Humanitas #1123 is another example of an EC lodge.

Traditional Observance

Traditional Observance (TO) lodges generally follow the established ritual of their Grand Lodge, with some ceremonial additions, so far as they may be allowed by their Grand Lodge.

TO lodges begin with the North American Masonic lodge model and enrich it with traditional initiatic elements practiced in Continental Freemasonry.

Traditional Observance Masonry is characterized by: 1) a solemn approach to holding stated communications and conferring degrees, 2) the use of the Chamber of Reflection as part of the initiation ceremony, 3) and demanding candidate advancement requirements that reflect an internal consideration of the ritual and Masonic tenets.

Traditional Observance lodges have an emphasis on the initiatic process. TO lodges regard the degrees as a transformative process of personal reflection and consideration of how one can engage in self improvement in a community dedicated to that aim.

As "best model" lodges, TO lodges encourage visiting masons though they may be selective in doing so. TO lodges may be less apt to have social functions with external organizations.

St. Johns # 1 is an example in New York, and it has recently officially applied to be such.

Affinity lodges,

Affinity lodges, where men of like interests can gather within the Masonic order, stress brotherhood and familiarity both inside and outside of the lodge. Affinity lodges (AL) may include discussions of topics of interest particular to the Masons involved both in the lodge.

These lodges have been better than most at adapting technology and other means to draw brethren together. Brothers often share information to an extent that may be absent elsewhere, particularly regarding the thematic interest of the lodge and the benefit of the brothers.

It is typical that Affinity lodges will visit other lodges fairly often as a group. This may be owing to the traditions of military or "traveling lodges" that many of these lodges adapted.

In many of these lodges there is a particular choice in clothing or adornment among the officers and even the general group (such as Scottish kilts.)

It is the habit of Affinity lodges to hold social functions and outings with external organizations whether it be organizations that share a thematic interest, entertainment or for the promotion of the welfare of its members and charitable causes.

One thing Affinity Lodges share with European Concept and Traditional Observances lodges (which may both be described rightly as "affinity lodges") are emphasis on relationships and personal familiarity with the brothers within the lodge.

Affinity lodges may feature more active festive boards, emphasize communication and relationships outside of the lodge; they may restrict size of membership and emphasize on individual contribution to discourse. Like EC and TO lodges, convivial activities outside of lodge such as meals and mixers as well as events with guests and speakers are encouraged.

Many lodges that are not Affinity lodges formally or historically have the character of Affinity lodges. These lodges informally gather people who share interests or background. Brothers bring new brothers whom they work with, know from school, church, etc. The core group provides a natural basis for recruitment and familiarity. By having several groups sharing core interests, these informal affinity lodges do not become claustrophobic and isolated.

Traditionally many Affinity lodges embrace the Grand Master's Classes ("One Day Classes") as the Grand Master's Classes go back in history to old university and military affiliated lodges. Conversely, these same Masons are more active in performing the drama of the degrees later as Master Masons due to the more elaborate staging utilized in the Grand Master Class.

Affinity Lodge candidates are usually much better informed than the average candidate. Affinity lodge candidates are often already familiar with the brothers, Masonic ritual (it is all public today). And thus the Affinity lodge candidate has contemplated his decision and is whole heartedly committed.

Many Affinity lodge members are drawn by the familiarity and community with the brethren rather than the locale. (Old school, university, workplace or cultural lodges for example often have members far and wide.) Thus the Grand Masters Classes have a particularly useful function for him. Affinity lodges using the Grand Masters Classes have better brother retention than those who give degrees separately or in Grand Masters Classes in non-affinity lodges.

The Affinity lodge is also, notably accompanied by Affinity Masonic Clubs. These clubs often form the basis of unusually successful Convivial Calendar (with dinners, mixers, cocktail parties, nights out, family nights, business networking, job boards, discussion groups and internet forums. In many circumstances several Affinity lodges of similar nature may be active in a single Masonic club.

The willingness of these Affinity lodges to extend their involvement with Brothers outside of the lodge room is an obvious cause for their incredible success.

Affinity lodges have boomed and are currently the only area in Freemasonry that may be said to be in such a condition. Affinity lodges have been around continuously, from the days of military and philosophical lodges. Indeed Freemasonry as a Speculative Art was something of an affinity lodge among the working craft masons. Some of the oldest and most prestigious lodges are affinity lodges, such as Ars Quatuor Coronatorum and the Harvard Lodge.

In America there is a strong history for example of cultural lodges, community and professional lodges. Half the lodges in the London metropolitan area are now affinity lodges. There are an abundance of Affinity lodges in New York- Kane, Daylight, Publicity, Holland, Scotia, to name just a few.

Are there drawbacks with the Traditional Observance, European Concept and Affinity approach? Perhaps. They tend to be a drop of water on a thirsty plain, and thus quickly become much more exclusive and expensive for new members. Without growth of these approaches, there may be a justifiable fear that the popularity of TO, EC and Affinity lodges can polarize lodges between these successful lodges and those that struggle.

Lodges that that do not encourage healthy fraternal relationships outside the Lodge become less charitable and the Masons less engaged.

---------------------------

WHEN THE WAYS OF OUR LODGES DO NOT WORK IT IS TIME FOR A CHANGE. LET US BRING GOOD IDEAS TO OUR LODGES AND APPLY THEM SO THAT WE MAY SAVE AND REJUVENATE RATHER THAN CLOSE THEM.

Where I Was First Made a Mason

2009-10-14T01:29:00.000-07:00

Where I Was First Made a Mason:
A Lodge-based Approach

By D.J., J.S.&P.M.

What We Can Accomplish

This is not a critical review of problems. This is about solutions. This is not about dwelling on the status quo. This is thinking about what we can become. This is not about abolishing our time honored traditions but creating a vision for the future of our lodge.

We know what we came here to do - improve ourselves amongst a family of Brothers. We know we can do more to improve ourselves as Masons and men- together, both within and without the Lodge.

We know that as good men, we are supposed to assist each other to become better in all aspects of our lives and support each other in our pursuits.

Brotherhood, a Family

The lodge itself is supposed to operate as a family. In our effort to be more efficient we may try to run Masonry and our Lodge in a business-like manner, which can be good. But we cannot forget that Masonry is a family that conducts its business for the benefit of its members.

The heart of Masonry is not in the fancy lodge rooms; (for the first 100 years Masons met in bars and taverns.) The heart of masonry is in each individual Brother of our lodge. As such, it is not enough simply to meet but we must meet in a meaningful and productive way. We must attend to needs of members and develop a brotherhood among those who really want to act as family.

Without doing this it is difficult for the members to become close to each other, to prosper in their individual pursuits or to maintain a productive lodge. Knowing each other means more than simply knowing each other’s name. We must become familiar in the way that is consistent with being a family. We must know who we are, where we are from, what businesses we are in, what are our goals, our needs, our aspirations, our perspectives; what each of us are all about.

We must take the steps to build Masonic bonds that have employed historically and adopt some of the approaches. We will likely find that there are ideas outside of what has been done in the past that will yield results towards our time honored goal of making each other better, more successful men.

Starting with the Basic Tenets and Lessons

We are all aware of the basic tenets and symbols of Masonry. Let them guide us in our search for direction in what we want to accomplish. This is practical symbolism and must be widely interpreted as lessons to instruct us on how to fulfill our duties in our basic Masonic community - our lodge. These lessons must not be relegated mere ceremony. We must incorporate them in our every day lives.

Take for comparison the parishioner who attends services in extravagant dress, always seated prominently in the front row; conspicuously reciting each verse and hymn with meticulous precision. If his service to God begins and ends within the walls of the church; if he carries out his life in extravagance and waste; what has he gained from all of his show? What has he lost?

I know we agree that Masonry is not simply about putting on a ritual show but about acting on the lessons.

Applying the Symbols in Our Daily Lives:

The Square and Compass instructs brothers in their dealings with each other to deal squarely and on the level- and urges that we deal with each other in everyday life.

The Plumb teaches us to be upright and unbowed and to be sure that our brother is upright and unbowed. We should be actively involved in assisting our brothers in living a respectable life, neither in disregard or distress. We should help each other stand up to the difficulties of life and to get ahead.

The Cable Tow says that we are tied together through our Lodge family. It is the symbol of our obligation to always be there for each other, a tie that extends outside of a lodge. The length of a cable tow is said to be to the limit of our abilities.

Trowel & Mortar represents the Mason that spreads the mortar of Brotherly love which holds our Lodge together. Brotherly love is not just a flowery phrase. It is the steadfast love and concern one has for a brother that overcomes frustration and disappointment or any negative feelings one may have in passing.

The Beehive symbolizes the bees' proper social order we should mimic- bringing together productive, industrious individuals in a cooperative manner. We are taught to be prosperous and cooperative as individuals for our collective well being.

Skull and Crossbones, Tomb and the Sprig of Acacia: We are symbolically reborn to a family based on these principles. It also reminds us that we are part of a continuum- and that we should always want more and better for those who come after us and better men than us to occupy our lodge in the future.

The Token and Five Points of Fellowship reminds us we should always remember to give a hand and offer a prayer, offer words of advice, encouragement and recommendation, hold a secret in our breast, and to walk any distance necessary to help a brother. It also reminds us of charity in our hearts. Charity is a virtue in our dealings with each other,- and not a business expense or perfunctory act like paying taxes.

Rough Ashlar and the Perfect Ashlar refer to working cooperatively to make each one of us better. The Ashlars are also admonitions to the Lodge: we have to refine our membership, through education and selection. Selection is where it all starts. Let us accept people who are interested in our brotherhood and worthy of the same. Let us accept those who will grow with Masonry. We can’t let superfluous words be all we have to offer each other and our prospective members. We must to be able to offer a Lodge with well chosen men willing to do the hard work to make each other better.

Putting Our Challenges in Context

In New York lodges there are only a fraction of the names on the membership rolls than there once were and most no longer associate with the Craft.

Membership was at its height in the 1920's through the 1950's. It declined through the 1960’s and 70’s with the cultural upheavals of that era, and again with the “me generation” of the 1980’s. Most of today’s lodges are empty and graying even as the U.S. population has doubled from the time that Freemasonry was first at its zenith. Masonry itself has changed.

In former times Lodges were community-based. Lodges were strong enough to be beneficial to their membership and their communities. There were Masonic Supper Clubs, Square and Compass Clubs, and importantly, the Masonic Employment Bureau. Large groups of friends would join together, cementing their bonds in Masonic rituals and structure.

Masonic learning was stressed and it was an honor to be a Mason, especially at a Lodge where men took their Masonic commitment seriously. Masons were the leaders of their communities, the doers and the thinkers, the people involved and the people that communities relied upon. Some lodges had brothers from all backgrounds who did every job under the sun while others were based around school ties, neighborhoods, ethnic communities and work. What mattered was that they were men who were resourceful and committed.

Becoming a Mason (especially in the best functioning lodges) could be one of the more difficult things to attain in life. Much of this has declined for various reasons. It is time to revitalize these efforts where they benefit our lodges.

Applying the Tools

Now we have more tools and technology. Nevertheless we are doing less to build our bonds with the group. Worse, we have thrown the doors open to men who interested in the trappings but not our community and our work. When new members arrive, it is doubtful that things will be explained and opportunities provided to become involved. Further, we have closed the doors to many qualified, capable, informed men because of petty politics, and had others leave because they felt they were not getting what was advertised (a chance to join a family, improve themselves and to assist in the betterment of each member of their new family.)

Many lodges have suffered as a result. This is a self reinforcing cycle. Left unchecked, the behaviors described above make Masonry increasingly less desirable to prospective members and it is increasingly difficult to maintain the current membership or for the lodge to fulfill its obligations to its members.

Practical Masonic Solutions

In order for our lodge to survive, we must refocus our attention towards putting our Masonic tools to work and refining our membership. This begins with getting our members involved in projects to improve the lodge. It may turn out that some members may not return to the Lodge. Others may find that all of the hard work does not suit them.

As we bring in a new generation, our new members will be more energetic, more ambitious and more willing to learn from experienced Masons. We should increase our efforts to bring in students and young professionals, solid men who have something to offer others and are willing to offer it. We want candidates who have relationships with someone in our lodge. We should feel confident a candidate will grow with Masonry and make the lodge better. In short we want worthy, well qualified Masons.

As we begin to cultivate membership, new members will be naturally attracted by what we have to offer; not by superfluous words but by a demonstrated willingness to do the hard work to make each other better.

Specifically, the following must be implemented in some form to ensure the future of our lodge:

We have to offer real Brotherhood in the Lodge and real opportunities to become better and to aid each other in times of need.
Re-institute regular socializing, i.e. meet-ups for dinner and drinks.
Utilize technology- Masonic web forums, electronic job boards and a resume bank, and listings of businesses and services, bios, email and contact information, quarterly or annual updates on what is happening with our members. That way we do not limit things just to those who can make the social dinners or drinks, and we can even stay in touch with people have geographically left the lodge and might otherwise consider demitting.
Fund-raisers that can help offset the need for rising dues while prompting people to become involved.
Informal trips to fish, play golf or whatever people are interested in so that we can get to know each other better on a personal basis, as befitting friends and brothers.
Meet new prospects in “Brother Bring a friend” nights and reach out to recommended and qualified new men.
Hold stringent “Proficiencies” between degrees to ensure a commitment to the learning of Masonic values.
Offer Brothers the option of remitting their Lodge dues in-lodge electronically to decrease non-payment among active Brethren.

These are just a few of the steps that we could take. I know many of us are willing to work to implement these changes and we look forward to your leadership. To be a brotherhood we must make an effort to know each other and we absolutely must have a vision for the future of our lodges.

________________________________________

54,000 in New York, down from a high of around 345,000 in 1930. There were around 310,000 in 1960 before beginning a long slide. The average age of a Freemason in 2004 was 64.02. Well over half of Masons in America are no longer active in lodge Freemasonry.

Masonry Builds Capital for its Members

2009-10-13T21:36:00.000-07:00

MASONRY BUILDS CAPITAL FOR ITS MEMBERS

A great many Masons have been leaders and contributors to their community in ways large and small. While it is true that there are far more Masons whose names would rouse no recognition except among their close family and friends, the list of famous Masons reads as a list of the most influential and productive (as well as famous and successful) people of the past three centuries.

The misunderstanding is that Masons have operated as some sinister, plotting society. The list of well known Masons that accomplished good is far longer than that of infamous Masons. This point does not requires proof here nor is relevant to this article. The point is why have Masons been this successful. There are many answers, but one may be rooted in sociological understanding of "soft capital".

Masons have been successful in develop the habits and perspectives that expose them to opportunity. It is a dynamic which Masons themselves seldom appreciate.

Masons by their participation in the Craft, increase their external social networks. In the practice of the Craft they learn to deal with each other in a cooperative and acceptable way that increases amity among each other. They also value and earn symbolic prestige (or symbolic capital) that is a gateway to real resources. All of these things are necessary for success and they are often termed by sociologist as "soft capital".

Sociologist often explain the concept of soft capital accumulation as such:

1. First, accept the kinship of their inner circle. Just as in families that requires privacy, trust, commonality and mutual high-prioritization placed upon the well being of a group over the long term. That comes from both introduction based upon commonality and a process of culturalization and purchase. It also comes from understanding and embracing a way of life. Optimally this way of life should encompass the ideology of mutual benefit, and of a particular social order.

2. Secondly they increase their cultural capital. Cultural capital (like all capital) is exclusionary by definition. It means discovering information, habits and approaches that are most effective and acceptable by their peers. The lack of cultural capital is a barrier, and this barrier prevents people from rising in the class and economic structure and thus gaining greater opportunity.

3. Then there are the relationships of social networks, known as social capital. That is the process of building relationships. There is limited trust and a high level of competition wherever social capital is most profitable. (Externalizing class lines allows each Mason to build social capital in a way that a competitive economic and social structure seldom permits.)

4. Sociologist have more recently expanded the notion of soft capital to include symbolic capital. When someone rises in any structure to offer leadership and service it connotes merit. And that is why of course, altruistic and/or ambitious people try to get into the best [insert institution or group] and then become officers and leaders. It opens the doors inclusion for some while excluding others who have a different set of connections and experiences. (Masonry instead encourages both the honorable status of all its members and has a number of positions to be fulfilled to maintain the function of the organization.)

Being productive by having more people work on together benefits everyone. And Masons develop the confidence and mindset of institution joining and building as a matter of course. And institution building is a matter of soft capital more than hard capital (i.e. currency.) And soft capital is often a prerequisite for acquiring tangible forms of capital as well.

It's About Time

2009-06-23T16:03:00.000-07:00

Click here for "It's About Time" (An Essay)

Excerpts from a noted PGM's on Improving the Craft ( Intro and 4 Parts)

2009-03-24T03:42:00.000-07:00

Introduction: Excerpts from Dwight Smith, PGM

"Wither Are We Traveling"

We are looking at the symptoms – not the disease. The real source of the trouble is within ourselves.

Such problems as we may have will not be solved by forcing men to memorize a set of questions and answers, nor by cramming books and lectures down their throats… nor by devoting our energies and resources to other organizations or movements, however worthy they may be.

The cure isn’t that simple, either. The patient’s indisposition will not be relieved by nostrums. The treatment, too, must come from within.

Part I Self Examination

Part II Light from the East

Part III Squaring Our Work
Part IV Charity at Home

PART I: SELF EXAMINATION

Answer honestly! Can we expect Freemasonry to retain its past glory and prestige unless the level of leadership and quality of membership is raised above its present position? Let us look to see that we have the material necessary to build and maintain a good lodge.

1. Good leadership, full stop. On many an occasion in the past 14 years, Masters and Secretaries have come into my office to ask my advice on what to do about lagging interest. Again and again I have said, “There is nothing wrong with your Lodge, nor with Freemasonry, that good leadership will not cure.” I believe that.

2. How well are we guarding the West Gate? We are permitting too many to pass who can offer the fee and little else. On every hand I hear the same whispered complaint, “We used to be getting petitions for the degrees from the good, substantial leaders in the community. Now we are getting. . . .” Just what it is they are getting, you know as well as I.

3. Has Freemasonry become too easy to obtain? The Lodge demands little and gets little. It expects loyalty, but does almost nothing to put a claim on a man’s loyalty. When we ourselves place a cheap value on Masonic membership,how can we expect petitioners and new members to prize it?

PART II: LIGHT FROM THE EAST

A teacher in the public schools of a neighboring State cherished a long-standing desire to become a Master Mason. His petition to the Lodge in which he resided was accepted. He presented himself for the Entered Apprentice degree, but never returned. The Brethren of the Lodge concluded, I am sure, that they had made a mistake in electing that Entered Apprentice because of his apparent lack of interest.

But it was not lack of interest that caused him to go out of the door, never to return. It was disappointment and disillusionment. The performance of the Master of that Lodge was such that it constituted an insult to the candidate’s intelligence. Because the head of the Masonic Fraternity in that community was careless and crude, because he was attempting to do something for which he was not prepared, because he was trying to give “good and wholesome instruction” on subjects he knew nothing about, a good man was lost to Freemasonry.

On first hearing, that story made a profound impression upon me. The more I have thought about it, the more I am convinced that the Number One responsibility for any tapering off of membership, any lack of interest and attendance, rests squarely upon the shoulders of our Lodge leadership.

Yes, I know the subject is a touchy one. But in introducing it, I am only putting into print what has been whispered in the corridors these last ten years.

Take a long and thoughtful look at the names of the men who served our Lodge as Master 100 years ago – or even 50 years ago. Consider the positions of importance those men occupied in their respective communities. Then let us ask ourselves whether our present day leadership is in the same league.

One unforgettable Lodge meeting stands out in my mind. ALodge was having trouble maintaining interest; membership was dropping; it had called for help. When the hour came for the meeting to begin, there had been no preparation. I sat around waiting for Lodge to be opened; sat around while the candidates were being prepared; sat around while a Warden tried to enlist a craft, actually calling for volunteers, wheedling, cajoling; sat around while the Master, asked those on the sidelines to say a few words. There was no business to cover and no agenda which means the meeting has no reason. So in short, I sat around. What was there in that meeting that would make anyone want to come again?

Looking back on some of the meetings the year I was Master, it is a wonder to me the Lodge held together. Many of my meetings were such a first class bore that I would do almost anything to avoid getting trapped in such gatherings today. We want our Lodges to regain the position they once occupied in the interest and loyalties of men, we had better gain a proper perspective; we had better sort things out in the order of their importance. To open the discussion, permit me to make four pertinent observations:

1. We must pay more attention to proficiency in the East. We make a great to-do over proficiency of candidates. We want to devise some method whereby new Master Masons may be forced to memorize a set of questions and answers rather than demonstrate an understanding of the degree. But we do little or nothing to insure proficiency where it really counts. A Master is expected to be Master of his Lodge. Theoretically, he “sets the Craft to work and gives them good and wholesome instruction.” Yet what do we require for election as Master? (Continued after Picture)

2. There is far more to being Master of a Lodge than the mere recitation of a ritual. We are paying the penalty of years of “mass production” practices, and a bitter penalty it is. When Masters of Lodges are so lacking in imagination and vision that they cannot conceive of a Masonic meeting unless a degree is conferred, then we need not expect a revival of interest and attendance and we need not look for an upswing of membership short of war. I would a thousand times rather see as Master of a Lodge a man who can provide real leadership, a man who can give “good and wholesome instruction,” a man who comprehends what Freemasonry is all about, even if he cannot confer a single degree. Suppose he can not recite the ritual. So what? There always are those who are eager and willing to do ritualistic work, but there are precious few who can provide inspired leadership.

3. It is high time we start looking about for the best possible leadership and enlisting the support of men who can lead. But instead, we consider only those who come to Lodge, those who stick it out in the endurance contest. We “start in line” the man who is on hand whenever the door is opened regardless of whether he has even the most elementary qualities of leadership. If the practice of automatic ladder promotion of officers must be discarded in order to obtain the kind of leadership we should have, then by all means let us discard the foolish custom. There is nothing in the winning of an endurance contest, in itself, that qualifies a man to be Master of his Lodge.

4. If the so-called “line” of officers must be shortened to enable men of ability to serve their Lodges without years in minor offices, then what are we waiting for? Why not shorten the line? Is not good leadership for one year more important than keeping a seat warm for five?

5. If Freemasonry is to command respect in the community, then the man who wears the Master’s hat must be one who can command respect. The young teacher who did not return for advancement because his entire conception of Freemasonry was colored by what he saw and heard in the East. The Master of a Lodge is the symbol of Freemasonry in his community. If he is not a man upon whom intelligent people may look with admiration, then we need not expect to reap a harvest of petitions from intelligent men. Make no mistake. Men judge Freemasonry by what they see wearing Masonic emblems.

PART III: SQUARING OUR WORK, PLANS FOR IMPROVEMENT

Look it in the face: too few Lodges, with those Lodges we do have much too large. Instead of devoting our thoughts and energies to ways whereby a new Master Mason may find a sphere of activity within his Lodge, we let him get lost in the shuffle. Then we nag and harangue at him because he does not come to meetings to wander around with nothing to do. We are hard at work to make each Lodge so large that it becomes an impersonal aggregation of strangers – a closed corporation.

1. Has the American passion for bigness and efficiency dulled the spirit of Masonic charity? The “Box of Fraternal Assistance” which once occupied the central position in every Lodge room has been replaced by an annual per capita tax. That benevolence which for ages was one of the sweetest by-products of the teaching of our gentle Craft has, I fear, ceased to be a gift from the heart and has become the writing of a check. And unless the personal element is there, clarity becomes as sounding brass and tinkling cymbal.

2. Do we pay enough attention to the Festive Board? Should any reader have to ask what the Festive Board is, that in itself will serve to show how far we have strayed from the traditional path of Freemasonry. Certainly the Festive Board is not the wolfing of ham sandwiches, pie and coffee at the conclusion of a degree. It is the Hour of Refreshment in all its beauty and dignity; an occasion for inspiration and fellowship; a time when the noble old traditions of the Craft are preserved.

3. What has become of that “course of moral instruction, veiled in allegory and illustrated by symbols,” that Freemasonry is supposed to be? If it is a course of instruction, then there should be teachers, and if ours is a progressive science, then the teaching of a Master Mason should not end when he is raised. I am not talking about dry, professorial lectures or sermons – heavens no! That is the kind of thing that makes Masonic education an anathema. I am speaking of the conversation among Masons who have taken time to review Masonic literature and look into themselves to see how they might humbly improve themselves.

4. Hasn’t the so-called Century of the Common Man contributed to making our Fraternity a little too common? We can not expect to retain the prestige the Craft has enjoyed in the past if we continue without challenge to permit this.

Part IV CHARITY AT HOME: The Most Masonic Virtue

Ask the average Mason what has happened to Masonic charity and he will rattle off an impressive list of organized, institutional projects of a benevolent nature. He will tell you that there is a Masonic Home, hospitals for crippled children, research programs for mental illnesses, prevention of blindness, muscular dystrophy. If he is well informed he will tell you about a visitation program in Veterans’ Hospitals.

Pin him down and ask him what his Lodge does in the way of benevolence in the Craft. He may tell you that a portion of each member’s dues goes to help operate the Masonic Home; that sometimes a goodly sum is collected in voluntary contributions for the Home; . . . and besides, the dues of several hard-pressed Brother were remitted several years ago.

Then nail him to the mast and ask him, “How long has it been since you went on foot and out of your way to deliver aid and succor a Brother and his family, or worked to improving his situation? When is the last time that you personally acted to improve the community around and the life of the people in it through direct action with no fanfare?”

1. Brethren wanting to gain approval among the purple line working overtime to make Freemasonry another big charity? It was an unhappy day when some eager beaver conceived the idea that our Craft should adopt the methods of the service club, (adopting some part of the human anatomy subject to misfortune and calling for funds to be placed to some outside agency to benefit it.) What of the personal charity and assistance of Mason to Mason within our lodges?

2. What has happened to Masonic Charity? Time was when it was one of the most commendable teachings of our gentle Craft. It was not accompanied by any fanfare but the community knew about these acts of Masons all the same, and the prestige of Freemasonry reflected that knowledge. Why, then, do we neglect that phase of our Masonic life that can have the most gratifying results? What has happened? We don’t want to be bothered by anything that will require more time and effort than the writing of a check.

LOOK AT THINGS A DIFFERENT WAY.

The Stone the Builders Rejected

2008-10-24T13:33:00.000-07:00

A host of symbolic references in masonic terms are to be found in the Scriptures, of which many such as the following are very well known.

During a visit to Bethel about thirty years before the fall of Israel around 745BC, that event is prophesied in Amos 7, v. 7-9, when the Lord measured his people Israel with a plumb line and found them to be irremediably warped by sin.

In the reign of Manasseh, the murderous and idolatrous king who ruled from 696BC to 642BC, the captivity of Judah by Babylon around 606BC is foretold in II Kings, Ch. 21, v. 13, when the Lord said he would "stretch over Jerusalem the measuring line of Samaria and the plummet of the house of Ahab".

In Isaiah 28, v. 16, the coming of Christ is foreshadowed in the words "Behold I am laying... a foundation a stone, a tested stone, a precious corner stone, of a sure foundation." This prophesy is referred to in I Peter 2, v. 6-8 around 60AD, when the death of Christ is alluded to: "The very stone which those builders rejected has become the head of the corner, a stone that will make those people stumble, a rock that will make them fall".