Ancient charges in modern times

Long ago I noticed that many Christians like to pick and choose Bible verses to support pet theories about how things should be.

For example, Exodus 22:18 says "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live." Pure and simple: God tells us to kill witches. We don't actually kill witches anymore, but some people still use this verse to "prove" celebrating Halloween or reading Harry Potter books are sins.

Leviticus is full of instructions on how to live, with many rules about who you can have sex with, what time of the month you can have sex, what foods are permissible, how to treat your slaves, etc.

Deuteronomy 14:8 explicitly says that we are not to eat pigs. There's one most Americans — certainly most Freemasons — ignore.

The entire fifth chapter of Leviticus is dedicated to instructions on how many lambs, rams, pigeons, doves and quarts of flour you must sacrifice if you commit any of the sins enumerated elsewhere in the Torah, the first five books of the Bible.

Though we say that we believe the Bible is the inerrant word of God, and that violating any single rule or commandment is a sin, we don't really mean it. In fact, some brush off the strange rules of the Old Testament by saying Jesus "threw out the old law." Others just realize that certain rules are outdated, or believe that Mosaic law was only meant to provide structure to the lives of Jewish nomads three thousand years ago.

Except, of course the Ten Commandments. Oh, and Leviticus 18:22, that famous verse used to justify gay-bashing and to prove homosexuality is a sin.

Picking and choosing which rules we'll follow, which ones we'll revere as revealed truth or ultimate law and which ones we'll just pretend aren't there, is simply human nature.

We pride ourselves on being law-abiding citizens, for example, because we don't kill, steal or beat our wives, but yet we'll think nothing of driving 90 mph or running stop lights, clearly violations of the law.

We all pick and choose our "morality," and internally justify our behavior.

We do the same thing with Masonic rules and law.

In Masonry, our "old testament" is Anderson's Constitutions, also known as the Ancient Charges of a Free Mason. We pride ourselves on following them to the letter.

Don't we?

Well, when we want to. When it's convenient, or when they can be used to justify a personal or political motivation. Of course we do.

Anderson's Constitutions are often cited to prove that women, atheists and "irreligious libertines" cannot be Freemasons. And yes, it's pretty clear in the Constitutions that women can't be raised as Masons. Section III says, "The persons admitted Members of a Lodge must be good and true Men, free-born, and of mature and discreet Age, no Bondmen, no Women, no immoral or scandalous men, but of good Report."

What of atheists?

It's a little more complicated.

Section I says:

A Mason is oblig'd by his Tenure, to obey the moral law; and if he rightly understands the Art, he will never be a stupid Atheist nor an irreligious Libertine. But though in ancient Times Masons were charg'd in every Country to be of the Religion of that Country or Nation, whatever it was, yet ‘tis now thought more expedient only to oblige them to that Religion in which all Men agree, leaving their particular Opinions to themselves; that is, to be good Men and true, or Men of Honour and Honesty, by whatever Denominations or Persuasions they may be distinguish'd; whereby Masonry becomes the Center of Union, and the Means of conciliating true Friendship among Persons that must have remain'd at a perpetual Distance.

Not so cut and dried as the bit about no women, is it? Does it say an atheist can't be a Mason, or does it say, if a man becomes a Mason and "rightly understands" Masonry's teachings, he can no longer justify in his heart and mind not believing in God?

Many good Masons have fought over Anderson's meaning. Most French Masons believe in freedom of conscience above all else, and the Grand Orient of France for most of its existence has not required a man to profess theistic beliefs before becoming a Mason. American and English Masons, on the other hand, value godliness moreso than the sanctity of the individual, and pride themselves on requiring a profession of belief in God as a prerequisite for Masonic membership.

The difference in opinion on this single point has led millions of American and British Masons to deny recognition to French Masons, to deny that they are even Masons at all.

In spite of Anderson's prohibitions against women becoming Masons, there are women Masons throughout the world. British Masons accept that fact; American Masons, for the most part, refuse to accept it, even though there are many female orders practicing Masonry right here in the Land of the Free.

People have interpreted the "laws" differently. Or perhaps ignored certain laws when they are no longer meaningful, or appropriate, for a new time and place.

Sort of like Christians who eat pork.

Another set of Masonic instructions are the Ancient Landmarks. There are many of them, and the final one says that the landmarks can never be altered or changed in any way.

The problem with this is that no one can agree on what is or is not a landmark, and how many there actually are. So much for not changing anything....

If obligations also say no women, or no atheists, can or should they be changed to allow for a new interpretation of the Constitutions?

Or should the Constitutions be followed to the letter?

If your immediate response to the latter question was yes, think again.

If you said yes, then you, most likely, just kicked yourself out of Freemasonry. In fact, you may never have actually been a Freemason, for lack of proper qualifications and credentials.

I don't mean this as an insult.

I mean it like this: If you follow the Constitutions to the letter regarding who can become a Freemason, it's highly doubtful if you — or I — qualify.

Section IV is pretty clear on the type of man who can become a Mason.

No Brother can be a Warden until he has pass'd the part of a Fellow-Craft; nor a Master until he has acted as a Warden, nor Grand Warden until he has been Master of a Lodge, nor Grand Master unless he has been a Fellow Craft before his Election, who is also to be nobly born, or a Gentleman of the best Fashion, or some eminent Scholar, or some curious Architect, or other Artist, descended of honest Parents, and who is of similar great Merit in the Opinion of the Lodges.

Are you a gentleman? Were you nobly born of honest parents? Are you a scholar, architect or artist?

Are these the requirements to become a Mason?

Or requirements to become a Grand Master?

Either way, this description give rises to the 18th century prerequisites of being a Mason, just as surely as does Section 1 in its wording about stupid atheists and irreligious libertines.

If we read into Section 1 a ban on atheists, shouldn't we also read into Section IV a requirement that a man have a certain educational level or mastery of an art or science?

I'm not saying we should, or we shouldn't.

I am simply pointing out the fuzzy areas of Masonic law and tradition, and urging us all to stop being so rigid about landmarks, charges and bans that we don't fully comprehend or that are more gray than black or white. Or that are obviously outdated, like the ban on women.

Freemasonry in the 21st century must progress, or it will surely die. We can be conscious of the past, using what we found there to help us cut our path into the future, but we must not worship the past, or blindly cling to it at all costs.

Rules are written for their time and place. Rules can and sometimes should be changed. Life is about expanding our knowledge and our perspectives, about evolving.

If you think differently, then you can't have any more barbecued pork.

Image: John Montague, 2nd Duke of Montagu presenting the Constitutions and the compasses to Philip, Duke of Wharton. Rev. Dr. John Desaguliers at the far right.

Masons | Masonic Law | Anderson's Constitutions | Freemasonry | Ancient Charges | Burning Taper | BurningTaper.com

The Ancient Landmarks revisited, part 2: How Freemasonry lost its way

The Ancient Landmarks Revisited, part 2: How Freemasonry Lost Its Way, by Bro. Jeff Peace

In Part 1 of this paper I asserted that the Ancient Landmarks were based around the common definitions of Freemasonry from the early eighteenth century.

1. Freemasonry is a peculiar system of morality veiled in allegory and illustrated by symbols.
2. Freemasonry is dedicated to the brotherhood of man under the All-Seeing Eye of Deity.
3. Freemasonry is a progressive science.
4. Freemasonry is a natural philosophy, or system of natural philosophy.

If there ever was a document listing the Ancient Landmarks it is now lost, but we do have the old definitions, and when put together with historical events, I believe we can still come to an understanding of the guiding principles of the original Speculative Freemasons.

We know from existing historical documents the nature of the men who called themselves “Freemasons” and what they were doing both inside and outside the Craft. Since it is human nature to join together with men like your self we can safely assume that some common thread of interests must run through all of these people. I believe that common thread of interest is both spelled-out and veiled by the definitions above.

History would suggest that these men were bonded together by a peculiar or unique system of guiding moral principles that were distinct from those of the common people of the eighteenth century. And, that these moral principles were conducive to joining all people together in peace and harmony into one great brotherhood. Since religion and divine revelation were the framework of morality at the time it is clear that such an ideology would have met stiff resistance from both church and state; thus, the need for absolute secrecy in lodges. In light of this the grisly oaths and obligations begin to make perfect sense.

This new morality is evolving at a time when the Catholic Church in Europe had been weakened by both political and philosophical changes within society, and advancements in science and understanding. During the Middle Ages the church had become tyrannical, and questioning its authority or ideology was a death sentence to those courageous enough to do so. Galileo Galilei and Giordano Bruno are examples of this behavior. Modern free-thinkers had finally come to realize that divinely revealed systems of morality were incompatible with the advancement of humanity, and that too many people had needlessly died defending one religion from another during the Crusades. Thus, the unique system of morality proposed by the early Freemasons was entirely devoid of religion and instead based on Natural Philosophy. Unlike religious morality the new system would be adaptable to advancements in human understanding and open to a progressive science, thus ensuring that the Galileos of the future would not be silenced for their ideas. This is the dawning of what will become known as "The Age of Enlightenment" and it will be driven by the Light given to mankind by Freemasons.

What were these early brothers really like? What did they do in lodge? Were they really a society of mystics searching for some lost inner truth, or were they a product of the changing times in Europe? By gaining an understanding of this we can better comprehend the true nature of Speculative Freemasonry.

The earliest Speculative Freemasons came from a wide variety of backgrounds. Most were protestants, some devout and others barely religious. There were Pantheists, Atheists, Gnostics, Jews; men of every religious and non-religious persuasion joined the Craft. Most were from the growing middle class, and some were a part of the old aristocracy.

From the minutes of old lodge meetings we learn that Bro. John T. Desaguliers was teaching Newton’s Calculus and the Laws of Motion at their meetings. A brother who was a doctor brought a corpse to lodge and dissected it showing the brothers how the human body worked. From the periodicals of the time we learn that the early Freemasons were the ultimate party club of the eighteenth century. They were notorious for staying up to all hours of the morning drinking and singing. Tavern owners began to hate them for breaking all the glasses. Eventually super thick and difficult to break glasses were created just for the Freemasons. These were known as "firing glasses." On one noted occasion the Freemasons of Savannah, after a night of drinking, commandeered one of the king’s gun boats and took it for a cruise around the harbor. The idea of them being humble introspective mystics just doesn’t seem to fit with the history. If anything they appear to be rebelling against the rigid customs of society and enjoying the freedom of the human spirit.

The early Freemasons were also prolific underground printers circulating various heretical and revolutionary tracts throughout Europe like the "Treatise of the Three Impostures." In a sense they were the first political activists who spawned many of the revolutionary ideas that would help to form both modern Europe and America.

Within sixty years of the founding of the Grand Lodge of London in 1717 Masonic ideology will have pervaded most of Europe and crossed the Atlantic to America. On July 4, 1776 it will move from a “Speculative Art” to an Operative one.

"When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them...." — The Declaration of Independence

In the very opening words of the American Declaration of Independence we see traces of Masonic ideology. It does not make an appeal to any religious God, but to "the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God." The new world and its laws will not be based on the divinely inspired decrees of pontiffs and priests, but upon the principles of Natural Philosophy. Masonic lodges were democratic in operation as would be the new nation. The Masonic idea of tolerance as the cement of brotherhood will be applied in the American government which protects the freedom of religion.

If you step back and look objectively at the Freemasonry in America today does it resemble that of the past? Were George Washington and Benjamin Franklin humble introspective mystics? Was Freemasonry about self-discovery or the advancement of all of humanity? Perhaps it was a little of both?

— Bro. Jeff Peace
June 7, 2007, Atlanta, Georgia

Masons | Masonic Education | Jeff Peace | Freemasonry | Ancient Landmarks | Burning Taper | BurningTaper.com

The Ancient Landmarks revisited

The Ancient Landmarks Revisited by Bro. Jeff Peace, PGM, Exalted High Priest of the Ancient & Honorable Order of the Thorn in the Ass, and other awe inspiring titles too numerous to mention.

Distant Sun Lodge, No. OU812

Grand Lodge of the Universe, est. 0 hours, 0 Minutes, 0 Years

(The oldest continuously operating Grand Lodge in the Cosmos operating under the authority of God — and nothing trumps that.)

Copyright © 2007 by Jeff Peace. All rights reserved. No part of this article may be reproduced, republished, or mirrored by any means without prior permission in writing from the copyright holder.

Most Freemasons have heard mention of “The Ancient Landmarks” at one time or another in their Masonic journey. Most simply assume it is a list of the most fundamental aspects of Freemasonry that were written down long ago when the organization first came into being. Some believe it is the “Landmarks” as written down by Bro. Albert G. Mackey, Bro. Albert Pike or something their Grand Lodge printed in its Code or monitor. While all of these could be “The Ancient Landmarks” none of them can assert that claim with absolute certainty. The problem with “The Ancient Landmarks” arises out of a statement in Anderson’s Constitutions of 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." Unfortunately, brother Anderson doesn’t bother to provide us with a list of the “Land-Marks” to which he is referring. This problem has plagued Masonic scholars for years.

As a historian with no particular interest in Masonic Jurisprudence I never spent any time in search of the Landmarks because there wasn’t a single document to support a valid argument regarding them. Other scholars had already speculated about them and adding to their speculations wouldn’t help to clarify the matter.

Every week I receive emails asking questions about the history of Freemasonry and its symbolism from brothers around the globe, and usually I am able to provide them with a quick answer or point them to other resources that can provide an answer. Then one day I received the grand daddy of all questions. It seemed like such a simple question at the time but it took two years for me to reply to the email with a twenty-five page essay.

The brother pointed to the definition of Freemasonry which says that “Freemasonry is a peculiar system of morality veiled in allegory and illustrated by symbols” and asked what was “so peculiar or unique about the morals discussed in the degrees?” After thinking about it for a moment I realized there was nothing particularly peculiar or unique about them. The morality taught in the degrees is the same as one would learn from their parents or at Sunday School. Then an idea occurred to me; could the definition of Freemasonry actually be a Landmark? After all, wouldn’t the definition of Freemasonry be something that should be “carefully preserved” as Anderson had said? If it was a Landmark then what were the others? Did the founders have more than one definition of “Freemasonry”? I was soon to discover that indeed the founders left several “Landmark” definitions of the Craft.

Anderson’s Constitutions of 1723 are ninety-one pages long. They include the regulations of the Grand Lodge, constitutions of the fraternity, a lengthy mythical history, the charges of a Freemason, an approbation, and several songs. It would have taken Bro. Anderson a long time to compile this document and write everything out by hand, so it seems very strange that he would leave out something so fundamental as a list of Landmarks. Was it an oversight? If it were then he could easily have corrected it when he published a revised version of the Constitutions in 1734, but again the Landmarks are strangely absent from these as well.

I would put forth that there are only two possible reasons for this behavior by Anderson:

1. “The Ancient Landmarks” were secret.
2. “The Ancient Landmarks” were universally known by all Fellows and Masters of the Craft.

If they were a secret then he could not publish them without violating his oath and obligation, and if they were already well known by Masons then there was no reason to put them into print.

If they were a secret then the original Masons must have taken it to their graves. Why?

In 1753 there was a Masonic schism. A rival Grand Lodge appeared known today as the ‘Antients.’ The new Grand Lodge adopted the Royal Arch degree as an explanation for the supposed lost word of a Master Mason. The original Grand Lodge (est.1717) claimed that both the ‘Antients’ and their new degree was clandestine and irregular. They further stated that the “word” was not lost. Many modern readers will find this statement incredible because they have been told the word was lost and that they have its replacement.

There are some fragments from a Masonic catechism attributed to Bros. Anderson and Desauguliers written about 1720 that seem to verify this claim.

Q: What are you going to do there?

A: To seek for that which was lost and is now found.

Q: What is that which was lost and is now found?

A: THE MASTER MASONS WORD.

Since virtually all modern era Grand Lodges are derived from the Grand Lodge of the ‘Antients’ it makes sense that we are not in possession of “The Ancient Landmarks,” because they were the creation of the ‘Moderns’ of the Grand Lodge of London (est. 1717).

If “The Ancient Landmarks” were lost during the schism then might we be able to recover some part of them? While we can’t know for certain their exact wording I do believe we can at the very least come to a basic understanding of them. All we need to do is look at the definitions of Freemasonry handed down to us.

1. Freemasonry is a peculiar system of morality veiled in allegory and illustrated by symbols.
2. Freemasonry is dedicated to the brotherhood of man under the All-Seeing Eye of Deity.
3. Freemasonry is a progressive science.
4. Freemasonry is a natural philosophy, or system of natural philosophy.

From the first definition a few things can be concluded. The original speculative Freemasonry offered a peculiar or unique system of morality from that which was accepted in the early eighteenth century. That this peculiar morality was hidden in an allegory, and that specific symbols were used to illustrate or reveal it to the initiates. Thus, having the right set of symbols is essential to understanding the peculiar system of morality, which is, in and of itself, Freemasonry.

From the second definition we learn the object of Freemasonry, or the peculiar system of morality; the brotherhood of man under God. Unfortunately, we do not know how this was to be accomplished. That would have been an aspect of the Landmarks that can only be speculated upon.

In the third definition we learn that Freemasonry was a progressive science. Science, as we know it today, was in its infancy at the time. One of the Landmarks must have promoted the need for a progressive science as a means to furthering the cause of the peculiar system of morality and the brotherhood of man.

Finally, in the fourth definition we discover that Freemasonry was a system of natural philosophy as opposed to a religion. It, like all natural philosophy, attempts to interpret the universe and our reality through the laws of nature. This definition is closely associated with the third definition (Freemasonry is a progressive science) because natural philosophy relies on a progressive science to further our understanding of the cosmos.

As Freemasons we may never know all of the details of the original “Ancient Landmarks” but now I believe we have a place to start our search. What we’re searching for isn’t obvious or easily uncovered. It will take time and perseverance, but in the end we may discover that which we have been seeking all along: the truth.

— Bro. Jeff Peace

Masons | Masonic History | Ancient Landmarks | Freemasonry | Jeff Peace | Burning Taper | BurningTaper.com