Guest editorial: Who made who?

Who Made Who? by Bro. Jeff Peace

When was your lodge charted by the Grand Lodge of your jurisdiction? It may have been relatively recently or it could have been hundreds of years ago. Masons petition a Grand Lodge to form and charter new lodges, and that’s the way it's always been — or is it?

In the days of the operatives lodges were formed in the towns and cities for the purpose of managing the trade guild and negotiating wages. In a sense lodges were similar to the present day union hall. Sometimes lodges would be established at large construction sites such as cathedrals and forts for similar purposes. Their "union card" was the secret modes of recognition.

Lodges were self-creating business entities that represented the craftsman and were charted by state and/or local officials.

Grand Lodges were not things or places but events called by the monarch to bring all the Masters of the Craft together for the purpose of discussion and negotiation.

By the late seventeenth century the Masonic guild was in decline and they began accepting "gentleman Masons" into their lodges. The gentleman Masons were not craftsman but middle class businessmen and scholars.

In 1717 a unique event occurred when three of these lodges decided to form a Grand Lodge without consent of the monarch for the purpose of meeting and holding an annual feast. This is of interest because the lodges were entirely independent and sovereign. They created the Grand Lodge, and not the other way around.

They invited other independent and sovereign lodges to join their new Grand Lodge. Some did while others did not become a part of it. The Sts' Johns Masons flatly declined and the Masons at York decided to establish their own Grand Lodge.

Independent lodges continued to exist apart from the Grand Lodges until late in the eighteenth century.

As Freemasonry moved from being a practical trade guild into a benevolent speculative fraternity a method was established for the creation of new lodges whereby the Grand Lodges became the issuers of charters and not the government. It was in this way that Grand Lodge became the creator and lost sight of the fact that it was in fact a creation of the lodges.

The present monolithic system of Masonic government is the exact opposite of what the original founding lodges had intended. If we are to reform Freemasonry in the 21st century we need to begin by recognizing that the lodges are sovereign, and that the Grand Lodge serves the lodges. The Grand Master is not a benevolent dictator, but a servant of the Craft.

Masons still have the right to form independent lodges. These lodges are not clandestine or irregular. The whole concept of being clandestine and/or irregular was invented during the dispute between the Moderns and the Antients in England. It was a childish name-calling game then as much as it is now.

We need more independent lodges offering new and unique insights into Freemasonry. They may choose to form new Grand Lodges based on their ideas. This is the same as it was in 1717. The most important thing is not the survival of the present Grand Lodges, but the continuation of the Craft.

— Bro. Jeff Peace

Masons | Masonic History | Grand Lodges | Freemasonry | Burning Taper | BurningTaper.com

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

'Evil that goes unchallenged is evil that will eventually prevail'

The following anonymous post was made as a comment on the Burning Taper article Masonic obligations: Do we owe blind obedience to Grand Masters?"

The post is so interesting and, in some ways, so shocking, that I wanted to republish it here as an article in its own right in case you don't always check the comments section of older posts.

I have corresponded privately with this "anonymous" poster for some time now, and have heard this and even more scandalous stories about grand lodge improprieties in the writer's Masonic jurisdiction. I'm glad he is now willing to come forward publicly with some of them.

The writer has his own reasons for remaining anonymous at this time. I believe him to be a good and true brother, and while I have no firsthand knowledge of these events, I have no reason to doubt his story.

The events described did not take place in Georgia.

— W.S.

---

> But aren't we past Orsen Wells by now (1984)?

I believe you mean George Orwell, else your reference to "1984" has eluded me.

> Are we really at they're mercy? ...I think we are speaking of the same outcome but how do WE get there?

That's a good question, and the truth is, I don't know. The power brokers entrenched in the Masonic Grand Lodges of the US today aren't going to willingly give up their fiefdoms, no matter what they have to do. They insist that their own actions aren't governed by the same Masonic laws that govern the rest of us, and they brazenly do exactly as they please, while brushing away anyone who dares to take a stand against their corruption.

Recently in my grand jurisdiction, several of the older Past Grand Masters finally realized what the younger ones were doing, and tried to take a stand. Charges of un-Masonic conduct were initiated against the reigning Grand Master, who (among other serious issues) had been fired from a lengthy career in law enforcement for sexual harassment of one or more of his subordinates. He even had to move to another state during his term as Grand Master because his reputation in law enforcement here prevented him from being able to find comparable employment.

Masonic law here dictates that charges of un-Masonic conduct against a Grand Master can only proceed with the majority consent of all the living Past Grand Masters. As soon as the reigning Grand Master was made aware of the charges against him, he called a meeting of the Past Grand Masters to discuss the subject.

As the Grand Master called his own meeting, he took charge of it, thereby effectively becoming the presiding officer at his own "arraignment." Then, with the support of his grand line, he made certain that one of his cronies assumed "chairmanship" of the committee. A few of the older PGMs objected, noting that our Masonic law requires the most senior PGM to chair such meetings, but that elderly brother was unable to attend due to frail health and the recent death of his wife, and it was declared that he had forfeited his right to preside.

The reigning Grand Master then lectured the assembled PGMs for an hour or so, and when he finished, he and his entourage left the PGMs to conduct their deliberations without the testimony of any other "witnesses." The "chairman" of the committee then removed the charges from a sealed envelope, read them silently to himself, and returned them to their envelope without ever allowing any of the other PGMs to see or hear them. He then called for a "vote of confidence" in the reigning Grand Master, but the written votes of (mostly older) PGMs who weren't able to attend were disqualified. Again, a few of the older PGMs objected, but the "chairman" declared that since the brothers hadn't been able to hear the "testimony," they weren't able to make "informed decisions," and their votes were summarily dismissed.

So the "vote of confidence" in the Grand Master was sustained by a majority of the PGMs present at the meeting called by the Grand Master, and presided over by one of his cronies. A few days later, the Grand Master declared the brothers who had initiated the charges against him "suspended pending Masonic trial," on charges that they'd "conspired to subvert the authority of the Grand Master." The Grand Master then appointed Grand Lodge Trial Committees composed of other cronies to "try" the brothers, and not surprisingly, every one of them were declared "guilty" and expelled for life. One of the accused brothers even suffered a heart attack while waiting to testify in his own defense, and was rushed from the Grand Lodge offices in an ambulance. Rather than postponing the trial, however, the Grand Lodge Trial Committee declared him guilty in absentia, and sentenced him to expulsion while he was undergoing emergency heart surgery at the local veterans' hospital.

In a last ditch effort to right the course of Masonry here, the older PGMs made one final attempt at the following annual session of Grand Lodge. When nominations were solicited for the office of Grand Master, the Deputy Grand Master who had supported his predecessor's corrupt reign was immediately nominated. An elderly but courageous PGM then attempted to nominate an alternative candidate, but the reigning Grand Master angrily rapped him down and declared that he wouldn't accept that nomination. Despite having no authority to "reject" nominations, the Grand Master said he had to "do what's best for the good of Masonry," and the elderly PGM shuffled back to his seat with his head hung in shame. Needless to say, with no other "nominations" being accepted, the DGM was "elected," and the future of corrupt leadership here was thereby perpetuated.

In our Grand Lodge, voting delegates consist of principal officers from blue lodges, as well as all Grand Lodge officers and committee members, PGMs, DDGMs, etc. All Grand Lodge committee members are appointed by the Grand Master himself, as are the District Deputy Grand Masters, etc., so that the Grand Master effectively "controls" about one-third of all votes at Grand Lodge. Most of the important issues that come before the Grand Lodge require two-thirds majority approval, and with a "solid block" of one-third that supports the Grand Master unanimously, it's effectively impossible to achieve a sufficient majority to effect any kind of real reform.

Just to make sure that reform efforts don't have a chance, however, any "resolutions" submitted to Grand Lodge that would help restore the power of majority rule, and return Masonry to a correct and upright path, are simply declared "out of order." In one year alone, nearly 20 resolutions regularly approved and submitted by blue lodges, were declared "out of order," or "not for the good of Masonry," and were dismissed by the reigning Grand Master, who has no legitimate authority to dismiss resolutions, regardless of his own personal opinion of them.

In the long run, it's back to what I said previously: "People who have to work within a framework of rules are at an insurmountable disadvantage against those whose don't." Mainstream Masonry in my jurisdiction has been hijacked by a brazen political clique, yet the vast majority of regular Masons don't realize it even now. The clique controls the principal venues of communication, and the only story that reaches the majority of Masons is the one the Grand Lodge wants them to hear, which is often a complete fabrication.

The minority of Masons who realize what's really happening are left with no means by which to change the "system" either from within, or from without. In order to continue practicing Masonry as the gentle and noble craft it was intended to be, they've been forced to start over with a new lodge, which is obviously considered to be "clandestine" by their mainstream counterparts.

Perhaps someday Masonry will again be as it was in its early days — a loose affiliation of independent lodges with no Grand Lodges, or other central governing authorities. I don't know if that's good or bad, but it seems to me that the absence of central authority would certainly be preferable to the dominance of corrupt ones, such as some that exist today. I can't say if all Grand Lodges are as corrupt as the one here, but I suspect they are, or eventually will be because they choose to turn a blind eye, rather than taking a stand for what they know is right.

Evil that goes unchallenged is evil that will eventually prevail, and if the corruption that's rampant in the leadership of the Masonic fraternity today is allowed to continue, the Masonry that once existed as a benevolent force in the US, is surely destined for extinction.

— An anonymous Freemason

Masons | Masonic Trial | Small Town Freemasonry | Freemasonry | Grand Lodge | Burning Taper | BurningTaper.com