emblem of industry

The Canadian Laudable Pursuit

SOME DISTURBING REMINDERS FROM THE ERA OF THE GREAT SCHISM

Bro.  William Neil Love, P.G.M.  (81-05-23)

Primary sources for Masonic research are difficult to come by in Alberta.  Therefore, this essay is based entirely on secondary sources – that is, well known and respected Masonic historians whose integrity has never been suspect and whose well-researched writings may not be entirely free of honest error but are certainly worthy of serious consideration.

This paper falls into two halves.  The first part deals with the facts of history, and the source – except where otherwise specified – is culled from the findings of Brother H. L. Haywood, and which appear mainly in his volume, The Newly-made mason.  The second part deals with the lessons emerging from this history and their possible application to conditions today.  I have chosen to play the devil’s advocate by stating the case for those Brethren who share the unsettling opinion that the Masons of North America run the risk of repeating some of our more unfortunate Masonic history.  The paper is consciously provocative, with the intention to spark lively discussion.

PART ONE

Newly-made members of the Craft might not be familiar with that troubled period in the 17-hundreds referred to by Masons as “The Great Schism”.  At that time there occurred a deep division within the fraternity into opposing factions given the names of “The Moderns” and “The Ancients”.  The subject has renewed pertinence because there are many concerned Masons on this continent, and right here in this jurisdiction of Alberta, who point to trends in our conduct and activities today that, if unchecked, could lead to a second or North American “Great Schism”.  In other words, they feel that unless we are alert to the symptoms, we may find Masonic history recurring.  For it is a commonly accepted truism, that if we fail to heed the lessons of history, we may find ourselves obliged to repeat them.

To correctly summarize the events leading to the “Great Schism” and their consequences is no small challenge in itself.  No less an author than Joseph Fort Newton found that the series of schisms within the Order which began in 1725 comprise a very complex period, and often prove both confusing and bewil­dering.

(1)

Certain myths and errors were long perpetuated and went largely unchallenged until more recent research put them to rest.  Historian H. L. Haywood stated that the full facts, and hence their full significance, were not discovered until about 1900.  Therefore, he warns, one must be wary of authorities relying on information prior to this date.(2)

Our starting point in these matters is the formation of the First Grand Lodge in London in 1717 and the publication of Anderson’s Constitutions shortly thereafter.  It is well that we note that the founding of a Grand Lodge was not n any way out of step with established usage and custom for the time.  It was not a sudden and arbitrary act dreamed up by a few enthusiasts, thereby leaving themselves open to accusation that they introduced innovation from the very beginning.

Newton stressed that nothing is clearer than that the initiative came from the heart of the order itself, and was in no sense imposed upon it from without . . .” (3) He stated that the organization of the Grand Lodge, far from being an innovation ­much less a revolution – was simply a revival of older and well-established practices of quarterly and annual assembly, and he quoted Anderson of Constitutions fame to support his case “. . .’it should meet Quarterly according to ancient Usage’, tradition having by this time become authoritative in such matters.” (4)

Going back even further, Haywood stated that prior to about 1400’s it was established custom for groups of Masons to gather and constitute themselves a local Lodge to deal with a particular situation; say, building a church or manor house; and then to disband when their business had been concluded.  It was only in the fourteen-hundreds that in a few centres permanent Lodges, rather than just temporary, began to appear, with written charters.  In the same manner the periodic assemblies of Lodges into a “Grand Lodge” evolved naturally into a permanent General Assembly in 1717 when it was found to be of some benefit.

Then as now, changes were indeed taking place with the march of civilization.  But it is well to note that the changes were designed to reinforce timeless objectives, rather than to weaken them by the introduction of shallow and abstracting, and potentially dangerous, innovations.

In view of the later divisions within the Craft, it is perhaps worth noting the social status of the first Grand Lodge Officers. The incumbents of the offices of the first Grand Master and his two Wardens were described as simply “a gentleman, a carpenter, and a captain.” According to Newton, beyond these three there is no record of the other individuals concerned.  Nevertheless, we do know that, far from being an aristocratic body, the first Grand Lodge was democratic in the broadest sense.  “. . . of the four Lodges known to have taken part (in its formation), only one – that meeting at the Rummer and Grape Tavern – had a majority of Accepted Masons in its membership; the other three being Operative Lodges, or largely so.”(6)

It was stated, however, that the first Grand Master was to preside “….’till they should have the Honour of a Noble Brother at their Head.(7) Haywood noted that the desire to have a “Noble Brother” at their head was not an act of snobbery but followed the custom of societies in the nation to have a sponsor of the ruling class to act as spokesman in high places. (In fact, about a hundred years later Queen Victoria herself was to be the Royal Sponsor of Freemasonry.) Nevertheless, herein lay the seed for future dissent!

As a handy reference for this period, The Pocket History of Freemasonry by Pick and Knight lacks the exhaustive detail of a more thorough volume of serious research.  There is just not the space for hair-splitting argument and following up every clue and innuendo.  At the same time, by its very brevity, this reference quickly sorts out the wheat from the chaff and underlines the key historical points.  In discussing the causes of the “Great Schism”, it states “These can be found partly in the slackness and weak administration of the original governing body at this time . . . and partly in certain changes in custom and ritual which had been made, some deliberately.(8) Now, that might have been the understatement of the year, for those changes in custom and ritual were of such fundamental importance as to split the Craft asunder.

It all began in London when a member of the British aristocracy was chosen Grand Master.  On the surface this appears to have been not unusual and perhaps harmless, but as things were in British society at this time, a chain of consequences was thereby set up.  The Grand Master, chosen from the nobility, naturally associated with his class equals and tended to fill his appointments to Grand Lodge with aristocrats.

The class structure of society was so inflexible at that time, that no man would set aside the rights and prerogatives of his nobility even as a Grand Master.(9) Discrimination on grounds of colour or race was less important than discrimination on grounds of rank.  The end result was that “. . . the whole system of British aristocracy was imported into the Fraternity.”(10) The introduction of that innovation led to further innovation. (By the way, the term “innovation” might encompass today many of those things some Brethren refer to as “gimmicks” and “novelties”.)

Newton wrote that . . . there was a fear, not unjustified by facts, that the ancient democracy of the order had been infringed upon by certain acts of the Grand Lodge of 1717 . . . giving to the Grand Master power to appoint the Wardens. . .

Nor was that all.  In 1735 it was resolved in the Grand Lodge “that in the future all Grand Officers (except Grand Master) shall be selected out of that body” – meaning the Past Grand Stewards.  This act was amazing.  Already the Craft had let go its power to elect the wardens, and now the choice of the Grand Master was narrowed to the ranks of an oligarchy in its worst form – a queer outcome of Masonic equality.(11)

The Craft had been captured by a special-interest group, who introduced more innovation tailored to suit their own needs!

Pick and Knight refer to an abuse in the form of the illegal sale of constitutions by Lodges operating under the guidance of these innovators.  They cite the example of a certain George Lodge, then No. 3, who saw fit to sell their regalia and “. . . Warrant for thirty guineas to ‘some Honourable  Gentlemen Newly Made’.”(12) a group whose membership appears to have been heavily larded with members of the aristocracy. Another evident bias toward the nobility is revealed by the action of the Committee of Charity which was charged with looking into this irregularity.  Far from correcting the abuse, the Committee saw fit to legalize it with their ruling that ” -. . as a mark of high respect to his Grace the Duke of Beaufort and the other Noblemen and Honourable Gentlemen who meet under the name of the Lodge of Friendship . . . the constitution of No. 3 should remain with them . . . ” (13)

It is also noteworthy that a minority seemed to have an influence in other ways out of proportion to its numbers.  Pick and Knight state that one of those “Honourable Gentlemen Newly Made” who purchased the Warrant for the new Lodge named Friendship – one Thomas French – was appointed Grand Secretary a short year after. A later examination of the records revealed that over a certain period, out of 20 Grand Wardens recently appointed, no fewer than 13 had come from the ranks of this same Lodge of Friendship.”(14)

These examples notwithstanding, Haywood’s writings wade more boldly into the controversy by avoiding hang-ups over details while concentrating on the fundamental trends and on what he sees as their inevitable results: a deep split in the Craft between the innovators who came to be called “The Moderns” and a faction who wished to preserve our tenets and principles pure and unimpaired, calling themselves “The Ancients”.

If any one individual stands out above the rest in the ensuing struggle, it would be the champion of the Ancients, Laurence Dermott, who was Grand Secretary of the Ancients from 1752 to 1771; approximately twenty years.’

The History Of Masonry And Concordant Orders asserts that Dermott, more than any other, seemed to have been the moving spirit in sustaining this great schism, (15) is As might be expected, Dermott “. . . has been severely criticized by his opponents, and Laurie charges him with unfairness in his proceedings against the Moderns, with treating them bitterly, with quackery, with being vainglorious of his own pretensions to superior knowledge. (16)’

Dr. Mackey, in his History Of Freemasonry, would seem to have partially agreed when he said “. . . I am afraid there is much truth in this estimate of Dermott’s character.  As a polemic, he was sarcastic, bitter, uncompromising, and not altogether sincere and veracious . . . (17) (Dr.  Mackey’s writings, it might be pointed out, appeared well before the turn of the century and therefore, according to Haywood, are suspect.) If Mackey erred in his judgment of Dermott, he was in good company.  No less a Masonic writer than R.F. Gould dismissed the man as little more than a house painter with little education. (18)

But Haywood tells us that these descriptions were ill-considered, to say the least, ” . . . because almost nothing was even known about Dermott when Gould wrote his history. (19)

This writer cannot help but comment that any individual who today rises to defend the Craft against innovations and gimmicks risks attack by those who would hope to “modernize” the Order and change it to suit their own tastes.  This is as true now as it was then! One may even suggest that Dermott’s opponents were increasingly incensed as they gradually came to realize the “awful truth” that he was, after all, right!

Let us return to the exact words of Haywood based on the more recent evidence.

Dermott was what Eighteenth Century men called a genius, a small class of great men of which Christopher Wren and William Shakespeare were more famous specimens . . . He had many talents, and they were of high excellence; he was a learned man (he could read Ancient Hebrew), a forceful and even powerful writer as is proved by the Book of Constitutions which he wrote, a singer, an after-dinner speaker to hear whom men drove many miles, an organizer and administrator, a driving, daring, bold, tireless, ingenious, inventive, undiscouragable character, who withal had a great and an almost instinctive understanding of Freemasonry. Who were the greatest Masons (and as Masons) of that century? Desaguliers? Preston? The Duke of Sussex? Thomas Smith Webb? If so Dermott belongs to the list because he ranks second in achievement to none of these names. (20)

Would that we had a Masonic leader of such stature today!

Leaving the matter of personalities, let us return to the abuses that led to the Great Schism.  The results of introducing the innovations, according to Haywood, are briefly as follows:

They gave rise to attacks on the Masonic hierarchy by the lower classes because they identified the Craft with the special-interest group: the aristocracy.  In reaction, the Grand Lodge curtailed its activities; withdrew from public exposure; kept a low profile; made alterations in its modes of recognition; permitted changes and emasculation of the ritual; tolerated the lapse of the dignified ceremonies of Grand Lodge installations; and generally diverted the objectives and activities of the Craft from its time-honoured purpose.

The cumulative result was the chasm opening between Masons of the so-called upper classes” and those of the “lower classes”, a division down the middle between the majority in the Craft and the minority of the special-interest group.

This “Great Schism” lasted some forty years while pressures built up against the innovations.  The emasculation of the ritual meant a consequent lowering of its dignity, if nothing else.  But Haywood said this had more fundamental import.  In his words,

A Newly Made Mason ought to note that any question about the Ritual is a question of what Freemasonry is or is not, because in one form or another, directly or by implication, literally or symbolically, the Ritual is a series of statements about what it is to be a Mason it is the means by which a Lodge “makes” a Mason.  To omit something from the Ritual is to omit it from Freemasonry. (21)

When the Masonic offices were filled with aristocrats, the Lodges came to serve only the narrow considerations of a special-interest group.  Many Lodges ceased to be Lodges and became purely social clubs, and the Freemasonry was replaced entirely with light-hearted conviviality.(22)

The situation seemed to come to a head with the great Irish potato famines, which saw some two to three million Irish migrating into England and other lands.  Among the migrants to England were many good Masons who, on wishing to affiliate as was their right, found themselves blocked by those people who seemed to have captured much of the Craft.  When they sought to visit they were turned back at the door and the reason why they were turned back was made abundantly clear, when they were told that too many of them were carpenters, plumbers, stone-masons, teamsters, and similar members of the lower classes.  “These gentlemen were wearing a workingman’s leather apron . . . (and yet) could detect no self-contradiction in their refusing to sit with Masons in a Masonic Lodge if a Mason was a carpenter.  Jesus of Nazareth could not have visited such a Lodge.  This snobbishness was an extraordinary and fateful result of the ‘modernizing’ of the Fraternity which was being made.” (23)

At this point it should suffice to relate that the immigrant Masons formed their own Lodges outside of the Grand Lodge of London.  Meantime, to quote Haywood,”During this same period a number of Lodges on the List of the Grand Lodge at London . . . became so resentful at this new exclusiveness, and so violently disapproved of the innovations of which the Grand Lodge had become guilty, that they began to withdraw from it, and did so in such number that at a later time some 135 of them had been counted.  By the end of the decade of 1740-1750 A.D., where one Irish Mason withdrew himself from the Grand Lodge at London, ten English Masons had done so.  Along with them, and agreeing with them, were a hundred or so independent regular Lodges (called St. John’s Lodges), which had never been on the Grand Lodge’s Lists.  This refusal to recognize the so-called “modernizing” of Freemasonry reached such a pitch at the last that the Grand Lodges of Ireland and Scotland withdrew recognition from the Grand Lodge at London. (24)

The struggle ensued for some two generations.  With the Grand Lodges facing eye-ball-to-eye-ball for over forty-five years, it was the innovators who appear to have blinked first.  In 1789 the Moderns were moved to appoint a committee, which was to approach their rivals to see if they could achieve a reconciliation.  But reconciliation was slow to come.  Feelings had been running so high that members of one faction were forbidden even to visit Lodges of the other. (25)

Nevertheless, despite efforts to lock out rivals, there continued to be a certain flow of traffic across the picket lines from one body to the other.  Indeed, Pick and Knight (26) state that there were even cases of Brethren belonging to both the Moderns and the Ancients at the same time.  This is not to say that they saw no grounds for dispute.  It is at least arguable that they understood the situation quite clearly but hoped to help bring about a remedy by working from within.

Things moved to a conclusion in 1809 when the Moderns Grand Lodge apparently took a second look at what they had done and resolved that “It is not necessary any longer to continue in force those Measures which were resorted to in or about 1739 respecting irregular Masons and do therefore enjoin the several Lodges to revert to the Ancient Land Marks of the Society. (27)

In 1810 the Ancients found it possible to make the following  resolution:”….a Masonic Union on principles equal and honourable to both Grand Lodges, and preserving the Land Marks of the Ancient Craft, would be . . . expedient and advantageous to both. (28)

This, briefly, is what has been recorded as “The Great Schism” in Craft Masonry: the period in which a minority in the Craft imposed upon the majority the innovations of class distinction, exclusiveness, restriction of Masonic offices, emasculation of the Ritual, replacement of Masonic teachings with purely social functions, etc., and until the majority could bring about a return to the fundamental objectives of the Order.

PART TWO

All that has been said so far was a simple re-telling of the facts of history.  At this point we depart from the chronology of events and launch ourselves into an examination of the lessons to be learned and their possible application today.

No two people see things in exactly the same light. We are all different as individuals; we have different backgrounds, outlooks, experience in the Craft, and general knowledge, which influence our points of view.

There is plenty of room for difference of opinion in Craft Masonry and perhaps this essay will prompt a lively and interesting exchange of ideas.

In this writer’s view, a clear lesson emerges. the lesson is this: innovations did occur, but correction was made and unity re-established when men of high principle and, indeed, whole Lodges stood up to be counted and demanded an end to tampering with the principles, practices and objectives of the Craft.

When we step back and examine the evidence from the vantage point of hindsight, the cause and results emerge more clearly, and it is here where many Masons in America today point to what they feel is clear writing on the wall.  They are concerned lest we on this Continent be led into making similar errors, by a minority of enthusiastic (but misguided) individuals who are working over­time to change the Craft to suit their personal tastes.

Historian Haywood described changes which were introduced into Freemasonry in the 17th century that led to the “Great Schism”: (29)

I. – The Craft was divided by the introduction of innovations.

II. – The image of Masonry was changed in the eyes of the public.

III. – The forms and customs were altered; the ritual was emasculated; the Craft objectives were diverted.

IV. – The Lodges were changed into something they were never

intended to be: straight social clubs.

V. – A minority special-interest group, the aristocracy, came to dominate much of the Craft.

We may now examine these points one at a time and in each case itemize some possible parallels in the Craft today.  There is a vast amount of material available but this thesis shall be limited to little more than a series of examples.  Because of the comparative brevity, the reader is asked to realize that each point can be much more thoroughly supported by argument and evidence than is given here.

Item I is related to Haywood’s 3, item II to 2, III to 5, and V to 1. There appears to be no link between IV and 4 (Ed.)<BR><BR>
POINT I –
HAYWOOD INTIMATED THAT THE INNOVATORS OF THE 17-HUNDREDS DIVIDED THE CRAFT.

ITEM: The activities of many concordant bodies in North America today are in direct competition with (and are thereby divisive) those of the parent body, the Craft Lodge, resulting in competition for a Brother’s time, attention, interests, and energies.  Brethren are increasingly put in a position where they are forced to choose where their loyalties lie.

Would one consider this to be at all divisive?

ITEM: Mounting pressures to change the “free will and accord”

rule are driving a wedge between those who adhere to the time-honoured tenet of no-solicitation and those who wish to bend this principle to fill the ranks of other organizations.

Can anyone deny that this sort of thing is happening?

Does it seed disunity?

ITEM: Tensions between Brethren are being aggravated by a faction that asserts that no Mason is a “complete” Mason until he passes through ceremonies and degrees in certain appendant organizations which they misrepresent as being of a “higher” order.

ITEM: An invisible line has been drawn between the 80% of the Brethren in this jurisdiction who have chosen not to join a concordant body, and the 20% minority of enthusiasts who have joined.  This tends to have a geographic aspect.  That is, country versus city Lodges.

ITEM: A growing number of Masons are becoming less active in their Lodges and in the concordant bodies, because of their distress over changes being introduced into the Craft ­innovations often advanced under the old argument that the Order should be “modernized” or “change with the times.” (Perhaps better words here would be “faminized” and “liberalized.”)

ITEM: There seems to have emerged – small but ominous – a regrettable geographic polarization in this province (of Alberta, Ed.). A North-South rivalry that should never exist, let alone be allowed to grow, is even now being fanned by a small minority.

POINT II –

IN THE 17-HUNDREDS THE IMAGE OF MASONRY WAS CHANGED IN THE EYES OF THE PUBLIC: PEOPLE JUDGED THE CRAFT BY THE ACTIVITIES & ATTITUDES OF A SPECIAL-INTEREST GROUP.

(AT THAT TIME, IT HAPPENED TO BE THE ARISTOCRACY.)

Is Masonry’s image in North America being distorted again today? Have those concerned Brethren any real grounds for their misgivings?

ITEM: Freemasonry has traditionally been a modest organization with a consciously  low public profile.  Today, however, on this continent the public is increasingly exposed to the activities of Masons in their appendant organizations where they dress up in bright uniforms, parade, blow horns, etc., and behave in a generally outgoing and festive manner.  Is it any wonder then

that society tends to identify this image with Craft Masonry. The public borrows this image to fill the image vacuum left by the Craft, and – as in the past – one group tends to be equated with the other.

And they are not the same thing at all!

ITEM: The public activities of North American Masons are inviting public speculation; misinterpreted perhaps, but the impressions remain.  These activities commonly are intended to display patriotism.

“But,” protest the innovators, “is patriotism not a virtue?” The answer lies in the difference between the words “patriotism” and “loyalty.”

“Patriotism” has a far more narrow connotation which oft times strays into dangerous nationalism.  “Loyalty”, on the other hand, may be a devotion or responsibility not to country alone, but to one’s friends, one’s wife and children, ones employer.  Perhaps it is best put in the words of one concerned Mason, M.W.Bro. Jesse W. Gern, Past Grand Master of Colorado, who said:

Certainly patriotism can be a beautiful thing . . . loyalty to one’s own … . But too much loyalty can become an over weaning obsession that verges on selfishness or pride, the deadliest of the Seven Medieval Sins.  For this reason, Freemasonry does not put a primary emphasis on country. (30)

ITEM: A close examination of the proceedings from around the continent will reveal just how much the gimmick department of Masonry is extending itself in an obsessive search for novelties to entertain and distract rather than to educate and inspire. Some Lodges will go to any end to dream up some novelty or other to avoid tackling our task of building individual character.

For centuries our forefathers were obliged to meet in the operative Masons’ buildings, or in the local inns.  How fortunate they felt when the time came that they could have homes of their very own .     . . Lodge rooms or buildings constructed and furnished to their specific design and private use.  But what is happening today? We seem to have laid off counting our blessings!

There is emerging a great urge for eager individuals to drag their Brethren out of their proper Lodge rooms to try to perform our dignified and serious ceremonies in abandoned quarries, barns, open fields, mountain tops, the decks of ships, etc., anywhere but in the dignified atmosphere of the formal Lodge room.

Is this progress? Is this what some people mean by “keeping up with the times?” When concerned Brethren call for a return to the ancient principles and practices, it is difficult to believe that they mean a return to the primitive facilities of our Masonic ancestors.

ITEM: Something our forefathers were spared in their day, were the eager beaver propagandists of the Craft.  Wherever one goes today, one meets those modernizing individuals who champion the cause of Masonic publicity campaigns.  “Stop hiding our head beneath a bushel,” is their rallying cry.  “If only we inform the public of what good boys we are and what wonderful things we are doing,” they seem to be saying, “all our problems would be solved.” They might well add, “besides, our membership would soar, our Lodge rooms would be crowded, and our coffers would swell.”

But is this really so? Masonry is not intended for everyone, but for the select few.  Unless we first pull up our socks, a massive publicity campaign could backfire.  Many of our wiser Brethren take a look at the low attendance in meetings, the preference of so many for the appendant bodies, the lowering of discipline and propriety to accommodate a permissive society; the general lack of understanding among so many of our Brethren of what Masonry is really all about; and the myriad of gimmicks and substitutes for the teachings of the lessons of the Craft, and are convinced that any form of publicity campaign could risk revealing the Order to be a rapidly emptying shell….. a largely hollow drum just making a big noise.  Or, to put it more bluntly – an Order of hypocrites who don’t even try to practice what they preach.

Concerned Masons argue that if we return to the ancient practices and objectives of the Craft, there would be no need of publicity whatsoever.  The alleged shortcomings would correct themselves and Freemasonry would have its proper image.  They find nothing wrong with Freemasonry, only with so many Masons!

But the publicists keep up their pressure.  Dwight Smith cited the example of one Grand Communication at which a recommendation was made that every Lodge Junior Warden was to be officially named the Publicity Agent, and publicity included as one of the laid down duties of his office.(31)

ITEM: The practice of printing and distributing Masonic pamphlets or leaflets is widespread on this continent and even being urged upon our own jurisdiction.  Ostensibly they are to be limited to prospective candidates and are offered as an explanation of what Masonry is all about.  But in fact, they wind up being distributed to the public at large, and are even used as a straight recruiting device.

Opponents to the pamphlet idea note that the recipients may be left with the impression that the Brother who relies on a leaflet to explain Masonry, apparently doesn’t know what it’s all about himself, or just can’t be bothered to explain in person.  Either way they set a bad example.

Concerned Brethren are also worried about how those printed pamphlets have a tendency to appear in little piles on church pews and waiting rooms, or even are to be seen blowing about the streets.

ITEM: Masonic T-shirts have now made their appearance in Alberta another import.  They are rather informal, flimsy things, but

with some symbol or words of Freemasonry emblazoned across the front, to help give the Craft its “proper image”, of course.  So now we find Masonry’s good name competing for public attention with all those other shirts sporting gags, racy slogans, and four-letter words.  What is this doing to our image?

POINT  III  –  THE INNOVATORS OF THE 17-HUNDREDS CHANGED OUR     FORMS AND OUR CUSTOMS, EMASCULATED OUR RITUALS AND DIVERTED OUR CRAFT OBJECTIVES.

ITEM: The Grand Lodge of Alberta recently undercut our traditional word of mouth method of teaching by issuing copies of our private Work to anyone who wants them (provided he is a M.M., Ed.). This change in custom (not yet universal, it is worth noting) has not only destroyed much of the invaluable Master ­Apprentice relationship,, but has resulted in no appreciable improvement in the quality of the Work.  Alert Brethren watch this “streamlining” of our practices and further introduction of technology: the printing press, the copy machine, the tape recorder, etc.  All these things are supposed to make a man a better Mason, but they worry lest they become too impersonal, and serve simply to relieve the candidate of the necessity to make a little more effort on his own behalf.

They ask, “Are we making it too easy? Are we passing the buck to machines? What has happened to the human element?”

ITEM: Increasing numbers of Lodges have capitulated to the social trends by lowering their standards of dress and dignity.  First names and nicknames have replaced proper titles; turtleneck sweaters, etc., are worn by some officers instead of the customary, more formal attire of the Lodge.  Off-colour and ethnic jokes are common and go unchallenged, and novelties are introduced without the traditional discipline and decorum.

ITEM: Outside ritualistic teams of all kinds are increasingly moving into Lodges to relieve the regular officers of their primary duties.  And we wonder why we have so many inexperienced Past Masters walking our streets!

ITEM: The principle of modesty and unobtrusiveness in Craft Masonry is being strained by a modern tendency to advertise one’s membership and rank to an uncomprehending public.  The example of the Masonic bumper-stickers needs little comment.

Nevertheless, there seems to be a growing obsession on this continent with pins, buttons, badges and all those other external trappings used to advertise an individual’s connections and rank. The trend has not gone unnoticed.  One can find in the proceedings of the North American Conference of Grand Masters the statement, “Our degrees – like our lapel pins and titles – come too easily and too often. (32)

Why does no one challenge those people who wear that lapel pin depicting a walking stick and spheres? This is a clear breach of a solemn oath against anything whatsoever that may be legible or intelligible to oneself or anyone else in the world.  Even if just shrugged off as a rather cunning evasion of the exact wording, it remains a blatant breach of the spirit of that oath. Doesn’t anybody care anymore? Are concerned Brethren justified in labeling this a change in form and custom?

ITEM: Last year a U.S. Masonic Jurisdiction faced loss of recognition by other jurisdictions when it introduced innovations aimed at grinding out new members enmasse. An edict was issued that abolished the waiting period between degrees; removed the necessity for a candidate to prove up -between degrees; and permitted the initiation of candidates in large groups: one individual only, need take part in the ceremony while a crowd of other candidates simply looked on.  This meant that with appropriate promotion and recruiting, any Lodge could conceivably run through 100 new members in a weekend.

Fortunately, wiser leaders in the Craft issued an ultimatum and the edict was rescinded.

What is your reaction to this? Would you welcome visitors, so initiated, to your Lodge? Do you feel that such innovations tend to be schismatic? Some Masons do, Think about it.  While thinking about it, ask yourself the question; “Is this issue really dead, or is it likely to reappear through the back door of the Craft?”

POINT IV  –  THE EARLY INNOVATORS THAT CAUSED THE GREAT SCHISM CHANGED LODGES INTO SOMETHING THEY WERE NEVER INTENDED TO BE: i.e., STRAIGHT, RESTRICTED SOCIAL CLUBS.

ITEM: While fully acknowledging the benefits to be derived from social activities in a Lodge, many concerned Brethren worry lest we again go too far in these distractions and forget our true Masonic purpose.  They cite the cases where Masonic programs are drastically curtailed or eliminated altogether because they may delay the party.  “The ladies are waiting!” Sound familiar?

ITEM: There is a growing tendency for Lodges to put entertainment ahead of instruction in Lodge programs.  Thus we see a drift to pass over interesting and informative Masonic speakers in favour of talks on such topics as pollution, breathalyzers, or the drug problem . . . anything at all, in fact, that can be found anywhere, except the one thing we can get nowhere else: Freemasonry.

ITEM: The practice of holding “open installations” is fairly widespread in the United States.  While applauded by some, other Masons have profound misgivings.  They realize that once such novelties are introduced, they are exceedingly difficult to eradicate.  It is brought about, of course, in the interests of “modernizing” the Order, or again, to “change with the times.”

An open installation is one in which family and friends are invited to participate.  In the opinion of many, these affairs sometimes become nothing more than a restricted ego trip for the Grand Lodge officers rather than a dignified and traditional ceremony, attended by the Craft as a whole.  There is again a tendency to shorten the ceremony by elimination of longer and more esoteric passages lest it bore the visitors . . . A direct parallel to the emasculation of the ritual in the 17th century.

The real tragedy of some of these truncated ceremonies, however, is that they are turning a traditional Rite into a purely social event which fewer and fewer of the rank and file of Masons even bother to attend, their places having long since been filled with women and children, cousins and grandchildren, parents and in-laws, and all-manner of business connections.

ITEM: The socializers and innovators of today who work so enthusiastically to change Masonry’s role, have introduced a twist never dreamed of by their predecessors who brought about the first “Great Schism”.  It came with the advent of the service club idea, and the modern efforts on this continent to divert Masonry’s objectives into service club activities.

We are being urged daily to launch our Lodges into projects, campaigns, charity drives, and other highly visible community projects.  The big shift is from our traditional emphasis on individual charity to institutional charity.

It should be apparent to the most blind that Masonic Lodges are no more equipped to do service club work than the service clubs are equipped to practice Masonry.

Did our distinguished forefathers intend Freemasonry to be a service club? Are we getting off track? Some concerned Brethren feel we might be.

POINT V  –  HISTORIAN HAYWOOD STATED THAT THE FIRST “GREAT SCHISM” WAS HASTENED WHEN A MINORITY (at that time the aristocracy) CAME TO DOMINATE THE DIRECTION OF MUCH OF THE ORDER.

ITEM: Many prominent Masons in America today feel that there is clear danger that history is about to repeat itself on this continent.  Not the least among them is Dwight Smith, Past Grand Master of Indiana and probably the outstanding Masonic author in America today.  Bro. Smith and other serious-minded Masons are warning us that the tail is beginning to wag the dog; that a special interest minority of members (only some 20% in Alberta) continually seeks to advance the fortunes of other organizations at the expense of the Craft Lodges.  Some of his fulminations are expressed in these words:

(But) I am getting good and tired of seeing Symbolic Freemasonry used primarily as a Sugar Daddy, as a benevolent old gentleman whose chief reason for existence is to provide funds and housing facilities and a stock pile for candidates.  Especially do I see the when I see the parent body so blithely ignored, neglected and starved by those who drain off its resources with such profligacy. (33)

ITEM: Many dedicated Masons on this continent worry that our

Craft meetings are being turned into sounding boards to promote and recruit for other organizations; each group, like the aristocrats of old, claiming to be of special importance and the peak of the Masonic society.

Thus we see such things as the so-called “Booster Nights” or “Family and Friends Nights,” or panel discussion programs, when mixed bags of Masons and non-Masons are invited to dinner to hear representatives of concordant bodies deliver their public relations speeches.  Many Brethren feel that instructing non-Masons about other organizations is hardly an adequate substitute for teaching Masons about Masonry.  Would our ancestors have approved of this growing practice?

ITEM: Individuals who dare to speak out in defence of the Craft and adherence to our time-honoured practices and principles, find themselves the target of attacks by the innovators and modernizers.  Their honest desire to protect our Order from innovation is rewarded by misrepresentation and pressure from both outside and inside the Craft, some of it subtle and some not so subtle.  Regrettably, they have all too often felt obliged to withhold advice and participation in areas where their leadership is so desperately needed.

ITEM: How many of us have attended Lodges where the programs of Masonry are abandoned, while the ceremonies of other organizations are substituted? These often take the form of the rites of youth groups.  Let it be made clear that the merits of youth organizations and the virtues of supporting youth activities are not at all in question.  What is being questioned is why the Lodges are being asked to discriminate in favour of a particular group over any other.

Most youth groups have the sound support of individual Freemasons, and perhaps no better examples can be drawn than the DeMolay or the Boy Scouts, both of which derive leadership from enthusiastic Craft Masons.  Nevertheless, it escapes many Masons exactly why Craft Lodges should be asked to concentrate on some 400 members of DeMolay for special consideration while the 35,000 Boy scouts of Alberta are ignored.  Gentle critics complain that this is at least a distraction from our proper Masonic business.  Less charitable censors wonder aloud whether the Lodges are not being used to turn out more Boy Shriners.

ITEM: Another area that causes misgivings among many Brethren is that of membership.  Not a worry over its possible decline, but a worry that we are becoming too concerned with quantity at the expense of quality: that we are turning out too many members, and too few real masons.

At one Banff Interprovincial Conference M.W. Bro.  E.J. Lockhart of British Columbia put it this way:

. . . we should be very selective in the choice of men that we allow into the order . . . this has a relation to membership and the retention of members.  If we take in two or three that shouldn’t be in, because we lower our standards, we are liable to lose five or six better prospects, and we might lose some members that we already have. (34)

In Britain, the birthplace of modern Masonry, many Lodges restrict membership to 100, and it seems to work just fine.  One can get to know all his Brethren, and attendance is close to 100%.

ITEM: It is true that population shifts are making it difficult for some smaller rural Lodges.  This is compensated for, to some extent, by the growth of city Lodges.  For example, two Alberta Lodges (St.Mark’s and Renfrew) alone initiated over 100 candidates in a single five-year period (1973-1978).  Ten Alberta city Lodges alone initiated almost 400 in the same five years. In fact, some of those Lodges appear to do little else except initiate people.

Some concerned Brethren are left with the uneasy feeling that the big drive for membership comes largely from outside the Craft Lodges.  It is perhaps noteworthy, by the way, that generally speaking, in Alberta; attendance at Lodge meetings is inversely proportional to the size of membership.

ITEM: The Grand Secretary of Indiana took the time to examine various Grand Lodge proceedings and to note the visitations by Grand Masters.  He found the results astounding.  For example,

one Grand Master reported 79 visitations, but 45 were to appendant organizations.  Another Grand Master made 69 visitations, of which only 11 were to Symbolic Lodges, and of these six were to one Lodge.  So much for his interest in the Craft Lodges.  Still another Grand Master showed where his loyalties lay when he made 66 visitations and of these 62 were to concordant orders.(35)

Many concerned Brethren are asking how long Freemasonry on this continent can survive such neglect of its basic units.  No wonder many Brethren are concerned that Craft Masonry on this continent is getting short shrift, and is in need of some major readjustment back to its traditional place of respect.

To quote Bro. Dwight Smith again:

What can we expect when we have permitted’.  Freemasonry to become subdivided into a score of organizations? Look at it. Each organization dependent upon the parent body for its existence, yet each jockeying for a position of supremacy, and each claiming to be the Pinnacle to which any Master Mason may aspire.  We have spread ourselves thin, and Ancient Craft Masonry is the loser. Downgraded, the Symbolic Lodge is used only as a springboard.  A short-sighted Craft we have been to create in our beloved Fraternity a condition wherein the tail can, and may, wag the dog. (36)

Those are the five of the major changes introduced into Freemasonry which historian Haywood stated caused the “Great Schism” of the 17-hundreds, plus a few of the parallels which some Masons fear are being reintroduced today.

Undoubtedly there are those who feel that their Brethren are unnecessarily concerned, that they overstate the case, that they exaggerate the dangers, that the trends are not well-enough established to be of real concern, or simply, that the innovations we witness today bring as much virtue as vice.  If that is the reader’s opinion, then he need not be disturbed.  He need only watch complacently as the trends unfold.  If, however, he is among the ranks of the disturbed, he may be on the side of those who wish to bring the Craft back on course before it again splits asunder.

The critics of the current trends put their case more in sorrow than in anger.  They feel sure that the innovators act with sincerity and with no ulterior motives, regardless of the fact that they sometimes open a veritable Pandora’s Box-of potential Masonic evils.  As historian Haywood said about the first “Great Schism it :

The whole process….. was a gradual one; neither the Grand Lodge itself nor any of its Lodges had any intention of undermining the foundations of the Fraternity. . . and their intentions, such as they had, were in their own eyes completely innocent … (37)

The great tragedy is that Freemasonry in North America seems to be entering a new era, not as a universal and unchanging faith, but as a patchwork of independent social or service clubs, basted together with a few shaky stitches of tradition.

Ill-considered innovations so innocently but so easily

introduced, may prove exceedingly difficult to eradicate.  Their removal puts further strains on the Craft.  Their elimination ofttimes leaves behind an unfortunate trail of recriminations, acrimony, and disharmony that can take years to dissipate.

Only with difficulty, and with great self-discipline can an unfortunate innovation be eradicated, and even then, in the picturesque language of Brother Heron Lepper, a former librarian of the Grand Lodge of England,In vanishing from human ken, like the fiend of folklore, it left behind a nauseous stench to remind men that something unholy has passed that way. (38)

Let this essay be concluded with one last comment from the depths of the swamp.  In those immortal words of POGO,

“We have met the enemy, and he is us

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Editors, Board of, The History of Freemasonry and Concordant Orders, Boston and London: The Fraternity Publishing Company, 1913

Haywood, H. L., The Newly-Made Mason, Richmond, Virginia: Macoy Publishing and Masonic Supply Co., Inc., 1973

Lockhart, E. J., quoted in Proceedings, 35th Annual Inter-Provincial Conference of the Officers of the Four Western Masonic Jurisdictions, Banff, AB, 1975

Newton, Joseph Fort, The Builders, Richmond, Virginia: Macoy Publishing and Masonic Supply Co., Inc., 1951

Pick, Fred L. and G. Norman Knight, The Pocket History of Freemasonry, 5th ed., London: Frederick Muller Ltd., 1971

Smith, Dwight L., Why This Confusion In The Temple?, Washington, D.C.: The Masonic Service Association, 1970.

Whither Are We Traveling?, Franklin, Indiana: The Freemason Printing Center, The Indiana Masonic Home, 1966

DISCUSSION

(excerpted from the minutes)

Brother Aspeslet talked on the value of both history and opinion for stimulating good discussion and expressed sincere hope that no schism is created in our time.

Brother Fox spoke of the necessity of maintaining harmony and working together to meet the principles of Masonry.  He demonstrated how the Research Lodge has broken geographical boundaries with the simple dedication of working for the Craft.  Brother Borland supported the views expressed in the paper, and hoped that the “innovations” seen elsewhere would not pervade the Craft in Alberta.  He was interested in the statistics of involvement of members of append­ant orders in their Craft Lodges.

Brother Love stated supporting figures to answer Brother Borland, and also expanded on the changes which had been made in rituals.

Brother Juthner raised the problem of who were the good and bad in the Antient/Modern conflict, casting some doubt on the Ancients’ purity of purpose.

Brother Laycraft felt this was a most provocative paper; he noted the concerns raised but pointed out that some of the strongest supporters of concordant bodies are also heavily involved in their Craft Lodges.

Brother Senn noted that there was a basic need for belonging, and that some Brethren move into appendant bodies for this reason alone.  He also stated that the opinions of today are frequently used as the facts of tomorrow, as any history text will show.

Brother Borland commented that perhaps the answer would be for appendant bodies to sever the link with Craft Masonry and stand as independent bodies.

Brother Lusk complimented the speaker but warned against tunnel vision which restricts our opportunities to grow as people. Other organizations have something to offer and do not steal the person who does not wish to leave.  He stated that “you do not increase the light of your candle by putting out those around you.” Working together is the answer.

Brother Jendyk stressed the importance of retaining the Landmarks and not adopting changes that are not required.  We are looking at symptoms and not causes: we need more research!

Brother Love closed the discussion by stating that his essay was intended to stimulate discussion and, apparently, he had been successful.

1. Newton, The Builders, p. 198

2. Haywood, The Newly-made mason, p. 40

3 Newton, op.cit., p. 172

4 Ibid., p. 170

5 Haywood, op.cit., pp. 27 & 28

6 Newton,   loc.cit.

7 Haywood, op.cit.,  p. 27

8 Pick and Knight, The Pocket History of Freemasonry,  p. 102

9 Haywood,  op.cit.,  p. 31

10 Ibid.

11 Newton,   pp. 198 & 199

12 Pick and Knight,  op-cit.,  p. 113

13 Pick and Knight,  op.cit.,  p. 114

14 Ibid.,  p. 113, footnote

15 History of masonry and Concordant orders, p. 554

16 Loc.cit.

17 Loc.cit. (quoting Mackey)

18 Haywood,op.cit.,p. 40
19 Loc.cit,

20 Haywood,  op.cit.,  p. 40

21 Ibid., p. 41

22 Ibid., p. 33

23 Haywood, op.cit., p. 37

24 Loc. cit .

25 Pick and Knight,  op.cit.,  p. 109

26 Loc.cit.

27 Ibid.,  p.122

28 ibid.,  p.123
29 The references to Haywood (op.cit., pp. 31-33) are approximations used by the author and do not necessarily correspond to Haywood’s items 1-5.

30 Copied by the author from an issue of the Grand Lodge of Colorado official publication.
31 Smith, Why This Confusion In the Temple?,  p. 66
32 Recorded by the author during the North American Conference of Grand Masters, Colorado Springs, CO., February, 1979.
33 Smith, op.cit., p. 43
34 Lockhart in Proceedings . . . Baner, 1975,35 Smith, op.cit, p. 44
36 Smith, Whither Are We Traveling?, p. 10

37 Haywood, OP-cit., p. 33
38 Pick and Knight, op.cit., p. 115

Montana 3-7-77 in Freemasonry

Montana 3-7-77 – How Freemasonry Tamed a Territory

Bumper Sticker
Bumper Sticker

Author’s Note: Now for a real True Story of True Masonry. I first penned the following article in November 2003. It is an interesting historical account of how Freemasonry impacts the development of the United States.

Introduction

No institution contains more valuable undeveloped history than Masonry.
– Nathaniel P. Langford (1867)

As we all know, law enforcement personnel are easily distinguished by certain symbols, such as a badge, a helmet, a uniform, or a shoulder-patch. Different jurisdictions, different symbols. But the shoulder-patch worn by the State Highway Patrol of Montana is an interesting design bearing one of the most intriguing insignia found in the law enforcement world: “3-7-77”, a simple set of numbers which many people, including the Montana troopers themselves, have trouble explaining. In its simplest terms, it refers to how “Law and Order” was introduced to Montana and represents the basis for the founding of the state.

uniform patch

For years, historians have been at a loss as to the exact meaning of the mysterious “3-7-77.” Theories abound to try and rationalize this cryptic numbering convention; everything from the dimensions of a grave (3 feet wide, 7 feet deep, and 77 inches in length), to a countdown to warn an outlaw or undesirable to get out of town (3 hours, 7 minutes, and 77 seconds) or face the consequences of vigilante justice. These theories are logically flawed and, as such, lack conviction. The only thing historians and scholars can agree upon is that it stood for a vigilante movement in the 1860’s which cleaned up Montana and made it safe from thieves, armed robbers, claim-jumpers, and cutthroats. Bottom-line, the numbers “3-7-77” struck fear into the hearts of the outlaws of the day and, as such, must have been developed by a force to be reckoned with….Freemasons.

Nathaniel P. Langford

Nathaniel P. Langford
Nathaniel P. Langford

1862 represented a chaotic year for the United States. The young country was at war with itself over ideology. After just one year of conflict, both the Union and the Confederacy started to realize their differences weren’t going to be settled any time soon. The outlook for prosperity was bleak. People in both the North and the South were beginning to experience economic hardships. Those not interested in the righteousness of either side of the conflict wanted a way out. The western frontier held potential for those not afraid to embark into the unknown. Gold and silver had been discovered in the Northwest, making the temptation to move west irresistible to many people, including Nathaniel Pitt Langford of Minnesota.

In the summer of 1862, Langford, was one of dozens of men who signed on to an expedition, led by Capt. James L. Fisk, to cross the northern plains by wagon train and head into Western Montana to seek their fortunes and create a new life for themselves. At this time, Langford was 30. He was a tall man and had a beard to offset his slowly receding hairline, but more importantly he had a steely gaze that could penetrate your soul if you got on his bad side. Born in 1832 in Westmoreland, New York, Langford was raised and educated in New York state. In 1854, at age 22, he started his migration west by first stopping in Minnesota where he became a merchant and was raised a Master Mason under the Grand Lodge of Minnesota, an event which proved to be a key development in his character often overlooked by historians. He was proud of his Masonic heritage and was proficient in his degree work. Little has been recorded of his personal life, other than he was strong willed and spoke with conviction.

Like many others, Langford moved west to seek his fortune but he also suffered from wanderlust; the American frontier fascinated him and he found the temptation to explore it irresistible. Now, at age 30, he felt compelled to do something with his life and the Fisk Expedition represented the opportunity he had been waiting for.

Montana

The name “Montana” is Spanish meaning “mountainous.” Those visiting the state are struck by the beauty of the Rocky Mountains that follow the continental divide in the western part of the state. However, there are also vast plains in the state. Other than the plentiful mineral resources in the western part of the state there was little else in Montana of the 1860’s but buffalo and Indians, lots of Indians. Montana was an excellent refuge from the white man’s advancement to the west. Consequently, Montana became the home of many tribes including the Blackfeet & Crow, Northern Cheyenne, Flathead, Salish, Pend d’Oreille, Assiniboine and Sioux. The plains provided the perfect hunting grounds for bison representing the food, clothing and materials to sustain the tribes.

Bros. Meriwether Lewis and William Clark (St. Louis Lodge No. 111, MO) brought the first group of white explorers across Montana in 1805 and 1806 as part of their expedition to the northwest. They were closely followed by fur trappers and traders. Aside from this, Montana remained the domain of the Indian…until gold was discovered.

Well before Montana was recognized as a territory of the United States, gold was found in southwestern Montana in the early 1860’s. With this news, prospectors hurried to the area and makeshift villages began to pop-up. Since there was not yet a territorial government formed, law was governed by mining camps who would hire private sheriffs to administer justice, usually with mixed results.

The Fisk Expedition

Langford and the Fisk Expedition found its way through the plains of Montana with little incident. It had been a long and hard trip, but they were now approaching the end of their journey. Shortly before they reached the mountains, the expedition split into different directions with Langford’s group heading towards the southwest.

The group of about a dozen men stopped along a river bank one day at noon to take refreshment and were about to resume their journey when three or four horsemen appeared, coming out of the mountains, dressed from head-to-toe as mountain men. As such, the Fisk group eyed them suspiciously and checked their weapons in case of trouble, particularly Langford who was attending to his horse towards the back of the group. Fortunately, the riders presented no threat as all but one rode past the group without stopping to talk. The one lone rider stopped and dismounted to talk to the men at the front of the group who were yoking the oxen. Langford was out of earshot as to what was being said but the conversation was brief and the rider mounted his horse again. As he was about to leave, he turned and asked,

“Whose train is this?”

“Nobody’s; we own the wagons among ourselves.”

“Where are you from?”

“From Minnesota.”

“How many men were there in your train?”

“About one hundred and thirty.”

“Was there a man named H.A. Biff in your train””

“No, sir! No such man.”

“Did you ever hear of such a man?”

“I never did,” replied one.

“I know of no one of that name,” said another.(1)

This dialog, of course, caught the attention of Langford. Before the rider could leave, Langford approached him on horseback and offered him the token and word of a Master Mason. The two shook hands fervently for both had found a Brother they could talk to and trust. The two rode the rest of the day together describing their backgrounds and talking about Bannack, the small mining town where Langford was heading. Langford found the man to be a warm and intelligent brother Mason and enjoyed his company immensely. Likewise, Langford was the first Mason the rider had met in Montana and they talked as long-lost friends for hours, much to the bewilderment of the others.

After the two had established a warm rapport and described their Masonic upbringing, the rider began to give Langford a picture of the lay of the land. He warned Langford how the area was growing due to the gold rush, and how some miners who struck gold had a tendency to disappear or were found dead. There was little, if any, law enforcement or government in the area. Consequently, he advised Langford to keep a low profile and watch his back.

The two eventually parted on the square with the rider heading off to rejoin his comrades. Langford took heed of his Brother’s advice.

First Meeting

As the Fisk group continued their trek, Langford marveled at the power of Freemasonry and dwelled on his chance meeting with his fraternal Brother. Summer had given way to Autumn and Langford knew their trip to Bannack was coming to an end. The group camped on the Mullan road near the summit of the Rockies. It was a picturesque spot where the mountains surrounded them and was lit at night by the moon and a curtain of stars. The glory and grandeur of the Rockies stirred Langford’s soul and he wanted to celebrate their arrival. Knowing there were two other Masons in his party, he recruited Bro. George Charlton and Bro. George Gere, who, like Langford, were all members of Minnesota Lodges and the trio ascended the summit for the purpose of opening an informal Lodge of Master Masons as generations of Masons have done before them, complete with Bible, square and compass. Being more proficient in Masonic custom than his Brothers, Langford acted as Worshipful Master. Inspired by the moment, the Masonic words and ritual came back to Langford with fluidity and precision. All agreed it was a beautiful degree and confirmed their faith in their Masonic heritage. None realized the significance of this “epochal” event as Langford would call it, representing the very first Lodge of Master Masons ever held in Montana and ultimately foretold the events to shape the territory. The date: Monday, September 23rd, 1862.

These three Brothers, by their actions, became the “3” in “3-7-77”.

Mural from inside the Grand Lodge of Montana's Library & Museum, Helena
Mural from inside the Grand Lodge of Montana’s Library & Museum, Helena

Bannack

Bannack was located on the southeastern edge of the newly created Idaho Territory (the southwest corner of modern Montana). The name “Bannack” was derived from the local Bannack Indians and the town was situated next to the Grasshopper Creek, a tributary of the Beaver Head. Grasshopper Creek was ultimately the source of the gold and the reason for people migrating to the area. Although the river had already been named by Lewis & Clark, local miners promptly renamed it “Grasshopper” due to the inordinate amount of insects that would swarm around as you walked about the area. Gold had been discovered in the Grasshopper on July 28th, 1862 and by the end of the year, hundreds of people had gravitated to the area, with a thousand by the end of 1863.

In 1862 Bannack was a typical American frontier boom-town. Buildings sprouted up seemingly over night, some were nothing more than simple cabins or shacks. Although tents were commonly used by the miners at first, wooden structures were needed to withstand the harsh Montana winters. Consequently, several establishments sprung up quickly, including hotels, stables, a barber, even a bakery; and more than one saloon. Other structures would soon follow based on private donations, including a church, a jail, a school, and eventually a Masonic Lodge.

When people heard about the gold in Bannack, they swarmed to the area to seek their fortune. Most came to mine for gold, others came to create the infrastructure needed to support the miners, e.g., hardware, hotels, saloons, food, etc., but other lawless characters inevitably appeared on the scene to rob and steal from the work of others. Most of the residents were law-abiding citizens, others were outlaws looking for quick money, parasites sucking the decency out of society.

Although one would be captivated by the beauty of the area and unbridled freedom of Montana, you were always reminded that Bannack was an outpost in the “Wild West.” In the early days, fights and duels would erupt at a moments notice, primarily due to liquor, gambling, a word spoken out of turn, or to simply prove manhood. Wrote Bro. Thomas J. Dimsdale, a writer who documented the era, “such men find themselves removed from the restraints of civilized society.” This was a very masculine dominated society and the absence of female companionship only contributed to problems. To make matters worse, there was nothing to do during the brutal Montana winters except drink; consequently, many fell victim to “cabin fever.”

Bannack was isolated from any true territorial jurisdiction, without any form of government. But man is a social animal requiring structure in the form of agreed upon rules, regulations and laws. Without them, chaos quickly follows, which Bannack fell victim to, and became a convenient target for outlaws who organized into gangs of roving desperados.

The citizenship of Bannack eventually took steps to bring a rudimentary form of law and order to the town. It was common in the old west for mining camps to elect their own sheriffs to settle disputes and try to keep a general sense of order. Bannack followed suit. Such sheriffs had a free hand to keep the peace, regardless of their methods. Suffice it to say, the tactics of the sheriffs would be unthinkable by today’s standards. Again, this was the “Wild West.”

Such was the environment Langford and his party rode into in the Fall of 1862. Bannack was far from the civilization known to Langford in New York or even Minnesota. Such an environment would test any Freemason who believed in justice, religion, and brotherhood – as it did with Langford, who would stand out as a pillar of Bannack society based on his strong moral convictions.

Whether you were a miner or not, everyone at least dabbled in the search for gold, including Langford. But Langford was more of a businessman by nature and quickly recognized Bannack was rapidly expanding with plenty of miners looking to spend their gold dust. Consequently, he headed up a small partnership to build a sawmill outside of Bannack in a place called Godfrey’s Canyon.

Langford restricted his close confidants to those he could trust, especially Brother Masons. Among his friends was Bro. William H. Bell who was a Mason from St. Louis. In November 1862, Bell fell victim to mountain fever and, as his dying wish, requested Langford give him a Masonic funeral. When Bell passed, his body was taken to the cabin of Bro. C.J. Miller and Langford spread the word from mouth to ear for all Masons in the area to assemble at Miller’s cabin for the funeral. He did not anticipate the response his call would result in, nor the chain of events that would ensue.

Word of the Masonic funeral was carefully passed from one Brother to another around Bannack. As the sun set on November 12th, the Masons began to assemble at Miller’s cabin, some came alone, others in groups, but they kept coming. Langford had expected perhaps a handful of Masons to heed his call. Instead, dozens appeared to pay their Masonic respects to their fallen Brother. So many Masons appeared that they moved the funeral to a larger cabin nearby. Langford conducted the services personally and 76 Brothers deposited the evergreen in Bell’s grave.

These 76 Brothers, along with the deceased Bell, became the 77 in 3-7-77.

The Masons were pleasantly surprised by their numbers. Prior to the funeral, it had not occurred to anyone that the fraternity was so well represented in the area. Consequently, they began to hold lodge meetings in the security of the mountains, away from prying eyes and easy to tyle. These meetings became important to the Masons, not only to reaffirm their Masonic obligations but to establish the support network they needed to survive in dangerous times.

Seven

The “7” in “3-7-77” is the keystone of our algorithm and represents the culmination of our story. Although, it is the main component that lead to law and order in Montana, it would be for naught without the first two variables in place.

As the Masons held Lodge in the mountains, a new force arrived in the Spring of 1863, Henry Plummer a New Englander who had come to town via California. In Plummer’s youth, he was sickly and, based on his doctor’s advice, left New England as a young man and traveled west to San Francisco where he tried his hand at odd jobs. Eventually he moved to Nevada City where he became a successful baker. Politics intriqued him and he was elected Marshall of Nevada City where he learned to be tough in order to survive as a lawman.

Plummer’s record as a lawman was tarnished in 1857 when he gunned down John Vedder. Although Plummer claimed self-defense, the jury believed he may have been romantically linked to Vedder’s estranged wife, Lucy. Consequently, he was convicted of second degree murder and sentenced to ten years in San Quentin. While in prison, Plummer’s health again deteriorated; so much so, that on the recommendation of prison doctors, he was granted a pardon from the governor after serving only six months in prison. He returned to Nevada City to recuperate and work with his partner in his bakery. Eventually, he took up mining but was unsuccessful with the several claims he tried.

Henry Plummer
Henry Plummer

No longer a lawman, Plummer felt free to live a wild lifestyle which would include liquor, women, and fighting. He was drawn into a drunken confrontation and shot a man named William Riley dead. Not wishing to take his chances with the local legal system again, Plummer left California in October 1861, before Riley’s inquest. By fleeing the state before the inquiry, Plummer had become a fugitive from justice.

Plummer crossed over the California state line into Nevada but his name was known in these parts and, fearing arrest, he kept moving northward away from Nevada and California to Washington state. Learning of the gold strike in 1862 and seeking anonymity in the wilderness, Plummer headed to Montana where he could start anew and arrived in Bannack in the Spring of 1863.

Bannack at this time was still growing and lawless. The first flashpoint in its development towards law and order came when Charlie Reeves, and his accomplices Moore and Mitchell stirred up trouble by attacking a nearby Indian camp and, in the process, killed and wounded white men, as well as many Indians. The local citizenship was aghast by this and called for justice. In March of 1863, the mining districts became part of the newly formed Idaho Territory, but it took time for the word to reach Bannack. Feeling isolated but compelled to do something about the murders, the citizens of Bannack ordered a trial, the first of its kind in a miner’s camp. In the past, miner camp trials were used to settle disputes over mining claims, not for murder cases. As such, Langford got involved and insisted on a trial by jury, not by the miners in mass as was the usual custom. Consequently, a judge, jury, prosecutor, defense attorney, and sheriff were appointed to hear the case with Langford sitting on the jury. The trial of Reeves, Moore and Mitchell was well attended by the miners and although the organizers had good intentions, it was far from perfect in terms of jurisprudence.

There was no doubt about the guilt of the accused, only their motivation. Unmoved by their arguments, Langford alone insisted on the death penalty while the rest of the jury wanted to seize their property and banish them from the area. After much deliberation, Langford settled for the seizure and banishment.

The acting sheriff felt uncomfortable in the role and quietly abdicated his position shortly thereafter. This left the door open for Henry Plummer who, with his New England charm, was elected sheriff of the mining district in May of 1863. Plummer was only 27 years old at the time. He was a handsome man of medium build, with a long mustache, customary for the time. He could change his disposition at a moment’s notice, going from polite and engaging one minute, to crude and insensitive the next. Plummer was intelligent and his advice was often sought on a variety of matters, including mining. His disarming charisma could sway people and helped to break up fights and settle disputes. However, the educated citizens of Bannack saw through his charm and treated him suspiciously, as was the case with Langford who felt Plummer’s New England charm beguiled a darker side to his character.

Plummer courted and eventually wed Electa Bryan in June of 1863. However, the marriage was brief, lasting just three months before she left him for her native Iowa under mysterious circumstances. The trouble between Plummer and his wife seemed to be caused by his frequent absence from home; he was either at his office, on patrol in the district, or, unknown to Electa, at the Rattlesnake Ranch, headquarters for the outlaws.

Plummer wouldn’t allow anyone to challenge his authority and made it a point to reaffirm to everyone he met that he alone represented “Law and Order” in the area. His reputation as sheriff quickly grew; so much so, that he was nominated a Deputy U.S. Marshall for the Idaho Territory. But his nomination was blocked by Langford who, by this time, was President of the Union League and saw through Plummer’s charm. This incensed Plummer who tried to sway Langford to endorse him, to no avail. Consequently, Langford became Plummer’s sworn enemy.

Plummer had heard of the Masonic meetings in the mountains and, thinking it would be a shrewd political move, tried to join them only to be rebuffed by the fraternity who refused to let him in. This concerned Plummer greatly. He knew there were many Masons in the area and was concerned about the goings-on in their secret meetings, consequently, he sent spies to check on the Masons, only to be turned away by Tylers who safeguarded the meeting.

Despite the presence of a seemingly strong sheriff with his hand-picked deputies, crime did not abate, in fact, it proliferated. Robberies increased, as did disappearances and killings. Admittedly, Bannack was growing at an alarming rate. But if Plummer was half the sheriff he claimed to be, the town should not have been experiencing the problems it was. Further, it had not gone unnoticed that Plummer was absent from town whenever a robbery occurred. This was too remarkable a coincidence to be overlooked.

The Vigilantes

The second flashpoint came in the Fall of 1863 when two stagecoach robberies took place between Virginia City and Bannack, along with the killing of Nick Tiebolt who was robbed of two mules and murdered. Although the outlaws covered their faces, those riding on the stage suspected George Ives, a known local ruffian, as the person leading the raid.

The brutality of the crimes infuriated the citizenship, particularly the Masons who discussed the problem at length in their meetings. The Brethren did not trust Plummer and his deputies, nor did they have faith in the jurisprudence of the newly formed territory.

Suspecting Ives’ involvement with the stage coach robbery, a group of Virginia City citizens (Bannack’s neighbors) seized Ives and brought him to trial. Ives’ trial can be described as “clumsy” at best. Nonetheless, he was found guilty and sentenced to be hanged.

Subsequent to the trial, a core group of citizens, all Masons, met in secret. Impatient for justice and incensed by recent events, they decided to take law into their hands and formed a vigilante committee. Recognizing the need for organizing a tightly bound group, seven members swore allegiance to bring law and order to the area. On December 22, 1863 a vigilante oath was administered by Wilber Sanders, nephew of the new Chief Justice of the territory, Sidney Edgerton, both Masons from Ohio. It was these seven Brothers, by their actions, that became the “7” in “3-7-77”.

They formalized the oath in writing the next day:

“We the undersigned uniting ourselves in a party for the purposes of arresting thieves and murderers and recover stolen property do pledge ourselves on our sacred honor each to all others and solemnly swear that we will reveal no secrets, violate no laws of right and never desert each other or our standard of justice and seal them 23 of December 1863.”

Vigilantes were not uncommon in the wild west, particularly in the wilderness and loosely governed territories. But this Montana group developed an oath and a set of obligations based on honor, secrecy and righteousness; characteristics of Freemasonry.

The ranks of the vigilantes swelled immediately with Langford and many other Masons joining the group, as well as other non-Masons concerned with law and order. Merchants, miners, and professional men alike joined the committee, but membership in the vigilantes was a well guarded secret since they probably feared reprisals from the outlaws.

Naming Names

On the gallows, George Ives’ last words were that it was his confederate, Alex Carter, and not himself, who had actually committed the murder of Nick Tiebolt. With this information, the newly formed Vigilante Committee sprung into action and went in search of Carter. Warned the committee was looking for him, Carter made his escape. Instead, the committee found Red Yeager, an accomplice of Carter’s, and took him prisoner. Under questioning, Yeager revealed the names of the outlaw gang and the roles they served. Shockingly, he named Sheriff Plummer as Chief of the Gang, along with his deputies as accomplices. This made sense to the vigilantes, as all the pieces of the puzzle began to fall into place.

On January 10th, a group of 50-75 vigilantes from Bannack split into three squads and picked up Plummer and his two deputies, Ned Ray and Buck Stinson. Plummer had heard of how Ives’ was arrested and executed and was probably not surprised to see the arresting squad on his doorstep. He didn’t resist arrest, thinking he could talk his way out of the situation. He was wrong. The deputies were also easily apprehended and all three were hung on the Bannack gallows.

Following the hangings, the vigilantes in both Bannack and Virginia City wasted little time hunting down the remaining members of the outlaw gang, including Alex Carter who had escaped earlier. By the end of February 1864, Plummer’s gang had been eliminated and peace was restored to the area. The vigilante activities eventually subsided after this but was not totally abandoned until a few years later when the citizenship was convinced of the effectiveness of the legal system.

Historians question whether Plummer was, in fact, the leader of the outlaws and perhaps was innocent. The fact remains, with Plummer and the rest out of the way, law and order prevailed and Montana flourished.

EPILOGUE

The Bannack Gallows where Plummer and his deputies were hung; remarkably, they were ordered constructed by Plummer himself. Photo courtesy of the Bannack State Park.
The Bannack Gallows where Plummer and his deputies were hung; remarkably, they were ordered constructed by Plummer himself. Photo courtesy of the Bannack State Park.

It is not known who specifically invented the expression “3-7-77”, but it became the calling card of the vigilantes. In fact, the mysterious numbers actually did not appear until the 1870’s as the vigilantes were disbanding. It would be found carved in trees and brandished around towns as an intriguing warning to outlaws not to disrupt the peace and harmony of Montana. For if they did, the warning implied the vigilantes would not hesitate to reassemble and take justice into their hands again.

Vigilantism in today’s society is unimaginable. But given the climate of the times, e.g., alone in the wilderness with the “civilized” country at war with itself, it is understandable how the turn of events came about. Were the vigilantes wrong for taking the law into their own hands? Perhaps. But we, as members of the 21st century, are not fit to judge. Bottom-line, we must look at the end result: the robberies and killings stopped and law and order came to Montana.

There have been numerous books and articles written on the Vigilantes of Montana. Over the years, historians sifted through newspaper clippings of the time and available court and territorial records. We must remember American journalism, particularly in the west, had a flare for the dramatic at the expense of actual facts. Further, governmental records in a frontier town were practically non-existent. Regardless of how historians today protest Plummer’s innocence, they had no way of knowing in any precise detail of the events that occurred. More importantly, they didn’t have any knowledge of the customs and character of the Masonic Fraternity. In this author’s opinion, most of the historians simply “missed it.”

Langford

Nathaniel Langford spent a total of forteen years in Montana. In 1870, he led an expedition to explore the upper Yellowstone and became the first superintendent of Yellowstone National Park. In his later years, he authored four books on both the formation of Montana and his explorations of Yellowstone, all of which are still available for sale from on-line book stores. He died in 1911 at the age of 79.

A lifelong Mason, Langford was very active in the Fraternity for many years. In 1867, he was appointed Grand Historian and, at the Grand Lodge of Montana’s Third Annual Communications in Virginia City, he delivered an eloquent description of the accounts mentioned herein. His oratory, which was re-discovered not long ago, is available on-line at the Grand Lodge of Montana web site; click HERE.

Montana

The Lodge as it stands today in Bannack State Park. Photo courtesy of W:.Bro.F. Lee Graves, PM.
The Lodge as it stands today in Bannack State Park. Photo courtesy of W:.Bro.F. Lee Graves, PM.

With law and order restored in Bannack, Montana become a U.S. territory in 1864 with Bro. Sidney Edgerton, Langford’s friend and confidant, becoming the first territorial governor. Remarkably, Bannack had grown to a respectable size and, as such, became the capital of the new territory. But the gold-rush inevitably subsided and the populace moved on. By the time Montana became the 41st state in 1889, the capital was moved to Helena.

By 1938, Bannack was deserted and declared a ghost-town. Today, it is a state park where 60 buildings remain as a mute reminder of what was at one time the “Toughest Town in the West.” Amongst the buildings, stands a small two story dwelling bearing the square and compass. The Masons built the building in 1874 with the bottom story donated as the town’s school and the upstairs used as the Masonic Lodge.

Bannack Historical Lodge 3-7-77 A.F.& A.M.

Bannack Masons obtained the Lodge’s original dispensation on April 27, 1863 from the Grand Lodge of Nebraska. But as the Grand Lodge of Montana was formed in 1864, the Brethren reapplied in 1871 and became Bannack Lodge No. 16 A.F.& A.M. As the population moved away, the Lodge was forced to consolidate with Dillon Lodge in 1921.

Inside Bannack Lodge today. Photo courtesy of M:.W:.Bro.David L. Prewett, PGM.
Inside Bannack Lodge today. Photo courtesy of M:.W:.Bro.David L. Prewett, PGM.

The Lodge in Bannack remained dormant for many years until 2000 when the Grand Lodge of Montana rechartered it as a historical lodge. Today, any Master Mason in good standing and belonging to a Lodge recognized by the Grand Lodge of Montana can apply for a Life Membership in Bannack Lodge. For a petition, click HERE.

The monies derived from membership in Bannack Lodge are used to maintain this historical structure. To date, the monies have been used to shore up the building without disturbing the past. So much so, that a Lodge of Master Masons is now held once a year to honor and remember the Brothers who helped tame a territory and forge a state.

In 2004, the Mullan Pass Historical Lodge No. 1862 A.F.& A.M. was chartered to commemorate the first meeting organized by Langford while still a part of the Fisk Expedition.

2005 Mullan Pass Historical Lodge meeting
2005 Mullan Pass Historical Lodge meeting
Masonic Pin for Bannack Lodge
Masonic Pin for Bannack Lodge

BIBLIOGRAPHY

(1) Nathaniel P. Langford, October 8, 1867, address to the 3rd Annual Communications of the Grand Lodge of Montana.

SOURCES

Bannack Homepage
Bannack State Park
Biography.Com: Langford Biography
Grand Lodge of Montana
Montana Historical Society
Montana Vacation, Adventure, Recreation and Travel Planning Guide (Bannack)
Vigilantes of Montana Web Site

The author wishes to express a personal note of gratitude to W:.Bro.F. Lee Graves, PM, Past Grand Historian of the Grand Lodge of Montana, now residing in Stuart, Florida, for his assistance in editing this article.

Also, thanks go out to R:.W:.J. Paul Stellrecht, PDDGM/21, for his review and advice regarding this article.


More Masonic History.


Keep the Faith.

Freemasonry From the Edge
Freemasonry From the Edge

by W:.Tim Bryce, PM, MPS
timb001@phmainstreet.com
Palm Harbor, Florida, USA
“A Foot Soldier for Freemasonry”

NOTE: The opinions expressed in this essay are my own and do not necessarily represent the views or opinions of any Grand Masonic jurisdiction or any other Masonic related body. As with all of my Masonic articles herein, please feel free to reuse them in Masonic publications or re-post them on Masonic web sites (except Florida). When doing so, please add the following:

Article reprinted with permission of the author and FreemasonInformation.com

Please forward me a copy of the publication when it is produced.

Also be sure to check out Tim’s “Pet Peeve of the Week” (non-Masonic related).

Copyright © 2009 by Tim Bryce. All rights reserved.

The Grand Lodge of Arizona

The Grand Lodge of Arizona is the next stop on our tour of American Grand Lodges.

Arizona Masonic membership:

9,900 – 2006
9,642 – 2007
gain/loss  –  -258
data from MSANA

State population – 6,338,755 as of 2007 (estimated),


About the Grand Lodge:

The Grand Lodge of Arizona does not have a listing on Wikipedia.

The website has no information on the formation or history of Freemasonry in Arizona.
Some of what I found on my excursion there:

azsealThe site at first approach is very impressive.  The URL is catchy and relevant to the site it represents: http://www.azmasons.org.  Entering the URL, the splash page opens with a panorama of images of the state (the Grand Canyon, cactus, state flower), which then fade into images of Freemasonry.  Behind the images is an impressive score of music to usher in the site.  It is a bit surprising, given the volume the music starts at (and that I had my volume turned way up), the auto start music definitely caught my attention.

The site meets the user with a very clear top and bottom layout.  The top header is the anchor art with the navigation sub bar with color coordinated sub menus for the site menus.  This is a straight forward arrangement and navigation and a very simple format to expand as data is added.

glofaz

The Grand Lodge of Arizona website

On the front page there is a clear mission statement of the Fraternity, but without any attribution from where it originated.  Reading it left me unclear if this was the statement of Arizona Masonry or of Freemasonry in general.  There are two calendar entries right on the front page to relevant events, though one was already expired, but only by a few days of my visit.

The site does offer a lot of choices in the navigation. Six main tabs (including a Home tab) with several pages beneath each option, the navigation also repeats on the pages visited on the left side.  All of the major navigation is text (HTML) and easily scalable as updates and additions are made.

Additionally, all of the sites in the navigation go to text based pages without any cumbersome PDF’s or Word docs, which is good, but delving into the data, the pages also seem to be free of unique information to the state.  I will commend them in that all of the navigation stays in site, which keeps the visitor engaged in the content.  Also, there is a very functional calendar with a lot of valuable Grand Lodge data.

Informational Content:

When looking at the site from an informational stand point, I found that it was very light.  With every page filled with content, I found very little of it relevant to someone with an interest in becoming an Arizona Mason.  It did include entries in their about section on myths and misconceptions, the fraternities history, but that was it.  There was no mention of what Arizona Masonry was about.  It also includes a page on “How to Join” which does a very good at talking about joining, but without any means to take the reader to the NEXT STEP.  Ultimately the site does nothing to help convert the viewer into a lodge visitor, let alone a petitioner.  There is no off link to “contact us for more info”, “submit your name and info on line”, or even a phone number for someone to call with questions.  It was disappointing that there was no provision in place to convert the visitor in ANY way on the “How To Join page.  I do want to say that there is a lodge locator page which would be a good next step link with instructions to contact a lodge for more info.  This may be a good interim solution, but would in turn layer more clicks into the visitation process.  There is also a contact us page, with the address of the Grand Lodge (and number) and a contact form for all of the Grand Lodge officers, but again, its disassociated from the “How to Join” page.

As with Alaska, there is a certain presumption that there is an infrastructure in place to field those contacts and manage them as they are received.  This again speaks to the broader organization and the back end of the site (and Grand Lodge) management.  It again raises the question, what is the emphasis of the site: members or prospective members/general public?  Perhaps a clearer idea purpose is needed to define who it is to address.

One item of concern I found was in the about us section; it indicated that Masonry in the state is over 11,000 members which must be old data when compared to the date from the 07 MSANA.  It may seem a clerical over site, but it does seem to link the site to old information on cross reference.

Also, I found a good many of the links on the sites link page to be broken or connected to non existent pages.

Look and Feel:

The colors choices for the site are very powerful and very Masonic, which I like, but from a non Masonic user, they almost feel overpowering.  Dominate Blue and Purple with yellow accents is very strong, and always runs the risk of being TOO powerful.  The balance is meaningful content.

The Arizona Grand Lodge site is definitely content driven and not based on images and art.  The opening header is excellent as it highlights Arizona Masonry, but there is little to follow it up to show some Masonic activity in the state.  Images, I want to stress, are not a mandatory inclusion, but they are an excellent way to tell a story and add value so long as they are relevant.  When you couple the lack of images with the generic content it loses its ability to engage the viewer with any relevant message giving it a “work in progress” flavor.

Overall:

The site looks every bit what one would expect a Grand Lodge website to look like.  But when you drill down into the pages the visual cohesiveness becomes diluted and difficult to associate with the state it is said to represent.  Taking it in a overall context, it feels incomplete.  The form is in place, but it seems to be waiting for the fine hand to weave into it the meaningful (and relevant) images and content.  Or even for an attentive hand to manage the links so as their connections are relevant.

From a visitor stand point there are lots of questions I’d like to find out about by coming to the site: “When did Arizona Masonry begin”?  “What do Arizona Masons do”?  “Why would a young Arizona man want to be a Mason”?  And “How would he best do that”?  These questions are all left unanswered when a visitor comes to the Grand Lodge of Arizona site.  By not answering those questions, it leaves a lot of leads (and conversions) unanswered and potentially result in even more turned off and disinterested visitors.

Coming up next – The Grand Lodge of Arkansas

Closed, Cloistered, Secret Sect or Open, Fraternal, Society Partner

This article could have been titled “The Castration of Freemasonry, Part 2” but I have chosen a new title so that both articles can stand on their own separately, not that there won’t be a fair amount of repetition between the two. Somehow I just keep seeing more and more material related to this subject, almost if an angelic messenger was shoving new considerations under my nose.

The original article, Part 1, has been published by A Partir Pedra and can also be read here: http://www.phoenixmasonry.org/the_castration_of_freemasonry.htm. It will perhaps provide some needed background to a continuation of the same theme. The title of this article has no bearing in reality; rather it is what is perceived by the general public not actually authored by the fraternity. In essence it is an exaggeration that does point to different schools of Masonic practice.

A number of Masonic writers and thinkers have mentioned that Freemasonry around the world has different priorities and focus.  It has been pointed out that European Masonry’s main focus is philosophical, North America’s social and South America’s political or to put it another way – passive, neutral and proactive in its role with society.  All practices are charitable although the U.S.A. carries its mission of relief to an extreme position.

Could it be that European Masonry, using Britain as a model, over time after The Enlightenment became accepted and codified into law and practice, evolved by melding with a governmental structure that promoted an official state religion, and that influenced Freemasonry to remain private?  If Freemasonry here is a quasi governmental/religious structure, some say captured by them, might that prevent it from entering into any kind of rebellion, reform or societal change and mold it into an organization which withdraws within itself mirroring that privacy found in English Gentlemen’s Clubs? Perhaps France with its French Revolution is the exception here that might explain their fracture into multiple Grand Lodges.

Could it be that North American Masonry, using the U.S.A. as a model, actually became so identified with the overthrow of British rule, reform and remaking and restructuring of the entire society, always placing the leaders of the Craft in the public eye, the end result being a system of checks and balances and separation, separation of church and state, that it actually programmed itself to walk away from being allied with church and state (Washington refused positions as both President for life and national Grand Master)? The United States Constitution, its political, legal and judicial systems were all crafted democratically, with heavy Masonic influence, to be a new way of doing things that reversed and corrected the odious tyrannical despotism of its European heritage. And because of all that, might we be able to say that North American Masonry accomplished its mission of liberty, equality and fraternity and now went on to just develop social relationships?

And could it be that South American Freemasonry because it was never able to ally itself with a religion, as most of the area was Roman Catholic, nor with government because it was most often undemocratic and tyrannical, never developed into the European model? Is it not true that the Roman Catholic Church often did ally itself with the government so that what Masonry fought elsewhere to reform – freedom of religion, free public schools instead of parochial church schools, democracy and separation of church and state – never got implemented in South America until much later?  So could we not say that Masonry, a product of the Enlightenment, was still fighting to get the Enlightenment implemented into society in South America? And that of course would explain it being tagged as political.

Then perhaps we could say that European Masonry, which implemented the Enlightenment without a complete remake and restructure of church and state, was able to ally or attach itself to these institutions and thus Masonry became passive. And North American Masonry, which became the leading philosophical influence on political thought and actual leadership of a complete societal remake, revolution and writing a Constitution from scratch, accomplished its mission and separated itself according to the rules it drew up and thus became neutral.  And South American Masonry, which neither blended with the rulers of society nor was successful in implementing the Enlightenment, fought on and thus became pro active.

But these, as you can see, are all only questions.  And what I am hoping for are others in the Craft more knowledgeable to offer correction and refinement of these musings. There are so many exceptions to the hypotheses, France and Italy, Canada and Brazil and others. Perhaps we have really only been talking about British, United States and Mexican Masonry.  But it does seem that the course society takes has a direct correlation with the course Masonry takes.

But there have been other influences on Masonry besides society. Another influence on how it sees its role is Masonry’s origin.  What are Masonry’s roots and how has its traditions made it into what we see today? Heretofore, two schools of thought as to Masonry’s origin held the most public prominence.  One school said that Masonry came out of the stonemason guilds while a second postulated that Masonry started with the Knights Templar.  Of course there are some who desire the best of both possible worlds by stating that Masonry was an amalgamation of the two.

Mark E. Koltko-Rivera, writing in Heredom, formulates another hypothesis. He backs up Mackey in stating that Masonry roots are in esoteric knowledge passed down from generation to generation in many different forms.

Mackey’s claim was:

  1. Knowledge of the reality of God and the immortality of the soul was transmitted through a line of biblical personages, from Adam to Solomon and beyond.
  2. After the biblical period, this knowledge was preserved, over the course of human history, in the civilizations of late antiquity and on until the European Enlightenment, through societies of esoteric knowledge and initiation, culminating in modern Freemasonry.
  3. And the manner of transmission involved imitations employing symbolism and allegory.(1)

Koltko-Rivera refines Mackey’s assessment of biblical personages to mean communities of esoteric philosophy operating in the name of those biblical personages, so he talks about the communities of Adam, Seth, Enoch, Noah and Abraham. After the biblical period he talks about the Eleusinian initiatory mysteries, the Qumran sect, Gnostic groups and the rite of Five Seals, Jewish Hekhalot and Merkavah mysticism, Hermetic societies in Egypt, other mystery schools in Greece and Rome, on to the Kabbalah, Elias Asmole, Sir Isaac Newton and the Rosicrucians. Although we might have left out a few groups along the way, we have enough to get a clear picture of where this school of thought is taking us. Perhaps it is quite a stretch to link all these parts into a whole or to say they were all interconnected. Personal genealogy is hard enough to research, but group or organizational genealogy going that far back would seem to many schooled in the scientific method to be a giant guess. What is important, however, is not the veracity of the claim but what kind of influence has this kind of thought had on Masonry?

Recently there has been a revival in Gnostic adherence since the discoveries at Nag Hammadi and the Kabbalah especially among Masons. These esoteric teachings and schools steer Masonry into being a philosophical society teaching Gnostic thought, that is that Masonry really does have some secret, special, superior knowledge over and above what the obvious, literal reading of its ritual says.  Even Wilmshurst will tell us that. Thus we have in Freemasonry a society that possesses this Gnostic esoteric knowledge of a superior life making Masonry an elite, closed organization that can only reveal the secrets of a better life to those who become part of the inner circle. This looks close to the European Model of above.

But is Masonry another mystery school or is it today a maker of leaders?  Is Masonry perhaps more open, declining any special secret or superior knowledge?  Can it be that Masonry is most successful at putting together a complete package of education and ethics along with toleration and non-judgmental acceptance of every school of thought and practice, race, religion and standing in life? Can it not support justice and freedom and show the world how it can live together peacefully? Can Masonry not help guide society and turn out leaders from its ranks to work in society to make for a better world? This looks closer to the above models of North and South America.

So the question really is, is Masonry’s purpose to just privately improve its own members who then are keepers of the sacred knowledge or is it to prepare men to be leaders within society in the various disciplines of politics, science, business, medicine and religion etc, to stand for what is just, right and ethical in a fallen world and to be a beacon of light for peace and harmony among all peoples and nations and to actively work for such?

What is most important, what one believes or what one does? It sounds like the Christian argument of salvation by faith or by works.

We read in Ephesians (2:8-9):

“For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this not your own doing: it is the gift of God – not the result of works, so that no one may boast.”

We read in the book of James (2:14-17 & 24)

What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if you say you have faith but do not have works?  Can faith save you?  If a brother or sister is naked and lacks daily food, and one of you says to them, ‘Go in peace; keep warm and eat your full,’ and yet you do not supply their bodily needs, what is the good of that? So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead………You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone.”

An American friend transplanted in Britain almost 20 years ago and raised a British Mason, after reading “The Castration of Freemasonry” E-Mailed me some comments.

There is a real and tangible difference between Freemasonry in England/Wales and Freemasonry in the United states,” he said.  “Here there is a slight tinge of stink attached to being a Freemason.  People don’t know why they think this, but there has always been the suspicion that Freemasonry is a gentlemen’s club in which one hand scratches the other’s back.  Thus many local councils prohibit Freemasons from public employment, and police authorities and the judiciary require that their members and employees disclose Masonic membership.”

“People here generally do not wear Masonic rings or ornaments outside the Lodge.  You don’t normally discuss Masonry or your membership with every one of your best friends.  You might discuss it with close friends, or mention it if someone shows interest, but you don’t talk about it very much.  There are no items such as Masonic number plates for cars, nor are there signs at town and city borders telling you when the local Masonic lodge meets.”

“I believe the best way to combat all forms of intolerance is to start from within and work outwards.  Each man builds his own Temple inside, making it strong, watertight, and integral within itself.  When everyone has done this, the world will be a better place.”

From an American viewpoint, I would counter with that there is a certain price to be paid for being so closely associated with the rulers and power structure of society.  And that being so private as to be labeled secret arouses all sorts of public jealousy and suspicions.  It is the fire that fuels conspiracy theories.  And finally if we wait until everyone builds a better Temple for himself, we will wait until hell freezes over.  It was Martin Luther King, a friend of Masonry, and Brother Jesse Jackson who saw a need to go public and to openly tweak the conscience of society.

So again we ask what is most important what one believes or what one does? And we ask the same question of Masonry.  What is most important for Masonry, its privately held knowledge and belief system which one has to be initiated into or its public doings partnered with society thereby bolstering freedom, liberty, equality, opportunity and justice for all and its positive influence on world peace?

We as individuals are all products of our traditions, our culture and our upbringing.  We are also products of the society we live in.  The same can be said of Masonry. Can we as individuals change and take on a different persona? There is nothing we can’t do but remaking yourself is one of the hardest tasks you can attempt. And so we must conclude the same for Freemasonry.

(1)        “The Transmission of Esoteric Knowledge & The Origins of Modern Freemasonry: Was Mackey Right” by Mark E. Koltko-Rivera, Heredom, Volume 15, pg. 184

Freemasonry – Know Thyself

By Martin Faulks

UGLE, coat of arms, Freemasonry

Why did an organization founded in the Goose and Gridiron Tavern in St. Paul’s Churchyard in 1717, go on to spread over the entire face of the habitable earth, and become the largest fraternal society in the history of mankind? And why is Freemasonry dying, in England, the place of its birth? Freemasonry is one of history’s success stories. Under the Grand Lodges of England, Scotland and Ireland we have an estimated membership of over 500,000. But the universal appeal of Freemasonry is not limited to the British Isles; world-wide we have an estimated membership of over 5 million!

Even within Freemasonry it is not widely appreciated how rare and unusual a phenomenon this is.  No other fraternal organization has ever spread so quickly, spread so widely or grown so large. To have done this Freemasonry must contain some idea that exerts a firm grip upon the imaginations of a considerable body of humanity, regardless of race, language or upbringing. Something about Freemasonry appeals to the very basic nature of humanity. What is it?

Today all organizations are having problems retaining membership, many Masonic lodges are having to close. Perhaps it is time to look at what got us into our successful historical position and what attracted our present level of membership.  To recreate these achievements in the future, we need to understand what Freemasonry has that other organizations, founded at the same time did not. We must ask what distinguishes our Craft from superficially similar organizations.

Our society provides many and varied chances for social and fraternal intercourse amongst individuals who choose to split off into distinctive fraternities. It offers many chances for charity and friendship. But this is not exclusive to freemasonry. There are a huge number of societies that offer similar opportunities, but none boast even half our membership, and none attract such men of distinction as we. By a process of elimination,  we arrive at the only remaining raison d’etre for the spread and attractiveness of the Masonic system, namely, the significance and implications involved within our ceremonial rites. There is something very special about our rituals.

A wonderful thing about Masonic ritual is that it acts like an ink blot test on the human mind. Each Freemason sees something slightly different in the working of the Craft depending on his situation in life, his personal background and his level of development. Sometimes I wonder if lack of firm knowledge of our origins is one of the greatest gifts Freemasonry has. This ambiguity allows the ritual to speak directly to us all without preconceptions.

Masonic ritual is a system of moral and spiritual transformation.  It inspires men to look at themselves and change the way they interact with the world; and it always has.  Freemasonry is a system of mental control and self-development comparable to Buddhism, yoga and many other paths of self-improvement to be found around the world. But it is a unique western tradition.

The special thing about Freemasonry is that it is free of dogma or religious bigotry. It is truly open to all religious persuasions. Each ritual is progressive, building on the work that was set before the candidate in the previous ceremony. It was the effectiveness of our teachings that inspired men the world over to don the Masonic apron. The rituals of Freemasonry tap into the basic human urge to want to improve one’s self, and to make the world a better place for all. Our Masonic philosophy should direct and aid us in this quest.

ashlar in freemasonry

Freemasonry teaches us that our personal characteristics are neither random nor immutable. We are not stuck with the nature we are born with.  We can change ourselves just as a builder changes his surroundings. We are living stones to be reshaped by the Masonic tools of the ritual. This is a powerful lesson. I believe it is the idea that originally drove the success of freemasonry and made it appeal to so many people. We all want to be better. If Masonic membership is dwindling, could it be that we are no longer putting this message across.

The lessons of freemasonry could be summarized as follows, the first degree teaches the principles of morality, the second degree the importance of learning, and the third the discipline of self knowledge.

As a young Freemason looking at Freemasonry in the modern world, I believe that it is at this final step that we falter. Lack of self-recognition and self-knowledge is not just lacking in the membership but also in the organization itself.

Freemasonry as a collective has still to master its third degree. We know the principles of morality, we understand the outside world. But we still have not realized our Order’s own true nature. The value of self knowledge is immeasurable. A man or a society must know its vices and its failures before it can eliminate them. It must know its virtues and successes to build on them.

Everywhere I go I hear Brethren earnestly saying that “Freemasonry has no secrets!”

If this is true then it is no surprise that young men join and then leave.

We are misleading them, because Freemasonry does hold secrets. Its traditional secrets tell how to turn vice into virtue. We are a school of self-improvement and self-development. This is the point of Freemasonry. If we Freemasons lose this focus then only failure can result.  If we have no secrets, what’s the point in joining?  If a school has no lessons it will attract no pupils. We will only get more men into Freemasonry, if we get more Freemasonry into men. Our success in the past was due to men being inspired to join to learn how to improve themselves.  Freemasonry is about inspiration. If we do not practice our teachings we will fail to be attractive. A rose only becomes beautiful as it grows from a bud into a full flower.  We are only going to progress if we truly engage with our own teachings. I don’t mean doing “sincere” ritual, I mean applying the “peculiar system of morality veiled in allegory and illustrated by symbols” to ourselves. No matter how many rituals or meetings you turn up to you can’t absorb the virtue of morality by osmosis (Though you may absorb extra weight as you eat your way through numerous festive boards.). To make a daily progress in Masonic knowledge you have got to work hard in your spare time. You need to contemplate the working tools, and apply their principles to your daily life until they become second nature. You need to study the ritual, slowly cultivate the control and progress it demands. When others see Masons on this path they will flock to join us, as they did in the past.

The task that Freemasonry puts before each one of us, is monumental, hard and painstaking.  It is easy for modern Freemasons to push their efforts and time into other matters, which though laudable can lead to them becoming distracted from the purpose of the Craft.

Many Freemasons become expert on the history of Freemasonry in general and their own Lodge in particular. Knowledge of Masonic history is interesting and fun, but it should always be second to the transformational work of Freemasonry.  Many Freemasons work hard to be charitable. Charity is commendable and is one of the virtues all Freemason should try to cultivate. But Charity should be a side effect of our personal development not its focus.  It is not, and should not, become the point in our organization.  If we are a charity then our ritual is of no purpose.  If we are a moral School the important thing is that our students are learning.  I believe it is time for Freemasonry to take a close, critical look at itself.

The United Grand Lodge of England is leading the way with the message of its pamphlet Freemasonry An Approach to Life which makes clear to the public that freemasonry is system of self-improvement. But the brethren need to get serious and back up this message by demonstrating its application by their actions.

If we are to regenerate Freemasonry from within, we need to look to the future not the past. We need to enjoy the solution, not suffer the problem. I opened this article by saying Freemasonry in England is Dying.  Our third degree teaches us that a wonderful thing about death is it can lead to a rebirth. Let is concentrate on putting this Masonic lesson at the center of our Freemasonry.

The Only Viable Option

Is the Shrine leaving the hospital business?

Its a possibility according to Ralph Semb, chief executive officer of Shriners Hospitals for Children in an article by the AP out of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

Speaking on the shrinking revenue and increased costs:

“Unless we do something, the clock is ticking and within five to seven years we’ll probably be out of the hospital business and not have any hospitals”

This is something reported on by Freemasons for Dummies just recently and on the Masonic Blog too.  They both had interesting things to say about the threatened closures, but reading the story from the AP, and seeing the reality so close at hand, it makes one wonder if there really is any hope for the widow’s son on this one.

Has the fraternl arm of Freemasonry gotten longer than what it can sustain?

The AP story does say that donations only make up a small percentage of their operating costs, with the remainder coming from the past endowment that has taken a substantial hit in the economic down turn.  It also asks the question towards the end about being saved by its forbearers. Melissa Brown, who is the associate director of research for The Center on Philanthropy says that health care giving is down, and that:

“the aging of once-prominent fraternal organizations might be affecting their ability to grow donations. “It could be that what they are seeing is a generational shift,”.

Its the last statement that takes us to Freemasonry.  Bro Mark Koltko-Rivera in this piece speaks to the idea that The Shrine has, in a sense, disassociated with the notion that a developed Freemasonry leads to a developed Shrine.  Did they perhaps see their role diminished in their namesake charity? Or was there still an active engagement of what has been going on to asses the present situation.  This will be interesting to see how it works its way through the Imperial Council Session in June. At the present burn rate of $1 million a day from the endowment (of $5 Billion) to cover operating costs, they still have some time, but thats with the presumption that the economy (and the stock market makes a turn).

So what does it mean, what does it foretell?  Thats hard to say.  It does seem to be a physical manifestation of the shrinking fraternity that we can bare witness to and take heed from.  That as the numbers continue to diminish, the failure to engage the community meaningfully, and the active dis-engagement of society persists, more of the institutional edifices created will  fall away…  Unless we do something about it.

The possible collapse of the Shrine are the rocks in the river ahead that we can see. Let’s learn from them and do things differently before the Associated Press article is about the closing and selling of Grand Lodge buildings, and its become too late to navigate.

INRI

 

christ on the cross
One depiction of the crucifixion of Jesus

Any man of any faith that reads the Gospels of the Christian faith will agree that many of the lessons that Jesus taught were excellent reflections on morality. He was a revolutionary figure that portrayed God as a fatherly figure, leveled himself with the poor, taught men to love their neighbors, and is remembered as a man that defended the rights of women in situations that his fellow men were willing to condemn a female. Jesus is one of only a few men in history that no one has condemned with any significant support.

Many men of various faiths including Mohammed and Ghandi viewed Jesus as being a great prophet. One of the quotes often attributed to the latter says “”Oh, I don’t reject your Christ. I love your Christ. It’s just that so many of you Christians are so unlike your Christ.”

Therefore, I believe that while Christians all around the world remember the death of their savior, Masons should remember the event as well. Except that as a Christian Mason, I don’t only view the death of Jesus as a necessary part of God’s plan, but as mankind’s hatred for pure truth. The following is the account of the crucifixion as given in the book of Matthew.

Then Jesus stood before the governor, and the governor asked him, “Are you the kingof the Jews?” Jesus said, “You say so.” But when he was accused by the chief priests and the elders, he did not respond. Then Pilate said to him, “Don’t you hear how many charges they are bringing against you?” But he did not answer even one accusation, so that the governor was quite amazed.

During the feast the governor was accustomed to release one prisoner to the crowd, whomever they wanted. At that time they had in custody a notorious prisoner named Jesus Barabbas. So after they had assembled, Pilate said to them, “Whom do you want me to release for you, Jesus Barabbas or Jesus who is called the Christ?” (For he knew that they had handed him over because of envy.) As he was sitting on the judgment seat, his wife sent a message to him: “Have nothing to do with that innocent man; I have suffered greatly as a result of a dream about him today.” But the chief priests and the elders persuaded the crowds to ask for Barabbas and to have Jesus killed. The governor asked them, “Which of the two do you want me to release for you?” And they said, “Barabbas!” Pilate said to them, “Then what should I do with Jesus who is called the Christ?” They all said, “Crucify him!” He asked, “Why? What wrong has he done?” But they shouted more insistently, “Crucify him!”

Jesus is Condemned and Mocked

When Pilate saw that he could do nothing, but that instead a riot was starting, he took some water, washed his hands before the crowd and said, “I am innocent of this man’s blood. You take care of it yourselves!” In reply all the people said, “Let his blood be on us and on our children!” Then he released Barabbas for them. But after he had Jesus flogged, he handed him over to be crucified. Then the governor’s soldiers took Jesus into the governor’s residence and gathered the whole cohort around him. They tripped him and put a scarlet robe round him, and after braiding a crown of thorns, they put it on his head. They put a staff in his right hand, and kneeling down before him, they mocked him: “Hail, king of the Jews!” They spat on him and took the staff and struck him repeatedly on the head. When they had mocked him, they stripped him of the robe and put his own clothes back on him. Then they led him away to crucify him.

The Crucifixion

As they were going out, they found a man from Cyrene named Simon, whom they forced to carry his cross. They came to a place called Golgotha (which means “Place of the Skull”) and offered Jesus wine mixed with gall to drink. But after tasting it, he would not drink it. When they had crucified him, they divided his clothes by throwing dice. Then they sat down and kept guard over him there. Above his head they put the charge against him, which read: “This is Jesus, the king of the Jews.” Then two outlaws were crucified with him, one on his right and one on his left. Those who passed by defamed him, shaking their heads and saying, “You who can destroy the temple and rebuild it in three days, save yourself! If you are God’s Son, come down from the cross!” In the same way even the chief priests – together with the experts in the law and elders – were mocking him: “He saved others, but he cannot save himself! He is the king of Israel! If he comes down now from the cross, we will believe in him! He trusts in God – let God, if he wants to, deliver him now because he said, ‘I am God’s Son’!” The robbers who were crucified with him also spoke abusively to him.

Jesus’ Death

Now from noon until three, darkness came over all the land. At about three o’clock Jesus shouted with a loud voice, “Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?” that is, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”

(Matthew 27:11-27:46)

I picked Matthew’s version for the reason that it gives the least dogmatic version of Jesus’ dying words. In this version, it is easier to imagine ourselves in the place of the man that they called the King of the Jews. Take a moment to imagine yourself in his position. You have labored over the past few years to teach men to love one another, you have even loved your enemies, you have healed the sick, and cared for the poor. There is no reason for you to be accused of any crime, but you are immediately found guilty by many of the people that you helped through your teachings. They do not even bother to make up a charge for which you should be executed.

You are nailed on the cross, with the narrow metal shafts of the spikes cutting into the flesh in your wrists and feet. Your lungs are beginning to collapse, you feel that your throat is on fire. Men are mocking you asking you to save yourself if you are indeed so powerful. The thorns with which they have adorned your head are gouging into your skull, the pain is unbearable. You have given your life to the service of your God and have only worked for man’s benefit and in your state of agony, you feel yourself slip away. As you choke down one final breath of air, you cry out  “ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACTHANI?” only hoping that some higher power will bring death faster in order to relieve your pain.

So as Masons, let us reflect on this thought: how do we regard those that teach a doctrine that makes us question our own beliefs? Will you be the man who has labored for truth and suffers for his work? Or will you be the accuser and the executioner? The choice is up to you.

Like what you are reading at the Euphrates? Email the author at euphratesblog@gmail.com to join the  Banks of the Euphrates mailing list.

Martin Faulks of Lewis Masonic

logoThis week on Masonic Central, we have the chance to talk to Martin Faulks who is the colorful and vibrant marketing director of Lewis Masonic publishing.

Join us as we welcome him to the program to talk about the Masonic publishing business (and Lewis Masonic),  English Masonry, his work with Lewis and the art of esoteric literature, and life as the “Masonic Ninja”.

Missed the Live Program, Listen now!
[podcast]http://www.blogtalkradio.com/Masonic-Central/2009/04/13/Martin-Faulks-on-Lewis-Masonic-Publishing.mp3[/podcast]

Lewis Masonic was founded in 1801, and is the largest and oldest Masonic publisher in the world. Well-known to the English Freemasons, Lewis produces many of the ritual books used by United Grand Lodge of England lodges and Holy Royal Arch Chapters. Lewis is today opening up shop here in the American market with a new on line store featuring their exciting collection.  you can find the U.S. store at LewisMasonic.us.

Its sure to be a fun conversation and insightful in all things Masonic with maybe a bit of conversation about ninja throwing stars…

Listen to the LIVE program at 6pm PST / 9pm EST, and join the conversation from at our new home at Blog Talk Radio, or you can listen from the player widget on FreemasonInformation.com.  To participate live, dial into the show to listen and interact with the guests. You can also join our interactive show chat at Masonic Central on BTR!

Listen to Masonic Central on BlogTalkRadio talk radio