'If Masonry were perfect, what would we have left to do?'

Earlier this week I was talking on the phone with my friend and brother Don Tansey, publisher of the excellent Masonic blog Movable Jewel. We were discussing the current state of the comments section of The Burning Taper, where a "non-civil war" continues to rage between Masons from different jurisdictions, arguing about what I, at least, generally consider petty differences, but what they seem to think of as massive walls and gulfs between them.

I asked Bro. Don to write a guest editorial about the meaning of harmony within Freemasonry, using as a springboard the extreme non-harmony we've seen in the comments section of several articles on The Taper lately. Bro. Don's non-participation in commenting on various Taper articles has been noticed, and his often wise input has been missed. He told me that while he has continued to read the articles, he did not want to be caught up in the negativity of the comments section in recent months.

After receiving Bro. Don's excellent editorial below, I asked several other Masonic bloggers if they would also submit editorials of their own, with the suggested topic of "Masonic harmony, unity and discord."

This begins a series of guest editorials from Masonic bloggers, posted here in the order they are sent to me.

My thanks to my Masonic blogging brothers for their input and assistance, and for their continued contributions to Freemasonry with their own blogs.

— W.S.

---

If Masonry were Perfect, What Would We have Left to Do?
by Bro. Don Tansey

The following editorial does not reflect the official position of the Most Worshipful Grand Lodge of the State of Connecticut or any other Masonic body. They are the opinions of an individual Brother.

When the Widow's Son suggested that I write a guest editorial about not reading or participating here for The Burning Taper, I agreed with some trepidation. After all, with the recent activity here, I believed I would be placing myself "in the line of fire," as it were.

Before going further, let me dispense with a few formalities first. For those who would discount my opinions because I usually use the nom de guerre "Traveling Man" I will give my real name and Lodge affiliation. My name is Don Tansey and my Mother Lodge is St. John's Lodge #2 A.F.& A.M. in the Grand Jurisdiction of Connecticut. I am also a Research Member and the Senior Warden of The Philosophic Lodge of Research and a member of the Grand Lodge Committee For Masonic Education in the same jurisdiction.

I generally post under a pseudonym because I value my privacy. If anyone wishes to question why I place such a high value on my privacy, may I suggest doing a Google search on Rebecca Schaffer.

Upon reflection, I decided to write this piece because I really don't read much of this blog anymore. There has been more heat than light here recently, and while the articles published provide information I would have difficulty unearthing myself due to time and current familial constraints, the comments on these articles have left me cold.

Let me also state for the record that I refuse to be drawn into the various arguments that have occurred here. I prefer to take my cue from Marcus Aurelius:

From my tutor: not to be a Green or a Blue partisan at the races, or a supporter of the lightly armed or heavily armed gladiators at the Circus; endurance and frugality; to do one's own work and not be a busybody: not to welcome slanderous gossip.(1)

As for being a busybody, remember, I was invited to write this.

Some here have taken umbrage at the number of articles which highlight the misdeeds of Masons. They believe that this casts the Fraternity in a negative light.

There are others who cite these same misdeeds as evidence that the Fraternity as a whole, in all Grand Jurisdictions of the United States is, down to the very last Brother, corrupt and morally bankrupt.

To members of both of these groups, allow me to employ the words of Carl Claudy, (through the mouth of the Old Tiler):

"Yes, Masonry failed to make an impression on these men to suit you, even as Masonry has failed to make an impression on you to suit me!" snapped the Old Tiler. "That last remark you made was an unadulterated scandal! Does Masonry teach you to talk scandal? But never mind that! Let me dig a few weeds out of the scrubby, ill-tended, and unwatered garden you miscall your mind and see if we can't get it ready to grow one straight thought!

"I know Jones. He is a member of the city club, the country club, Dr. Parkin's church, and a luncheon club. Neither church nor luncheon club teach deception or foster lies. Both instruct in morality, one by precept, the other by practice. By what right do you blame Masonry for Jones' failure to tell the truth, any more than the church or the luncheon club? Is Jones' mother to blame because she didn't teach her boy never to tell a lie? How about his Sunday School teacher and his wife? Are they to blame? If not, why is Masonry to blame?

"Roberts has been accused of forgery. I don't know whether he is guilty or not. Williamson seems to have had some real justification for feeling enmity toward his doctor, although nothing justifies murder, of course. Burton may be a sinner or sinned against... I don't know. As for Larson, it will take more than your whispers of scandal to make me believe ill of a brother until I know something.

"But let us suppose Roberts a forger, Williamson a murderer, Burton a Don Juan. All these men grew up, went to school, got out in the world, joined clubs, societies, orders, became Masons, members of a church.... Why pick on Masonry as the failure when these men go wrong? Is it just? If the church of God can't keep a man straight how can Masonry be expected to?

"It is rankly unjust to blame Christ for the failures of those who profess to follow Him. Was it Christ's fault that Peter denied Him and Judas betrayed Him? Was it the fault of the religion they professed? Or was it the fault of the man, the character, the up-bringing, the times?

"Men fail, and fall, and rise and try again... or fall and stay in the mud. To those who rise Masonry has a helping hand to extend. To those who fail and stay fallen, she has charity. Not hers the fault that humanity is frail. She holds the torch; if they close their eyes to its radiance and refuse to see the narrow path that the torch illumines, will you blame the torch?

"Masonry does not fail men. Men fail Masonry. Masonry has the teachings, the thought, the ennobling influence, the example to set, the vision to show those who have eyes to see. If they close their hearts to the ennobling influence, will not profit by the example and shut their eyes to the vision, is that the fault of Masonry?

"You, my brother, have just talked scandal without proof; a whispered slander against the good name of a Mason. Has Masonry failed with you that it has not taught you tolerance, brotherly love, reticence, charity of thought? Or is the failure in you as it may be within these men you mention?"(2)

I submit to the readership of this blog that it is Masons who have failed, not Masonry. I further submit to the readership of this blog that Freemasonry is a human construct. As good, as venerable as it is — by the its very nature as a human construct it is imperfect and that to expect perfection from it flies in the face of reason. If Masonry were perfect, what work would there be for us to do?

I can envision the rebuttals already: "This blog publishes allegations! That contradicts what you wrote!"

Well, does this blog make those allegations or does it report the fact that allegations have been made? For any allegations that have been made, are there proven facts that refute them? If there are, by all means respond.

"But {insert name here} did/wrote/said {insert bone of contention here}!"

I would reply that if this is the case and you are completely consumed by the matter; you have allowed someone to fashion a prison cell for you that you have cheerfully entered, locked, and discarded the key for. Such a person, Mason or not, could hardly claim to be "free."

To quote another of my favorite works: "'Well, you asked for it,' I said. 'If your happiness depends upon what somebody else does, I guess you do have a problem.'"(3)

I imagine the reply to that would be, "But {insert name} did {insert action} to a Brother in {insert jurisdiction} and that can't be allowed to stand!" In such a case there are methods available to redress wrongs. There are also ways to employ those methods that do not depend on vitriol, bitterness, or ad hominem attacks disguised as biting sarcasm.

I can anticipate the reply that "I tried all the methods available to me and I still did not get justice! What about that?! WHAT ABOUT ME?!!!" I would say that there exist methods to seek justice that do not rely on base language and ad hominem attack. Public opinion can be courted in such a way as to win support and right a wrong. I have always believed that Truth armed with the dedication to see it made known can right almost any wrong.

I cannot imagine the high minded individuals we so often cite as role models resorting to long diatribes filled with invective that so often characterize the exchanges here. When I turn to the public utterances and writings of Mahatma Ghandi, Martin Luther King, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, George Washington, Frederick Douglas, Abraham Lincoln, John F. Kennedy and many others, I find examples of the English language used to stir emotion, motivate action, incite thought and cause one to stop and reflect. By and large I find little in the way of ad hominem attack or vulgarity. They stand in very sharp contrast to the material I find here.

I understand that as Masons, we are taught to control our passions — not eliminate them. But, I believe that impassioned debate should be characterized by both emotion and reason. I see no need for the level of debate to deteriorate into personal attack. Is it really to much to ask members of a supposedly civilized society to make the case for their point of view employing logic, a degree of passion that does not exceed the boundaries of polite society, and an adherence to fact?

Perhaps it is. I fully expect my words to be picked apart. It is characteristic of the times. In both the public and private arena there is the total commitment to being right. Not only to be right for one's self and maintain one's internal consistency; but to be right for all. I expect that debate over the issues that affect Freemasonry to be contested here and elsewhere as they have been. In short, I believe I will be either ignored or disparaged because so many are so firmly committed to being right. But, I can dream and hope that the dialogue in the on-line Masonic community will elevate itself to a higher plane. A level of discussion and debate that those characters in history that we admire would be proud to claim as originating from a Brother Mason, even if they wouldn't agree with it.

Recent postings here, for the most part, do not give me much cause for hope. If they continue as they have then I like so many storied aficionados of Playboy have said, will,"only read it for the articles."

References:

(1) The Meditations , Marcus Aurelius, Translated by G.M.A. Grube, Hackett Publishing Company, Indianapolis IN, p.3

(2) Old Tiler Talks, Carl H. Claudy

(3) Illusions: The Adventures of a Reluctant Messiah, Richard Bach, Dell, p.96

— Bro. Don Tansey

Masons | Don Tansey | Masonic Perfection | Freemasonry | Burning Taper | BurningTaper.com