emblem of industry

The William Upton Story & Phoenixmasonry’s Prince Hall Section

The William Upton story is one that is not well known and screams to be told.  He was the first Grand Master to recognize Prince Hall Masonry in 1898.  And when it didn’t stick but was reversed by his successor, he wrote in his will that no marker of any kind was to be put on his grave until such time as white and black Masonry would recognize each other in Washington State.

It took until 1990, a century later, for recognition to return and stay.  And that was an occasion, soon after, to finally provide William Upton with an appropriate gravestone.  The ceremony in 1991 was jointly performed by Mainstream and Prince Hall Masonry.

Now I had in my possession for a limited time, lent to me by my Grandmaster, A DVD of this special ceremony. But being a computer challenged product of the 50s, I had no idea how to get it into something like You Tube so I could share it with everybody.

To the rescue came Bro. Shane Stevens of this site who edited and converted this DVD ,which was burned from an old tape, into a 6 part You Tube video.

Now I had the making of a great story which could be told to millions. I created a special Prince Hall Recognition site at Phoenixmasonry – www.phoenixmasonry.org – and President David Lettelier implemented it.

This new section at Phoenixmasonry not only has all 6 parts of the video of which just one is posted here, but also the paper “Light On A Dark Subject” by William Upton and “William Upton” and “Prince Hall Memorial” by yours truly.

It’s a start on a special Prince Hall section that will further educate and inform all who so desire. We at Phoenixmasonry hope it will grow with the rest of the site and continue our mission to help provide Masonic education material free of charge.

Phoenixmasonry is a member of the Masonic Library and Museum Association at:  http://www.masoniclibraries.org

How Freemasonry Is Missing The Boat

Once again in Masonic circles of discussion we hear the debate searching for the answers as to why the decline in Masonic membership continues.  All sorts of hypotheses have been advanced.  The ones I hear most often are the greater number of choices available in today’s world, the limits of time in a what has become a very high strung, stressed out overworked society and the rise of women to equal status in American society thus restructuring the male/female role which often results in couples doing everything together rather than each going their separate way.

These explanations are all well and good and certainly have some merit in the scheme of things. Often times when no explanation reaches out and knocks you in the head it is because there are multiple causes for the resulting effect.  But I believe that most are overlooking certainly the largest explanation for the continuing decline of American Freemasonry.

It is precisely Freemasonry’s interaction with civil society, its sympathetic response to what is troubling the nation that brings it into the focus of the uninitiated individual. When Freemasonry leads society into nobleness and righteousness, when it is society’s conscience it becomes a highly regarded institution upon which many will look with favor if not join.

That is not, however, to promote what American Grand Lodge’s of today have done to Freemasonry by turning the Craft into a giant Service Club where Freemasonry tries to use society for its own advantage and gain, where it tries to buy and bribe friends and recognition. There is a big difference between interacting with a nation and serving a nation.

It is often said that no one knows who we are as Freemasons. That’s because we are not interacting with society with the best interests of society at heart but rather merely concerned with ourselves and what’s in it for us.

American Freemasonry was never meant to be or destined to be a secretive monastic society, totally withdrawn from civil society and all its goings on. When Freemasonry actually rolled up its sleeves and became immersed in the “big play”, the overwhelming issue of the day, it was noticed, it garnered membership and it had influence.

When Freemasonry was concerned with civil society’s concerns it was able to LEAD society.  As a leader involved with the well being of society, it was an accepted institution. When Freemasonry hid in its own shadow and pushed toleration to the extreme of being “politically correct”, then “Masonically correct” Freemasonry started to whither and die.

Everybody today talks about Freemasonry staying out of religion and politics. Most, however, are neglecting to clarify that it is partisan politics and sectarian religion that Freemasonry prohibits. There is a big difference between broad moral and social issues that define the structure of civil society and specific policies advocated as a remedy.

Freemasonry was always at its height when it chose to lead society.  As a product of the Enlightenment it championed religious freedom, democratic government, public school education and separation of church and state. American colonial Freemasonry provided a system of networking in a society with no communication systems. It played a vital role in the formation of this nation. While one can point to the midnight ride of Paul Revere let’s not forget his and his Lodge’s possible involvement in the dumping of tea into Boston Harbor. Nor should we overlook the fact that at least 42% of the Generals commissioned by the Continental Congress were Masons. It was the values of Freemasonry that were drafted into the Constitution of the United States. Freemasons set up the government of this nation, authored the “noble experiment.”

As a new nation American Freemasonry was instrumental in the formation of public schools and universities.  Men of letters came to Freemasonry not for the arts and sciences taught in Lodge but because Freemasonry was a learning promoter.

“Brothers officially sponsored educational endeavors that reached beyond the fraternity. This encouragement of broader education seemed to link the fraternity to the post-Revolutionary vision of an enlightened society built around equality and openness, values that brothers came to see expressed even in their order’s structure.  By supporting learning and by teaching and embodying republican relationships, Masonry seemed to be upholding and advancing the Revolutionary experiment itself.”(1)

During the civil War Freemasonry was the only organization, society or institution that did not split in two.  Even churches became promoters of either the Union or the Confederacy. Freemasonry, as in the Revolutionary War, contained many military Lodges that had a great influence on holding the armies together.  But its greatest Civil War influence was ameliorating the harshness of the fighting and acting as a healer of society.

Post Civil War saw American Freemasonry usher in an age of great Masonic authorship and great Masonic building. Its ability to grow right along with the industrialization of the United States was a great asset to its continued influence.

Somewhere into the 20th century Freemasonry lost its leadership role. Oh it wasn’t evident right away. The nation was consumed with fighting two world wars and the post war push of returning soldiers who wished to continue the exhilarating uplift of camaraderie kept the numbers high and the coffers full. But by 1960 American Freemasonry was living on past laurels and fresh blood was nowhere to be seen. The plain fact is that American Freemasonry became SOCIALLY IRRELEVANT.

If Freemasonry had remained socially relevant it could have lead the nation into breaking the color barrier and busting Black discrimination in society. William Upton was the Jackie Robinson of Freemasonry.  As Grand Master of Washington State in 1898 he recognized Prince Hall and black/white fraternization.  If we had built on this start, even if ever so slowly, Freemasonry could have led the nation into integration thereby avoiding the confrontation of Rosa Parks and the marches of Martin Luther King.

As one of the only institutions worldwide to actually live peaceful, cooperative brotherhood among people of different races, religions, cultures and economic circumstances, American Freemasonry was in a unique position to encourage and promote world peace. People today looking back 50 years ago could have pointed out that the “peace movement” was Freemasonry.  The fact that Freemasonry refused to do so out of fear of offending and being politically incorrect caused it to lose esteem in the eyes of the general public.

If Freemasonry had led the nation in the 50s, if it had been the conscience and the moral compass of the nation in the area of Civil Rights and the peace movement then it would not have lost a whole generation to Masonic membership. Freemasonry would have been respected and revered and consequently flourished.  But instead we turned a blind eye to black lynching and the evil of the KKK and watched in silence from the sidelines while the Vietnam War tore this nation apart.  And then we have the audacity to ask why the generation of the day refused to join Freemasonry. Who was fighting for the soul of the American nation?  It sure wasn’t Freemasonry and we paid the price.

Today we are faced with a worldwide HOLY WAR.  Who better to promote ecumenical and religious tolerance in the world than Freemasonry? Who better to pave the way for a better understanding among different religious traditions than the institution that has actually accomplished that for centuries? This is not partisan politics or sectarian religion.  This is being the moral leader in a time of crisis.  This is spreading the values of Freemasonry just as our Masonic forefathers did in the formation of this nation.

But alas, American Freemasonry would rather withdraw within itself than risk the path of greatness. The result will be continued Masonic stagnation and a general misunderstanding of Freemasonry’s role and purpose by the general public.

(1) “Revolutionary Brotherhood” by Stephen C. Bullock, pg. 145

Pride of Mt. Pisgah #135

mtpisgahTwo weeks ago Pride of Mt. Pisgah #135 Prince Hall Texas had its election and installation of new officers.  For those who think that all Lodges operate  always holding to a line of succession, I have news for you.  Pride of Mt. Pisgah does not always.  The last chnage in line two years ago saw the Junior Warden elected to Master and the Senior Warden staying as Senior Warden.  This year the Senior Warden was elected Master and the Tresurer was elected Senior Warden.  The Junior Warden stepped down and the Tyler was elected the new Junior Warden. Whatever works best for the Lodge is what we do.  Every election is different and there are no automatics for Pride of Mt. Pisgah.

We are a young Lodge.  We have some old timers but they generally don’t come anymore.  So the Lodge room is filled with mostly 20 and 30 year olds.  There are a few of us, like me, that could be any of these cats father.  And we are growing keeping the same age bracket.  We raise from 3 to 9 candidates per year and about half of those remain very active.

2009 is our come out year.  We will be buying ourselves a Masonic building after renting for some time. Our community focus will be on the improvemnt, education and mentoring of individual people outside of Masonry. We will gather for casual Masonry strengthening the bonds of the mystic tie. Teaching, education and mentoring will continue to make our Lodge one of the most knowledgable Lodges in the state of Texas.

Awhile back a fork confronted me in the middle of the road.  Left or right, the choice was mine.  My choice led me here, to family and I am proud to be a member of Pride of Mt. Pisgah and fortunate that this time I made the best choice that could have been made.

My Reply To Tim Bryce on How Does Freemasonry Add Value To Our Lives

This is in Reply to Tim Bryce’s How Does Freemasonry Add Value To Our Lives.

I second everything you said, Brother Tim.  But let me add one thing.

Being with a Freemason gives me a feeling of automatically, whether we have ever met or not, of being in the presence of a person I can trust. And trust is very important to me.

Because if I let my guard down and permit myself to become vulnerable then I want to have the confidence that what I share with another is kept as a sacred trust, not to be kicked around the internet and all over the gossip line.

If I can’t trust another then I will not open up to him.  If I don’t open up to him, then I can’t get real close to him.  Getting close to another is what really makes a friend you would die for and that kind of friendship doesn’t grow on trees.

But it runs rampant in a Masonic Lodge.  So I am close to many, many Brothers and there are many, many I would die for. And I can get that close to you in the first 5 minutes we have ever met if you are a Freemason.

There are good reasons for that.  But you all know what they are and why.  I don’t need to explain it to you.

But perhaps you haven’t thought of how important Trust is in forming your Masonic family. You don’t know what true love is until you can get that close, that tight with another.

Only in Freemasonry would I be able to experience the closeness, the brotherly love, the mystic tie that binds.  Only in Freemasonry.

Prince Hall Memorial

Cambridge, Massachusetts abutting Boston is the place where a monument or memorial will be erected to the memory of Prince Hall.  The memorial will be placed on the historic Cambridge “Common” or Green near the memorial there to George Washington. The Cambridge Common is the place where George Washington first formed the Continental Army.

Groundbreaking has been done.

Prince Hall was not only the founding father of African American Freemasonry but according to the Mayor of Cambridge, E. Denise Simmons, he was also a founding father of this United States.

“The decision of Prince Hall to side with the Colonists was not easy. You know of the rejection he received from the American Masons. The South joining with the North with George Washington as the Commander in Chief and a major slave owner practically assured if the Americans won the war, slavery would continue. Great Briton had outlawed slavery and the British army was the greatest military power in the world.

There were many Tories or British loyalist opposed to the war. Ben Franklin’s son, William Franklin, was the Governor of New Jersey and a Tory. He spent two years of the Revolution in jail. But the Vision of Prince Hall for a new Nation, where all men would be equal, was more real than a dream. For he was sure that the principles of Freemasonry, grounded in religion and the great philosophies, would some day be a reality, where the Fatherhood of God and the Brotherhood of man would prevail.”

“When we look at the lists of traditional Founding Fathers, we see their names on the Declaration of Independence, but we don’t see them on the army muster rolls. Now the name Prince Hall, Listed six times. All of them black men? We also don’t see General Joseph Warren listed as a Founding Father. He was killed at Bunker Hill. I didn’t see Paul Revere’s name either,except when I was told to look at a web page of the Grand Lodge of Massachusetts. He (is) listed there as Founding Father, but no place else.”

“When we looked for someone to represent the contributions African Americans made to our City and to our Nation, the name Prince Hall immediately surfaced, except no one, except Masons and older Black Americans, knew anything about him. The name Prince Hall when I was a child was better known. My Grandfather and other men of my family were Prince Hall Masons. “

“We began our own research program. A National Parks Executive and friend, Bernadette Williams, aided us. She knew a Historian and fellow Cantabridgeon, Dr. Marty Blatt that had been on a team of researchers funded by the Massachusetts Historical Society. They studied why men who were Prince Hall Masons were the principal leaders in the civil rights movement from the beginning of our recorded history to the present day.”

“It was discovered that no one group was more influential in effecting social change than men who were known as Prince Hall Masons. When they looked at the Founding Period of our nation, the number one “Organizer “and the most influential Black man of that time, especially in Massachusetts and New England, was Prince Hall. When we began to compare what the Vision of America was destined to be, and those who best exemplifiedthose virtues, Prince Hall stood out like a beacon. We realized that we did not just have a Black representative to symbolize the Black experience, but a true Patriot and every thing you wished in a Founding Father.”

“Prince Hall Quote, (Menotomy) Cambridge, June 24, 1797, “Give the right hand of affection and fellowship to whom it justly belongs; let their colour and complexion be what it will, let their nation be what it may, for they are your brethren, and it is your indispensable duty so to do”. Did Prince Hall envision a colorblind nation?”( Speech by E. Denise Simmons, Mayor, City of Cambridge Massachusetts February 18, 2009 Before The Cambridge Historical Society 159 Brattle St., Cambridge, Massachusetts.)

Prince Hall was a Civil Rights advocate, perhaps this country’s first such person, long before such a movement was given its present day name. He worked tirelessly for better education for African American youth and the abolition of slavery.  But one thing you might not know about the man is that he advocated the use of African Americans in the Continental Army.

Prince Hall: – a great Freemason, a great Civil Rights Advocate and a great American Patriot.

Are We Killing Each Other Off?

Are we killing each other off? 

Are we so intent upon the proper form, the correct procedure, the purity of the Craft, the monopoly of the fraternity disallowing any competition, that we are turning possible members off and losing good candidates?

Here is an essay by a long time Brother we affectionately call Ole Blake.  He’s been around awhile.  Yet he obviously doesn’t have blinders on or wish to delve into Masonic politics.


If all Brethren are taught the essentials of Masonry, it matters not which Grand Lodges are recognized and which are not.  A Mason is admonished to treat all men with the respect due them no matter what the political, religious or race affiliation.

It is only when we try to enforce equality that there is a problem. Equality is a myth, for no men or women are created equal. No matter how great sounding the words there are always some differences in each of us. A man in no way could be equal to a woman because he cannot bear a child. Other differences are vast.

That does eliminate the fact that we should regard each other on the level as benefiting a Mason, and act upon the square in our dealings with each other, for we are all part of the human team. Each of us has a function and that function is neither greater nor lesser than another.  The internal engine will not run without a piston of some kind, or without a crankshaft or any other common parts.  Humans do not function as well as individuals as they do as a team.  We are all part of the human race.  Just because we don’t see eye to eye on everything does not create enemies.  It would be a boring world if we were all equal with all the same skills and abilities.

So if one Grand Lodge does not recognize another, so be it. That is possibly their loss.

Learning to be a Mason is the best medicine for differences, but just learning what appears on the surface is not enough.

We need to teach true brotherly love and charity and truth. That type of brotherly love does not see boundaries or differences it only sees the person who stands to help or needs help.

When we can learn that, and teach it to our fellow man, our world will be a utopia and life will be wonderful and satisfying. But as long as we argue differences and throw insults at those who do not share our views then we have lost one of the most important teaching of Masonry, that of toleration.

Each of us has a right to be of a different opinion and when we group together with others who share that belief it is not a wrong thing as long as we do not try to force that belief on everyone else who does not share the same brand of thinking. What is wrong is that we have not been teaching the lessons of toleration and respect for other viewpoints. We become selfish and think our way or no way.

A line of poetry an older brother gave me 30 years ago is as valid today as it was in first year of light, “If every man was a Mason, and every Mason walked his mile, there would be peace in every nation and life would be worthwhile”

Are we walking our mile when we clamor to be recognized, when we try to make everyone equal?  Not really, we are agitating the melting pot. It behooves us to learn all the lessons of Masonry from whatever branch or Grand Lodge to which you belong. I recognize a man for who he is, not because of his preferences.

Doubtless the battle for recognition will continue. The reason it will continue in the long run will be found to be vanity.

One line in the working tools lecture says it better, “among whom no contention should ever exist except that noble contention or rather emulation of who can best work and best agree.”

These are my views, I would not presume to speak for any other brother.

Ole Blake
PM #35 Georgia.

Brother Jack Kemp Passed To The Celestial Lodge Above

Jack French Kemp (July 13, 1935 – May 2, 2009)

Jack French Kemp (July 13, 1935 – May 2, 2009)

Authentic Connecticut Republican posted reports:

  • Member of the US House of Representatives 1971 – 89
  • Secretary of Housing and Urban Development 1989 – 93
  • Republican vice-presidential candidate 1996
  • Jack Kemp was educated at Occidental College, at the University of California at Long Beach, and at Western University.

A former star quarterback for the San Diego Chargers and the Buffalo Bills, Kemp held, at the time of his retirement from professional football, three all-time AFL career records: for 3,055 pass attempts, 1,428 completions, and 21,130 yards gained passing. The Bills permanently retired his number 15. Kemp cofounded the American Football League Players Association and was its president from 1965 to 1970.

Kemp  was an ardent supply sider, one of President Reagan’s top economic advisors and co author of the Kemp-Roth tax cuts so identified with the Reagan Presidency.  He ran unsuccessfully ran for President in 1988.

Jack Kemp was a 33rd degree Freemason.


For an in depth more politically slanted account of Jack Kemp’s life see: http://lexingtonlibertarian.blogspot.com/2009/05/jack-kemp-great-american-called-home.html

Individualism and Collectivism Revisited

A Historical Perspective

Recent articles on “The Euphrates” by Terence Satchell on how Freemasonry operates, either in a Collectivist or an Individualistic mode are too important and received far too little attention not to revisit these concepts again. For the style chosen has a lot to do with the success or failure of today’s Freemasonry. Now the two styles overlap and Freemasonry is not 100% purely one or the other. But it is where the primary emphasis is placed that dictates the nomenclature.

To understand the differences and the changes that have occurred in Freemasonry one has to look at its history and function in days gone by. Freemasonry was a product of the Enlightenment and grew up in the age of rapid club growth. In literature, the arts, politics, religion, science and fraternalism, clubs and societies sprang up all over Europe to meet the demand and the need to assimilate and understand all the new ideas and discoveries that were thrust upon society for the first time since ancient days at such a rapid rate. Some met in private homes, some met in coffee houses, some met in taverns and pubs and some met in the park but they all met in congenial fellowship to discuss, teach and inform, for times they were a-changing.

Bullock tells us:

The club had first become popular in the later seventeenth century, simultaneous with the evolution of the term itself from a clump to a select group of men knotted together. By the 1710s, participation in clubs was becoming a regular part of social life among the upper levels of English society. By the early eighteenth century, London hosted an estimated two thousand such organizations. The enormous popularity of the club formed part of a larger transformation.  Beginning in London, English society experienced major changes that reshaped modes of sociability.  The communal and kinship bonds that had held together village life no longer proved adequate to the world of increased social diversity and widened cultural horizons experienced by Britons who moved beyond the narrow world of the parish but not yet within the circles of court society.  The club, and its stepchild Masonry, provided a means of recreating the close ties of local friendship in a larger, more cosmopolitan world.”(1)

Early Freemasonry then revolved around instructing men (and sometimes women) in a philosophy and a new way of life in a closely bonded atmosphere.  And a great deal of time was taken up in discussion of what the speculative art meant and what it could do for a man. Freemasonry was a club, a teaching club that evolved into a society; a more organized and structured entity.  But even as it evolved it never lost its roots as an organization that mirrored somewhat a school. And the Freemasonry school had homework.  Every Mason was expected to do some private study and was encouraged to do so.

Of course Freemasonry was more than just this and attracted members for various reasons.  The fact that it attempted to be a classless organization in a society with classes and the nature of the bonded Brotherhood, that mystic tie, increased its popularity.  But the foundation of its strength was its Gnostic knowledge, that special understanding of the meaning and mission of life that set it apart and above the myriad other organizations.

Freemasonry started than as individualistic.  It was a philosophy, a way of life, a thought process, a study for the individual to transform himself into a more knowledgeable, better educated, well grounded, person who possessed an understanding of what it all meant, a better insight into the nature of it all and a circle of support and continuing enlightenment that yielded a tightly bonded family or Brotherhood. Freemasonry was all about what the individual Brother did and the pride of the Brotherhood was the accomplishment of the man. Freemasonry was a journey upon which a man embarked to make a better man and a better world.

Read: So What? The Dynamic of Masonic Membership

All Masonry was local. Each Brother was able to create his own path. Each Brother was Masonry’s creator; each Brother decided what he was going to do with the Fraternity and what he wasn’t going to do.  The decision-making was in the hands of the individual Mason. It’s not that the body of Freemasonry as a whole could not take a stand for anything.  As I have previously pointed out the virtues, values and ethics of the Craft upon which all Freemasons agree and all obligate themselves can be promulgated by the leaders of the fraternity on behalf of everybody.  But that is a far cry from actually choosing how each Freemason has to experience his Freemasonry and ordering upon the threat of expulsion that it must be done a certain way.

In the Individualistic concept of Freemasonry Grand Lodges concerned themselves with chartering new Lodges, promoting the Craft and acting as a facilitator for both Lodge and Craft development.  Grand Lodges made the circle larger.  They added cohesiveness and structure to the fraternity.

But then the structure became Freemasonry.  Collectivism took over the Craft.  It didn’t happen overnight.  It was like a cancer that slowly spread. A number of factors in American Freemasonry, and we are only talking about Freemasonry in the U.S.A., facilitated the growth of a centralized collective.  Individualistic Freemasonry’s basis was decentralization, but not so with collective Freemasonry. American Freemasonry became concerned with territory. Perhaps it didn’t have enough confidence in the marketplace of the free association of ideas to compete.  Perhaps it wanted to legally make any competition illegal.  Whatever the reason, American Freemasonry adopted the American Doctrine, The Right of Exclusive Territorial Jurisdiction.  Now each jurisdiction had a monopoly, what in the civil world we would call a restraint of trade. Monopolies tend to become fat and lazy and feel no need to answer to anybody, especially the people whom they serve. Then all the Mainstream Grand Lodges got together and unofficially signed onto a gentlemen’s agreement never to criticize each other and to always support all others in everything that they did. Now no matter what a Grand Lodge did there were no repercussions because it was not answerable to a higher power or even a higher constitutional document. Having eliminated all competition and insured peer approval of any action it took Grand Lodges were in a position to exercise absolute power.  And power corrupts, but absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Some say that after the Morgan affair American Freemasonry never fully recovered, that it was never the same again. Perhaps Grand Masters saw a need for greater control in order to be able to thwart such local actions in the future. Still Grand Lodges and their chartered local Lodges and individual Freemasons existed fairly harmoniously from the Post Civil War period until the 1960s. But there was no question who was the boss.  The Vietnam War authored a whole generation of dropouts who refused to join anything.  Freemasonry skipped a whole generation and its leadership stayed in power for a double shift.  Many a new Mason in the 60s saw in his Lodge predominately men old enough to be his Grandfather.  Grand Lodges were governed by men in their 70s and 80s.

The post Vietnam decline in membership and the rapid increase in technology was a double whammy that hit Grand Lodges like a sledgehammer. The old guard leadership was not able to change with the times. First of all Grand Lodges felt that local Lodges had dropped the ball and weren’t trying hard enough.  Grand Lodges in the post WWII rapid growth spurt had committed Freemasonry to buildings, programs and charities it could not sustain with the decline in membership and consequently the drop in revenue. Grand Lodges needed more money and they did not have the confidence in their local Lodges to provide it.  So as what usually happens in a power vacuum, Grand Lodge filled it by taking over and mandating programs and policies upon its local Lodges. Secondly the rise of the Information Age and the widespread use of the computer and the Internet was not only something Freemasonry was not prepared for but also something it fought, tooth and nail. The Old guard who stayed in power for an extended period because Masonic membership skipped a whole generation were so far removed from the new Masons joining the Craft that they not only looked down with scorn upon the newer methods and ways of the young but they actually forbade their use inside Freemasonry.

Consequently many Grand Lodges, as well as local Lodges, refused to install computer systems. When individual Masons set up Masonic websites and forums for Masonic discussion, some Grand Masters confiscated them or ordered them to be closed down, Grand Masters proclaiming that only they could speak for Freemasonry in its jurisdiction. Most Grand Lodges were very slow to adopt computer technology and get on board with Grand Lodge websites.  In many cases to this day the systems used are way behind the latest technology and run by volunteers instead of paid professionals in the field. Even today many Grand Lodges refuse to allow transmission of reports it demands from its chartered Lodges to be filed over the Internet.  Even today some Grand Lodges are muzzling its members.

The lag behind the times continues. How many Grand Masters and other Grand Lodge officers today Twitter?  How many are on Facebook?  My Place? How many text message? How many have a personal website?  How many operate a blog?  How many carry laptops with them wherever they may go? Why is it that Grand Lodge websites do not operate Masonic discussion forums?  Why is it that Grand Lodges are not doing Masonic radio podcasts? Grand Lodges are like some people I know, stuck in the 50s.

The erosion of local power and the transfer of that power to Grand Lodges was a slow gradual process that some Masons objected to but few made a federal case out of.  The pinnacle of American Freemasonry occurred from 1870 to 1950 when American Freemasonry grew strongly, built lavish beautiful buildings, stocked the Side Bodies, and authored some of the best writings on Freemasonry ever.  I can remember as Master of my Lodge in 1999 reading the minutes of my Lodge in the corresponding Communication of 1899 when the Lodge had 800 members and the average attendance was 100 Brothers.  When Freemasonry is flourishing, when there are fewer problems, gripes and concerns get put on the back burner. But when there is a crisis all of a sudden what seemed trivial now becomes a major concern.

And the crisis for Grand Lodges from 1960 to the present day has been the continuous decline in membership and the loss in revenue because of that decline.  For fifty years now Grand Lodges have become obsessed with trying to increase membership and get more money. In the process they have tightened the screws of authority and created programs and issued rulings that are very unpopular with the rank and file of the Craft. The highly centralized absolute authority of collective Freemasonry no longer seems to care about the education and development of the individual Mason. Instead of fostering Masonic discussion, Masonic instruction, Masonic education, Masonic authorship, and the dissemination of Masonic knowledge, Grand Lodges are pushing One Day classes, fundraisers, fish frys and community action and charitable endeavors turning American Freemasonry into a Service Club.  The focus has switched from making good men better to improving society. Charity in Individualistic Freemasonry was a principle taught to individual Masons who then decided how they would individually apply that virtue inside and outside the Craft.  Today every Masonic endeavor is a function of the Lodge performed by the collective by decisions made from the top.

Fifty years of collective Freemasonry has developed a cadre of Freemasons who now believe that Freemasonry is the Institution rather than a philosophy.  I call these Masons “Institutionalists.”  They talk a lot about preserving the Institution of Freemasonry, Recognition, The Right of Exclusive Territorial Jurisdiction and clandestine and irregular Freemasonry. They put the well being of the Institution before the well being of the individual. Their Grand Lodge can never do wrong. They concentrate power into the hands of a collectivist, top down, inner circle oligarchy that seeks to create a closed society governed much like the US Army. They garner awards and display proudly on their chest jewels and pins that have nothing to do with their Masonic knowledge or scholarship. They defend their Grand Lodge from any thought or idea in Freemasonry that the inner circle disapproves of. They refuse Masonic discourse with Freemasons in other Obediences and support their Grand Lodge’s right to tell its members who they can and cannot talk to.  They create private research societies open only to members of Mainstream Masonry. They refuse to take any action against the rogue Masonic regime in West Virginia while at the same time shutting out Co-Masonry and the GOUSA. They will not exert any pressure on racist Grand Lodges to admit black men and recognize Prince Hall yet they will get on private Masonic Sites and wag their finger about guests from other Obediences being permitted access.

Today there has developed a growing chasm in Freemasonry.  The millennial generation is upon us and many are more traditional than their fathers and are seekers who are trying to place more meaning into their lives. Once again we see the rise of mystical thought and inner search that was a part of Freemasonry 150 years ago. The Millennials don’t care about petty distinctions. A Grand Lodge is a Grand Lodge.  They want gender and racial equality to be a part of anything to which they associate themselves. Freemasonry the thought appeals to them, Freemasonry the practice does not.

Consequently many Masons today are bypassing or boycotting formal Masonic Communications while at the same time becoming very active in Masonic websites and the intellectual pursuits of Freemasonry so reminiscent of Individualistic Freemasonry. Masonic Internet sites like Freemason Information, Phoenixmasonry and Master Mason as well as individual Masonic blogs are flourishing while Lodge attendance is at an all time low. Collectivist Freemasonry stifles creativity and reform.  It enables entrenched, outmoded ideas to perpetuate a society that lacks a connection with today’s generation. It is headed down a path of self-defeat. The answer for Mainstream Grand Lodges is to return to Individualistc Freemasonry.

(1)        “Revolutionary Brotherhood” by Steven C. Bullock, pg. 29

emblem of industry

Portuguese Brother Comments And I Reply

A Partir Pedra published my paper “The Castration of Masonry” on their site in Portuguese.   The following is a comment from one of the Brothers in Portugal and my response which they also published in the comments section.


Simple deixou um novo comentário na sua mensagem “THE CASTRATION OF

“When you enter a Lodge room you leave all your differences outside the
door.”I suppose that this sentence sums it all. If that sentence is
true, then Freemasonry has become useless, as ignoring differences and
leaving questions unanswered does not lead to harmony. Differences
should be addressed, not ignored; it’s the way of addressing these
differences that makes Freemasonry unique. Tolerance implies
acceptation of the other and the realization that being One with the
Others – if they’re also willing to coexist peacefully – is more
important that the differences that separate Them from Us.

There is still no definite answer, as far as I know, to the
philosophical question “how far should we be tolerant towards
intolerance”. Some people take as their religious duty the obligation
to spread their faith – i.e.: to proselytize. Doesn’t that go straight
against the masonic ideal? How can one be a mason, belong to such a
church, and be coherent with himself? Isn’t it because of that that
many churches prohibit its members from being Freemasons? Freemasonry
seems to have been avoiding these questions, as having a frontal and
clear stance on the subject might widen the wound; in turn, the lack of
a strong position might have led to the “ideologically watered down”
Freemasonry that you describe it to be today.

Should Freemasonry be clearer about the values that it defends, and
risk becoming less popular in the eyes of some? Or should it remain a
bastion of Tolerance, accepting everything – but accomplishing little
because of its effort of not stepping on any toes?

This is a very interesting comment and brings to light some misunderstandings about how Freemasonry should act.

Freemasonry does not have all the answers.  If that were so all members of the Craft would be polishing their Perfect Ashlars.  Be we are not.  We are all chipping away at the rough and superfluous jagged edges of our Rough Ashlars.

No human has all the truth.  No human is right all the time.  No human is perfect.

The second point follows the first and should be strongly emphasized to all who have a fervent belief………..in anything.  One can chose a path that one thinks correct without having to, in the process, castigate and bury all contending beliefs or exterminate those who believe differently.

I then as a Christian believe I have found a way to eternal happiness and a relationship with the Almighty –  a way, not the way.  I can live peacefully with a Hindu who has found another way.  We are both going to the same place to meet the same God, we are just on different paths.  All the spokes on my bicycle wheel lead to the same center hub.

As a Freemason I don’t insist that my fellow man do it my way.  I allow for the fact that his way is every bit as valuable to him as my way is to me.  Of course we must agree on certain basic premises , foundations, and building blocks from which we choose the path to take our journey.  That’s a given.  A person who does not accept the Almighty, who believes murder is OK, who puts institutions and systems ‘ worth before the worth of the individual are just plain incompatible.

But the vast majority of people that you associate with in your daily life – the profane do not have different goals in life nor different aspirations nor different values- they have different means on how to accomplish the same ends.  Their culture is different –  their language, their political process, their formalized religion, their dress, their customs, their heritage may all be different.  That’s OK.

Freemasonry is non judgmental.  It is non judgmental on different paths chosen from the same sound, wise and time tested understanding of life. That is what makes Freemasonry tolerant.

Unfortunately many who think they have found the one and only true answer or even just the best way insist that all others do it their way or they will refuse to associate with them or allow them into their societies, institutions and groups.  How sad.  I, like most Freemasons, do not feel threatened by a different approach.  I , like most Freemason, can live peacefully with others that see things slightly differently because I don’t want to convince them that they should change theirs.

Many in Freemasonry have interpreted all this to mean that Freemasonry can, therefore, take no open stands  on anything public lest it offend somebody else and that Freemasonry is not meant to push its nose into the affairs of civil society.  This of course is the opposite extreme from those that demand we must make serious stances on many specific issues and what we have been arguing against above.

These two extremes of everything or nothing , if and when they are enacted, are what is causing the main lack of membership today.

Here is where I believe we should be – right in the middle, in moderation of extreme positions.  Many Freemasons have characterized the ethics and morality of Freemasonry as “the religion upon which all men agree”, that is on the points that are common to all religions So what we promulgate are certain basic secular and religious truths that are accepted by the vast majority of the inhabitants of this earth either openly or privately in their hearts.  Or as stated in the American Declaration of Independence that “we are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights.”.  And we should be, as I make the case for it in my paper, be standing up for these basic rights, these virtues, these moral and ethical standards both publically and privately.

But lastly these are general points upon which all men agree.  The specific application of each of these general points is left up to the interpretation of each Brother. For an example Freemasonry stands squarely against murder.  Now that is a general moral or ethical position upon which most religions and most human beings agree upon.  So where is the disagreement then?  The disagreemnt comes into the sub categories, that is the specific application of these general principles.  In the case of murder to give you an example of a specific application – is abortion murder?  Well some say abortion is murder and some say it is not.  Does Freemasonry have to take a stand upon abortion to the point that once it has decided which side to support anybody on the other side cannot be a Mason? If that is what the Brother commenting is advocating then I ask him to think again.

We, as Freemasons, do not take stands on specfic applications of general positions and standards.  We leave the specifics, like abortion, to be a private matter beteen that Brother and his Maker. And we do not judge, but leave that judgment up to God.  But what I have been emphasizing is that does not demand that we, as a Craft,  also keep our lips sealed when in the public about the general virtues upon which we stand.  We can and should proclaim outloud to the entire world that liberty, justice, democracy, freedom education and others must be adhered to and that we are in the world’s presence to remind them of their responsibility to act accordingly. How to apply them and what they mean specifically is up to the citizens of each country and state to decide working through institutions other than Freemasonry such as their church and their political party. But be not deceived into thinking that Freemasonry has to publically stand for nothing or publically take stands on every specific issue.  That will and has been its downfall.

Frederic L. Milliken

emblem of industry

The Canadian Laudable Pursuit


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.


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.


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.


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>

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.




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?


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?”


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.


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


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


(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