emblem of industry

Landmarks And Liabilities

Scottish rite, freemasonry, education, brent morris

Mackey’s notorious list and its impact on Maryland Masonry. Originally published in The Philalethes Magazine, vol. 44, no. 3, June 1991 authored by S. Brent Morris

A mushroom may grow ever so tall, on a boundary line or at a corner, but it will never be mistaken for a landmark
Albert Pike on Mackey’s “Landmarks”[1]

Freemasonry in Maryland, as in the rest of the world, is changing. This is a continuing process that began in 1717 at the Goose and Gridiron Tavern in London when four lodges made a radical innovation on the body of Masonry and created the office of Grand Master, an office that prior to that date had been only legendary. The additions, corrections, and elaborations to our Craft have come in fits and spurts since then, and we should not be so naïve to think that our Grand Lodge is immune. What is needed to face the challenges of change is an openness of mind and a flexibility of procedures.

Maryland Masonry is fortunate that its leaders have had minds open to the evolving needs of the Craft. They have laid a solid foundation on which the Grand Lodge has set goals, established programs, and disseminated the tenets of our profession. However, there is a grave danger that we are losing our flexibility of procedures which will be so essentially necessary for our survival in the twenty-first century.

At the 1989 Semiannual Communication of the Grand Lodge of Maryland, we witnessed the elimination of informed debate on several potentially vital pieces of legislation and the disenfranchisement of the representatives of the subordinate Lodges. This disregard for democratic principles was not part of a conspiracy nor planned with malice, but rather it sadly followed from a strict application of Mackey’s so-called “Landmarks of Freemasonry.” These twenty-five platitudes never have been adopted formally by the Grand Lodge of Maryland, but they threaten to become liabilities through a rigid interpretation.

Albert Galatin Mackey is one of the best-known American authors on Freemasonry. What is less well-known is that his creative genius often overshadowed his quest for historical accuracy and truth. In 1858, Mackey invented his list and foisted it upon an unsuspecting American Craft. Soon after there was a headlong rush by “scholars” to create lists of Landmarks and thus fill in what they perceived as a nagging gap in Masonic tradition. Right behind these creative writers came the Grand Lodges, each trying to outdo the other in adopting the “true” list of fundamental Landmarks of Freemasonry.

These enterprises resulted in nothing less than confusion in the temple. Of the American Grand Lodges, thirteen have adopted no formal list, five rely upon the Old Charges, ten have produced their own lists (ranging from seven to thirty-nine Landmarks), eight use Mackey by custom, and only thirteen have formally adopted his tabulation.[2] The United Grand Lodge of England, the source and origin of all Freemasonry, has never seen fit to adopt any formal enumeration and in particular has never endorsed Mackey’s list, and our English Brethren seem none the worse for it.

Where in all of this does the Grand Lodge of Maryland stand?—somewhere between using Mackey by custom and by formal adoption. In November, 1939, R.W. Harry C. Mueller, Grand Secretary wrote that “Maryland has included in its Code Mackey’s twenty-five Landmarks. By the adoption of this Code we feel that the twenty-five Landmarks in their entirety were adopted also, although there was no specific mention made of this, nor has there been at any time.”[3]

Thus the foundation of Masonic Jurisprudence in Maryland has never been formally adopted!

Isn’t the simplest solution to formally adopt Mackey’s product and to be done with it? That would easily solve the problem F the status of Mackey’s landmarks in Maryland, but like most simple-minded solutions, it’s more wrong than right. There is a naïve satisfaction in having an absolute list of guiding principles, and a childlike comfort in being able to assert, “These constitute the Landmarks … in which it is not in the power of any man, or body men, to make the least innovation.”[4] However, naïve satisfaction and childlike comfort should not be the guiding forces of Maryland Freemasonry as it prepares to face the rigors of the twenty-first century.

To begin with, Mackey was simply wrong. Some of his so-called “Landmarks” are universally agreed upon, but most are just creatures of his fertile imagination. Albert Pike’s scathing denunciation of Mackey’s concoction stands as the damning opinion of contemporary scholar, and Pike was not alone in his condemnation. No serious student of Freemasonry has accepted Mackey’s 1858 list in its entirety, nor have more than thirteen Grand Lodges. “So far as known, no Grand Lodge outside the United States has ever adopted any list of landmarks.…”[5] Even a partial list of those disagreeing with Mackey provides a Who’s Who of Masonic scholarship.

Some Masonic Scholars Disagreeing With Mackey’s Landmarks:

  • 1856, Rob Moms, Past Grand Master, Kentucky
  • 1858, J. W. S. Mitchell, Past Grand Master, Missouri
  • 1885, Robert Freke Gould, Past Master Quatuor Coronati Lodge No. 2076
  • 1888, Albert Pike, Sovereign Grand Commander. Southern Jurisdiction
  • 1910, George Fleming Moore, Sovereign Grand Commander, Southern Jurisdiction
  • 1919, Roscoe Pound, Dean, Faculty of Law in Harvard University
  • 1923, Joseph D. Evans, Past Grand Master, New York
  • 1924, Melvin M. Johnson. Past Grand Master, Massachusetts
  • 1931, E. W. Timberlake, Jr., Past Grand Mater, North Carolina
  • 1961, Henry Wilson Coil, Fellow of the Philalethes Society
  • 1973, Dwight L. Smith, Past Grand Master, Indiana

A Landmark should be something so fundamental, so basic to the fabric of Freemasonry, that any deviation merits immediate condemnation. Mackey’s creation fails this test rather miserably. There is no reason to analyze each of his landmarks; a few particulars should suffice. For example, the Grand Lodge of North Carolina not only does not recognize the prerogative of a Grand Master to make Masons at sight (Mackey’s Landmark 8), but also does not recognize any Mason made by this method, regardless of whether he may belong to a regularly chartered Lodge. Yet we still maintain fraternal relations with the Grand Lodge of North Carolina. Several of the regular European Grand Lodges we recognize use a Grand Masonic Word different from Maryland, thus effectively negating the Mackey’s first landmark, the modes of recognition.

Freemasonry recently has come under increasingly vicious attacks from narrow-minded religionists. One of the frequent accusations made against our gentle Craft is that we are a “secret society” with all of the vague connotations of unknown evil that charge carries. Maryland has wrestled with this problem and has tried to solve it with our rather awkwardly worded Standing Resolution No. 8, which says in part “that our Order is not a secret one in the sense that everything that goes on in the Lodge room may never be revealed; rather it is an Order which has certain secrets which we do not share with the world outside these doors.”[6]

This is all fine and good, but Mackey’s Twenty-third Landmark states in simple, plain language, “Freemasonry is a secret society.” If we adopt Mackey’s invention, then we are declaring to the world that we are indeed a secret society (despite our waffling resolutions to the contrary). If we are not a secret society, then Landmark 23 of Mackey is not a Landmark of Maryland.

The Grand Lodge of Maryland presents another paradox on the one hand we acknowledge by custom Mackey’s Landmark 14, “the right of every Mason to visit and sit in every regular Lodge.” On the other hand we ignore this clear, absolute right and allow only the privilege of visitation. A Brother visiting a Maryland Lodge may be denied admission if any member of that Lodge personally demands it. In fact, Maryland’s deviation from this “landmark” has earned us special condemnation in Mackey’s Masonic Jurisprudence, as an offensive example of a “very contracted view of the universality of Freemasonry.…”[7]

At the 1989 Semiannual Communication of the Grand Lodge of Maryland, an amendment to the Constitution was proposed that would have allowed subordinate lodges to conduct normal business in the first degree. The Committee on Masonic Jurisprudence carefully considered the matter, adhered faithfully to Mackey’s landmarks, and made the straightforward decision that “the proposed Amendment … would violate the Landmarks of Freemasonry and Masonic history and tradition.”[8] This inescapable conclusion that the committee reached by following Mackey’s authority is logically precise and historically wrong. On May 18, 1842, the Grand Lodge of Maryland “Resolved, That all the business of a Lodge, except that of conferring the inferior degrees, and the instruction therein, should be transacted in a Master Mason’s Lodge.”[9]

In other words, from 1749 to 1842, every Lodge in Maryland conducted its business on the first degree—in violation of Mackey’s landmarks and Masonic history and tradition! How is it possible that our first ninety-three years of Masonic activity violated the Landmarks of Freemasonry and Masonic history and tradition? For that matter, what does this say about the United Grand Lodge of England, whose Lodges have never stopped meeting on the first degree? These contradictions are possible only if Mackey’s inventive list is given official status in Maryland, and we abandon our original history and customs.

Finally, there is the example of the recently aborted attempt to provide checks and balances upon the powers of the Grand Master of Maryland. The argument which prevented the amendments from even being discussed was that Mackey’s so- called landmarks do not allow the Grand Lodge to limit the authority of the Grand Master. Mackey states with his usual authoritative tone that Grand Masters and Grand Lodges are “coeval” (a highfalutin word that means “of equal antiquity”). However, there is no foundation in fact—only in modern Masonic ritual—that Grand Lodges or Grand Masters existed before that historic 1717 meeting in London.

These lofty, theoretical arguments overlook a fundamental problem: if the Grand Lodge cannot limit the powers of the Grand Master, how did we get the limitations we now have? Perhaps the Grand Architect Himself ordained the requirement that the Grand Lodge has to approve edicts of the Grand Master for them to remain in force? The powers of the Grand Master spring from the consent of the lodges he governs, and they can modify his powers whenever or however they see fit.

The fact is, Mackey’s fabrication never has been adopted formally by the Grand Lodge of Maryland nor has it made any particular contribution to our jurisprudence. What is true is that Mackey has been regularly ignored by the Grand Lodge of Maryland when convenient, though his invention most recently prevented a democratic discussion of important issues facing the Grand Lodge of Maryland. The solution to the confusion is straight forward: drop Mackey’s lame “landmarks” (either by agreement or by formal edict or by resolution) and give the Grand Lodge of Maryland the flexibility and authority it needs to face the problems of the future.

Quotations from Some Masonic Scholars Disagreeing with Mackey’s “Landmarks”

Robert Freke Gould

We shall vainly search in the records of those early times for a full specification of the twenty-five “Landmarks” which modem research pronounces to be both ancient and unalterable … Of the Ancient Landmarks it has been observed, with more or less foundation in truth: “Nobody knows what they comprise or omit; they are of no earthly authority, because everything is a landmark when an opponent desires to silence you, but nothing is a landmark that stands in his own way.”

The History of Freemasonry, New York: John C. Yorston & Co., 1885, vol. 2, p. 59.

Albert Pike, Scottish Rite, Morals and Dogma, Magnum Opus, AASR, albert pike quotesAlbert Pike

There is no common agreement in regard to what are and what are not landmarks. That has never been definitely settled. Each writer makes out for himself the list or catalogue of them, according to his own fancy, some counting more of them and others less.

Most of these so-called landmarks were not known either to Ancient Craft Masonry in England or Scotland before the revolution of 1723, or to the new Masonry, as landmarks, for years afterwards. It is a pity that Masonry has not a Pope, or cannot make one of some Grand Master, Editor, or Chairman of a Committee on Foreign Correspondence, endowed with infallibility, to determine the age which a landmark must have to entitle it to call itself a landmark; what is the essential nature of a landmark; how many of the supposed twenty-five are landmarks, and what others the oracular wisdom of the author [Mackey] of this catalogue has overlooked.

Proceedings of the Masonic Veterans’s Association of Iowa, 1888 (reprinted in Coil’s Masonic Encyclopedia, New York: Macoy Publishing & Masonic Supply Co., 1961, pp. 367–59).

E. W. Timberlake, Jr.

A number of Grand Lodges have undertaken, by express enactment, to fix what the landmarks shall be within their respective jurisdictions, and these differ very widely. For example, nine American Grand Lodges declare that the ancient charges contain the landmarks, while several Grand Lodges have adopted statements of their own, varying all the way from seven in West Virginia and ten in New Jersey to thirty-nine in Nevada and fifty- four in Kentucky. It would seem obvious, therefore, that, since even a Grand Lodge can neither create nor abolish a landmark, such declaratory enactments cannot be viewed in any other light than as Masonic legislation.… It is generally conceded that Dr. Mackey’s list includes all of the landmarks, but it is not conceded that all those which he enumerates as landmarks, are in reality such.

“The Landmarks of Masonry,” Nocalore, vol. 1, part 1. pp. 4­16,1931.

universal freemasonryRoscoe Pound

The skeptic says, first, that down to the appearance of Mackey’s Masonic Jurisprudence “landmark” was a term floating about in Masonic writing without any definite meaning. It had come down from the operative Craft where it had meant trade secrets, and had been used loosely for “traditions” or for “authorized ritual” or for “significant historical occurrences,” and Oliver had even talked of “obsolete landmarks.” Second, he says. the definition of a landmark, the criteria of a landmark, and the fixed landmarks generally received in England and American from 1860 on, come from Mackey. Bro. Hextall says: “It was more because Mackey’s list purported to fill an obvious gap than from any signal claims it possessed that it obtained a rapid circulation and found a ready acceptance.” Perhaps this is too strong. But it must be admitted that dogmatism with respect to the landmarks cannot be found anywhere in Masonic writings prior to Mackey and that our present views have very largely been formed—even if not wholly formed—by the influence of his writings.…

In reading [Mackey’s definition of a landmark] we must bear in mind that it was written in 1856, before the rise of modem Masonic history and before the rise of modem ideas in legal science in the United States. Hence it is influenced by certain uncritical ideas of Masonic history and by some ideas as to the making of customary law reminiscent of Hale’s History of the Common Law, to which some lawyer may have directly or indirectly referred him. But we may reject these incidental points and the essential theory will remain unaffected—the theory of a body of immemorial recognized fundamentals which give to the Ma¬ sonic order, if one may say so, its Masonic character, and may not be altered without taking away that character. It is true Mackey’s list of landmarks goes beyond this. But it goes beyond his definition as he puts it; and the reason is to be found in his failure to distinguish between the landmarks and the common law.

Lectures on Masonic Jurisprudence, New York: Board of General Activities [Grand Lodge, F. & A.M.], 1941, pp. 32–34.

Henry Wilson Coil

The way to define a thing or a principle is to examine it closely, list its peculiarities, state how it looks and acts, what it does and does not do, and what it is not as well as what it is. Again, the landmarkers reversed the process by attempting to define the unknown thing arbitrarily and, then armed with that prejudicial formula, search through the rituals, the regulations, and even unofficial literature in search of items which would satisfy the definitions. They did not know that the definition is the conclusion, not the beginning of such enquiry. But, worse yet, they commonly included some items which did not conform to their definitions. Of this class, one of the leaders, Mackey, was a striking example. What he called ancient and unwritten principles were in several of his proposals no more than legislation of the premier Grand Lodge set forth in the Constitutions and General Regulations published in 1723. Some that he called universal were not followed in all, possibly not even in a majority of Masonic jurisdiction. Those called unalterable had already been altered in some instances, and Mackey, himself, gave out several additions which altered his unalterable list of twenty-five.

Coil’s Masonic Encyclopedia, New York: Macoy Publishing & Masonic Supply Company, 1961, p. 364.

Dwight L. Smith

The Grand Lodge of England, which should know a thing or two about the ancient landmarks, never has “adopted” landmarks or in any way attempted to define them other than to make casual references to certain practices. To my knowledge, no Grand Lodge of Freemasons outside the United States has ever become concerned about what the landmarks are, or how many there may be.

Not so in the U.S.A. Beginning about the middle of the Nineteenth Century, Grand Lodges started trying to define the landmarks and enumerating them. They literally ran races to see how many ancient landmarks they could “adopt” officially. Some lists became so long and so all-inclusive that it was hardly safe to take aim at the brass cuspidor for fear an ancient landmark would be removed. And the hilarious feature about the various lists of “official” and “unalterable” landmarks is that so many are in total disagreement with their neighbors’ lists!

“Of Landmarks and Cuspidors,” The Philalethes, vol. 26, no. 1 (February 1973), pp. 6 & 22.

REFERENCES

Coil, Henry W., et al. Coil’s Masonic Encyclopedia. New York: Macoy Publishing aid Masonic Supply Co., Inc., 1961.

Gould, Robert Freke, et al. The History of Freemasonry. New York: John C. Yorston & Co., 1885.

Mackey, Albert G. Mackey’s Masonic Jurisprudence. Revised by R. I. Clegg. Chicago; The Masonic History Company, 1927.

Maryland, Grand Lodge of. Maryland Manual of Ancient Craft Masonry. Baltimore: Grand Lodge, A.F. & A.M. of Md., 1935.

Reports to the Annual Communication. Baltimore: Grand Lodge, A.F. & A.M, of Maryland, November 17, 1986.

Reports to the Semiannual Communication. Baltimore: Grand Lodge, A.F. & AM of Maryland, May 15, 1989.

Masonic Service Association. “The Ancient Landmarks of Freemasonry.” The little Masonic Library. 5 vols. Richmond: Macoy Publishing aid Masonic Supply Co., Inc., 1946.

Pike, Albert. “The Landmarks of Freemasonry.” The Little Masonic Library. 5 vols. Richmond: Macoy Publishing and Masonic Supply Co., Inc., 1946.

Pound, Roscoe. Lectures on Masonic Jurisprudence. New York: Board of General Purposes, [Grand Lodge, F. & A.M.], 1941.

Schultz, Edward T. History of Freemasonry in Maryland. 4 vols. Baltimore: J. H. Medairy & Co., 1887.

Smith, Dwight L. “Of Landmarks and Cuspidors.” The Philalethes, vol. 26, no. 1 (Feb. 1973.)

Timberlake, E. W. Jr. “The Landmarks of Masonry.” Nocalore, vol.1, part 1 (1931).


Footnotes

[1] Albert Pike, “The Landmarks of Freemasonry,” The Little Masonic Library, 5 vols. Richmond: Macoy Publishing and Masonic Supply Co., Inc., 1946, vol. 1, p. 66.

[2] Masonic Service Association, “The Ancient Landmarks of Freemasonry,” The Little Masonic Library, Richmond: Macoy Publishing and Masonic Supply Co., Inc., 1946. vol. 1, p. 95.

[3] Masonic Service Association, “The Ancient Landmarks of Freemasonry,” pp. 76–77.

[4] Grand Lodge of Maryland, Maryland Manual of Ancient Craft Masonry, Baltimore: Grand Lodge, A.F.&A.M. of Md., 1935, p. C.

[5] Henry W. Coil, et al., Coil’s Masonic Encyclopedia, N.Y.: Macoy Publishing and Masonic Supply Co., 1961, p. 360.

[6] Grand Lodge of Maryland. Reports to the Annual Communication. Baltimore: Grand Lodge, A.F. & A.M. of Maryland, November 17, 1986, p. 29.

[7] Albert G. Mackey, Mackey’s Masonic Jurisprudence, rev. R. I. Clegg, Chicago: The Masonic History Co., 1927, p. 141.

[8] Grand Lodge of Maryland, Reports to the Semi-Annual Communication, Baltimore: Grand Lodge, A.F. & A.M. of Maryland, May 15, 1989, p. 29.

[9] Edward T. Schultz, History of Freemasonry in Maryland, 4 vols., Baltimore: J. H. Medairy & Co., 1887, vol. 3, p. 67.

Lodge Twittering…

It may come as no surprise to many of you but I, being a techie person, do use Twitter.  Surprise, surprise!!!

Many people ask me why I use twitter.  For the longest time I couldn’t figure it out.  I enjoy it and learn from it but I couldn’t figure out how to explain it’s value.  Well let me explain now.  I enjoy technology and I enjoy being one of the first to experience just about everything.  With Twitter you have instant access to the pulse of the global news or even the news from the block over.  You can get a glimpse of what people find important, by the links they share.  But most important to me, I get to see first-hand what early adopters of technology are looking at and trying out.  That’s where I want to be.  I want to know what is coming and how they intend to use it.

OK let’s bring this full circle back to masonry.  Hmmmm… Ummmmm…. hmmmmm… Well there was that Masonic twitter group I started a few months back.  Just look up #mason in your twitter search and you will find it.  Oh and of course there is the @masoniccentral twitter account that is tweeting our podcast start times and regular posts from this website.

Can you see my challenge yet?  I’m looking for useful ways to use Twitter in a lodge or Grand Lodge environment.  Now I do have a few more ideas but I really want to challenge you the readers to send me some ideas.  Comment on this post and let me know what your genius idea is for twittering that will benefit lodge in some way.

In the meantime, follow me on Twitter… @dbk  If I don’t follow you back then please let me know your a mason or a reader/listening fan of mine.  I’ll return the favor.

Don’t forget to post your ideas for Twitter as a comment to this post…

Teachings of Diogenes-Lesson 3 Light of Teaching

seal

In winter Diogenes walked barefoot in the snow. In summer he rolled in the hot sand. He did this to harden himself against discomfort. “But aren’t you overdoing it a little?” a disciple asked.

“Of course,” replied Diogenes, “I am like a teacher of choruses who has to sing louder than the rest in order they may get the right note.”

How do you mentor your new masons? Do you hand them a book and say memorize this and call me in a month? Or do you teach him the catechism then slap him on the back say congratulations and forget about him?

It is a sad fact that most masons lead a double life. They never try to get to know or help out the candidate, sure they come out to lodge and help with the ritual but who lives the example outside the lodge.

M.W. Brother Herman Forester GM, GLKY puts it very eloquently in the Masonic Home Journal, June, 2009:

The Brotherhood of Freemasonry is not just something we belong to, it is a way of life which has been passed down through the ages, Freemasonry teaches us to be better than ourselves. It is about the good things about man, love of God, love of our fellow man, made in God’s image, our families, neighbors, community and country. The teachings of Masonry are so important to a world desperately seeking the things that Masonry teaches. Brothers, let us all stand together for the right things, which are not always the most popular things, harmony and Brotherly love must always prevail in our Lodges. Honor, integrity and unity must set the standard for all who wear the square and compass, and a rallying point to live by not hollow words but noble actions and deeds for all to see.

I have had the pleasure of taking a young mason under my wing and helping him to understand masonry both in and out side of lodge. He is a sponge soaking up what ever I put before him. Not everything you see or read is correct so careful study is required this actually benefits both of us, as he learns so do I. I show him both sides the correct as well as the incorrect ways of masonry.

The Masonic Journey is of an individual nature. Each individual must choose his path if he is not mentored he may become lost and fall off the path, but those who are mentored and have someone to look to for guidance will keep to their path and grow.

“Did you ever think?

  • 15 Masons gathered to make you a EA,
  • 15 Masons gathered to pass you to Fellowcraft,
  • 33 Masons gathered to make you a Master Mason.

What did you do?

Well I walked barefoot in the snow and rolled in the hot sand so that my voice could be heard above the chorus!

Read Teachings of Diogenes-Lesson 1 Emptiness
Read Teachings of Diogenes-Lesson 2 Honesty

Wor.Bro. Ian M. Donald
Wor.Bro. Ian M. Donald

fraternally
Wor. Bro. Ian M. Donald
A man is not measured by how tall he stands,
But by how often he bends to help, comfort and teach!


Diogenes (c. 412- c. 323 B.C.) was a very playful philosopher who liked to use great wit when challenging the values and beliefs of his fellow citizens in ancient Athens.    He lived in great poverty, probably begging and stealing his food, and steadfastly disdained all forms of luxury.   It was because of his determination to follow his own dictates and not adhere to the conventions of society that he was given the epithet “dog,” from which the name “cynic” is derived.
– From the web site of David Quinn

symbols, symbolism, freemasonry

Symbols and Symbolism

symbols, symbolism, freemasonry

By Carlos Antonio Martinez, Jr., J.D., PH.D., M.A., 33º

ANCIENT MYSTERIES AND SYMBOLISM

With respect to the term “Mysteries”, no semi-educated mind can doubt that Symbols (especially Masonic symbols) were the Universal Language of Ancient Theology. For the Tutors of the Ancient World – in likeness with Nature – imparted their teachings by way of sight. The ancient sages of Persia, Egypt and Greece adopted the custom of surrounding their doctrines with enigmas difficult to interpret, illustrating men and women with imagery and parables that were more within their reach and knowledge.

So too were the Mysteries a succession of symbols, and the oral aspect of the same an explanation of their significance; in them were amalgamated sacred commentaries, ideas about Physics and Morals, theories about Creation, allegories about Nature, the relation between planets and elements, and all other conceptions regarding the relation between the Gods and mankind.

The word Mystery comes from the Greek word Musterion, which means: “Secret that must remain Occult” or “secret counsel of God”, hence the strict Silence that must be observed and our consequential familiarization with another term which is etymologically applied to everything related to Mysteries: “Mystic”, a word derived from the Greek “Mustikos” which is an adjective of “Mustes” or Initiates, a reason for which Mystic is considered a synonym of Initiate, and henceforth the essential “mysterious relation” between Initiations and Silent Secret Doctrines. In the most exterior sense, Mystery is that which should not be talked about, that which is prohibited to make known to the outsider. In a second more interior sense, the Mystery designates what is received in Silence, that about which no discussion should be had, for these are truths that by virtue of their supra-natural/rational nature, are above any discussion.

Finally, there is a third much more profound sense in which the Mystery is properly Inexpressible, it can only be contemplated in silence, and for that reason is incommunicable.

There exists an alliance between philosophical systems and symbols that are evident in monuments of all ages, and in the symbolic writings of the Parents of Nations that later came to be part of the rituals of Secret Mystic Societies. It was in this way that Patriarchs and Matriarchs alike expressed themselves through a constant series of invariable and uniform principles that form a harmonious and perfect conjunction which together define a ceremony of religious and cryptic nature that necessitates a preparation or initiation on the part of the individual who desires to comprehend them. Thus exist Lesser and Greater Mysteries, being the first ones those of symbolic nature and common use, those that comprise all that is related with the development of possibilities of the human condition and that culminate with what has been denominated Restoration of Primordial State; and these are nothing but the preparation for the Greater Mysteries, which appertain to the realization of supra-human states, taking the individual from the condition in which he/she was left in the Lesser Mysteries and conducting him/her through stages of spiritual order until the Supreme Identity. Hence the dominance of the Greater Mysteries over Metaphysical Knowledge. They are the most exalted and bring the initiate/adept closer to the occult truths of divinity. To characterize these two terms – Lesser and Greater Mysteries – we can utilize two geometric symbols: to the first we can assign a horizontal line, symbolical and representative of human dominion, which, in turn, serves as a base to the second: a vertical line allegorical of one’s ascension to the heavens, a supra-human realization identified with superior states.

initiation, ancient mystery school, Demeter, Triptolemos, Persephone

Grand Relief of Eleusis: Demeter, Triptolemos, and Persephone

All the philosophers that illustrated antiquity were disciples of initiation, being the progress and foundation of the mysteries what, in those times, permitted mankind to free itself from superstitions. Only the Mysteries could liberate man and woman from barbarousness. From them are derived the doctrines of Sages of the likes of Zoroaster, Confucius, Plato and, of course, Hermes Trismegistus. Such is the vastness and timelessness of the Ancient Mysteries that fragments of them can be appreciated still influencing the various Rites of the modern Masonic Order. Some of the most important to date are the rites of Osiris in Egypt, those of Mithra in Persia, those of Adonis in Syria, those of Dionysius and Eleusis in Greece and those of the Druids among the Celts, to mention a few. In all the Mysteries can be found a common factor indicating a same origin: all initiations had a funereal aspect and were about a type of mystical death and resurrection alluding to a heroic personage or semi-god. Through the assimilation of the Mysteries the Candidate was instructed in the subordination of the Degrees, physical trials and tests of knowledge were given in the darkness of the night, the aspirant had to be solemnly and severely tried and entirely purified in order to attain Wisdom and Light. The Esoteric character of the mysteries remained preserved by way of mandates and oaths of secrecy whose violation was punished with death.

The legend of Osiris offered our fore-brothers and sisters their first glimpse of the Masonic Symbolism of Immortality, when Isis found a lush acacia tree over the grave of her dead husband Osiris. This imagery and concept was taken – much later – by the Jews, mainly due to their leaders Moses and Joseph who were both Egyptian Priests and Nobles. At some point, much later in time, the story of Hiram, the martyr-hero of the 3rd Degree, was created, emulating for posterity his allegorical death and resurrection in the persona of every initiate, and the rather timely and propitious symbolism of the sprig of acacia; In the mysteries of Mithra, Zoroaster secluded the initiates in lugubrious caverns, a striking ceremony that was later adopted by most Mystery Schools until it reached the Masonic ritual in the form of the Chamber of Reflection; The Eleusian initiation demanded that the aspirant remain stationary through various intervals of time, hence the Ages of Masonry; In the mysteries of India, the candidate journeyed three times describing a circle that stopped in the South, Symbolic Masonry has preserved these journeys or “travels’ in the form of Circumambulation; And way before our Brothers-Knights of the Order of the Temple came into existence, the Essenes conditioned the admission of all aspirants to the immediate surrender of their wealth to the Brotherhood and their works of charity.

In short, it is my opinion that, for all the aims and goals of our numerous rituals, symbols are of a great transcendence to the Masonic knowledge, compelling us to work in their internal mysteries seeking the Light in everyone of us and in those who surround us, always upholding our sacred principles of Liberty, Fraternity and Equality.

To conclude for the time being, I wish to proclaim that “Any day is good to fix things… including our lives”.

Behold, how good and pleasant it is for Brethren to dwell together in unity!

More Masonic Symbols.


Reprinted by permission of Carlos Antonio Martinez, Jr.

Sufism and freemasonry

Freemasonry and Sufism: Two Roads One Destination

Sufism and freemasonry

“My heart can adopt all forms, I follow the religion of Love: Whichever road the camel of Love takes, that is my religion and my faith”
-Ibn Arabi

By Carlos Antonio Martinez, Jr., J.D., PH.D., M.A., 33º 

Contrary to the majority of “Exoteric Spiritual Systems” Free-Masonry lacks totalitarian ambition. It accepts that although its method is “just and perfect”, it is not the only one through which its goals are accomplished. It recognizes that its modus-operandi is merely one more of the Traditional Avenues of Access to Knowledge, just like in the Occidental world so were the diverse Gnostic Schools with which it shares a number of basic elements.

For the individual who knows how and when to advance beyond the appearances which at times seem discordant and contradictory and reaches the central nucleus of a proposed concept and/or theory, it must not be difficult to encounter profound parallelisms among Traditions which emanate from the same fountain. Thus, it is with minimum or no effort that we can realize how Free-Masonry shares so many essential tenets, attributes and characteristics with other socio-cultural movements which have emerged all throughout the history of mankind; Movements which in the form of academies, cults, private associations, clubs, congregations, guilds and corporations united and still unite “men and women of good repute and customs” who labor incessantly in the construction of their Inner Temples.

The acceptance of this proven fact, however, must not lead us to the extreme assumption that “everything is identical”, thus reducing Traditions to its minimum common denominator and therefore losing its intrinsically characteristic richness. The fact that “within their nucleuses” Traditions seem analogous does not make their manifestations appear so before the eyes of the common folk, for in order to really appreciate it, it is necessary to make an active and persevering effort.

One of the traditions which outside the occidental frame distinguishes itself among those most proximate to Free-Masonry, is Sufism. The similarity and compatibility of Sufism with the Craft is such that, quite frequently, learned men and women refer to Free-Masonry as: “Western Sufism”, and, in like manner, they refer to Sufism as: “Free-Masonry of Islam”. Before continuing on, it is important to under-line what I consider the most fundamental difference between these two Traditions: While Free-Masonry accepts any “exoteric frame”, Sufism can only be lived plentifully within the Islamic Religion. In this occasion, therefore, notwithstanding how passion-inspiring the topic may be, I will not address the more or less true relationships existing between these two Institutions and their precursors; I will, however, focus very succinctly on points that are central and common to both Traditions.

There are two origins commonly attributed to Sufism: One, is a type of “Concealed Interior Doctrine” directly transmitted by the Prophet (may Peace be upon him!) to his most intimate Disciples; a somewhat similar to certain Gnostic Interpretations of Primitive Christianity and transmitted to our modern days by way of a “golden thread” of Initiates. And the other, entirely different from the first one, is that of the Persian Influence upon the primogenial Arabic Islam, an influence through which certain pantheist and monist depth was aggregated. It is indeed probable that both theories bear much Truth in them; But, only one reality remains uncontested: Sufism has been present in Islam since the first centuries of its existence, having, just like Free-Masonry, a best or worst fate while living its Principles of Love and Tolerance in any of the social/political contexts of the last twelve hundred years.

Though Sufism is not a monolithic block, and philosophical positions from the most orthodox to the most heterodox have been based on it, the most adequate definition may be the one given to us by Omar Ali Shah: “Doctrine which seeks to remove the veil from the eye of the heart (Ayd al-Qalb) to see what is Real (al-Haq)”. It is difficult to condense greater profoundness in such a few words, and impossible to explain them to he/she who does not feel. On the other hand, the moral aspect, just like in Free-Masonry, is not alien to Sufism; Hence the definition given by Junayd of Bagdad: “Adoption of superior qualities and abandonment of inferior ones”.

Sufism, contrary to practices and Ascetic Schools of the Indian subcontinent with which it is also compared, is vivid and practiced in open communities, thus vertebrating themselves with Progressive Ways from smaller groups headed by a “Master” to larger “Grand Orders”, of which the Naqsbandi is probably the best known. The exterior practices of Sufism are determined in great measure by belonging to either “Order”, and most specially by the “ritualistic knocking”, counsel and input of the founding “Master” who inaugurates all major ceremonies which are then followed by prayers, supplications, invocations, diets, pilgrimages and other activities which are as generic and specific to the Muslim World.

The internal practices are, on the contrary, much more faithful to Sufism and very common/familiar to it independently of the “Order” affiliated with, as it usually happens with any esoteric doctrine of difficult comprehension to the non-initiate. Let us in this occasion only mention the practice of Meditation over the Internal Reality (Haqiqah), over the thought-integrator of opposites, over the motion of Nature innate to all human beings (Fitra) and which reveals in its interior the Full Sense of Creation and the presence of Allah (Dhirku’llah) in an analogous perception.

These exercises, among other disciplines, are carried out individually, but, under the tutelage of the “Master” of a regular Community where nobody is granted admission, unless he/she has been subject to rigorous trials aimed at provoking the “Awakening of the Sufi”, an event rarely referenced to under such appellative, but, instead, commonly known as: the “Awakening of a Friend”, very close to the Masonic expression: the “Resurrection of a Brother Master Mason”.

May these few lines suffice to at least superficially emboss the coincidences between Sufism and Free-Masonry, in order that the individual interested in the study of Esoterism in general may benefit from the resources offered by either path, and the Free-Mason, with or without an apron, may know of a Sister Tradition in the Muslim World, a world that is now so perversely defamed and slandered by Profane and “Mason” alike, a world that, contrary to the nefarious assertions of our nation’s failed leadership, is plethoric of Hope, Faith and Charity and ever ready to extend the hand of Brotherly/Sisterly Love, Relief and Truth to all the people of the world.


Reprinted by permission of Carlos Antonio Martinez, Jr.

the fall of Solomon, judgement, making laws

The Fall of Solomon

the fall of Solomon, king solomon, temple builder, 1 kingsKing Solomon of Israel is referred to in Masonic tradition as being the fraternity’s first Most Excellent Grand Master. He is championed as the man who constructed the magnificent temple for Jehovah and is heralded as the personification of wisdom. However, a closer look at the life of King Solomon shows that he wasn’t always worthy of emulation.

It is true that Solomon had multitudes of wives and concubines, but that will not be the source of any criticism in this article. Many Biblical kings had large harems, including Solomon’s father David. No, Solomon would be condemned for the very sin which had plagued his people for centuries: putting other gods before Jehovah.

As Solomon grew old, his wives turned his heart after other gods, and his heart was not fully devoted to the Lord his God, as the heart of David his father had been. He followed Ashtoreth the goddess of the Sidonians, and Molech the detestable god of the Ammonites. So Solomon did evil in the eyes of the Lord; he did not follow the Lord completely, as David his father had done.

On a hill east of Jerusalem, Solomon built a high place for Chemosh, the detestable god of Moab, and for Molech the detestable god of the Ammonites.
1 Kings 11:4-7

The Hebrews could be a strange people. God parted the Red Sea and freed the Israelites from slavery. Then he gave them a pillar of clouds by day and a pillar of fire by night to guide them. Then he provided them with manna to nourish them. Yet, the Hebrews worshiped other Gods. In Solomon’s case, he was allowed to complete the Lord’s temple and was blessed by the presence of the Ark of the Covenant. Still, he decided to disobey the First Commandment.

Like many main characters in the Old Testament, Solomon’s place of prominence came only through special circumstances. When David was old and frail, Bathsheba convinced him to place Solomon on the throne of Israel (indeed, the influence of women can be great). Solomon was certainly not David’s first choice for his heir. Joseph Heller’s God Knows gives a fictional account of the events surrounding the elderly King David. Heller portrays Solomon in a less than flattering manner in this humorous work. In the story, King David says of his son:

And I was smart enough to appreciate that for Solomon you had to spell everything out. I’ll let you in on a secret about my son Solomon: he was dead serious when he proposed cutting the baby in half, that putz. I swear to God.

While this portrayal may have no real historical basis, this much is true: Solomon was made king only through the unfortunate deaths of David’s older sons, he built his temple only through a blessing secured by his father, and he managed to nearly destroy the promising future which God had given David’s offspring. Nevertheless, 1 Kings 4:29 says that “God gave Solomon wisdom and very great insight, and a breadth of understanding as measureless as the sand on the seashore.”

Through this knowledge he was able to secure his place in history as the builder of the Lord’s temple and has been given the honor of being a prominent figure in Masonic tradition. Like all men, Solomon may have had faults, but some of his actions have earned him respect. This is a lesson that can benefit all Masons. Masons must recognize that all men have their redeeming qualities as well as their imperfections. The Mason should never hesitate to clearly identify these qualities in the men that they have identified as being worthy of emulation.

How are the Gnostics and Freemasonry connected?

Gnostic Reflections in Freemasonry

How are the Gnostics and Freemasonry connected?

By Timothy W. Hogan
PM, KT, 32* KCCH, S.I.I., District Lecturer for the GL of Colorado

Freemasonry is a system of initiation that draws its Masonic symbolism from a variety of sources and traditions.

Masonic historians are quick point out some of the connections between Freemasonry and the cathedral builders, the Knights Templar, the Royal Society, Hermetic tradition, alchemists and Qabalaists, however the connection between Freemasonry and the Gnostic schools is often overlooked- even though it is perhaps the most prevalent.

Gnosticism is a school of thought originally developed in the ancient pagan world and championed by philosophers like Pythagoras, and later instrumental in the development of early Christianity, in which an initiate can attain a Gnosis – or direct knowledge of the divine. In fact, the word “Gnosis” means “knowledge” in Greek, and it was a divine knowledge that could be achieved through the study of nature, personal initiation, and divine revelation. As a result, schools of initiation were set up by the Gnostics in order to engage in study and initiation, and to attain connection with the path of Sophia- the Greek word for “wisdom”. In fact, this is where the word “philosophy” comes from- as it is from the Greek words “Philo”- meaning “to love”, and “Sophia”, being the goddess of wisdom. The term philosophy is believed to have been coined by Pythagoras, and some have associated Pythagoras’ school with a form of Pagan Gnosticism. Gnosticism therefore showed the connection between God and Nature, and contributed to the esoteric sciences of alchemy and sacred geometry. The “G” emphasized in Freemasonry may therefore have other implications! It has also been argued by many researchers that Gnosticism was a new label for the pagan philosophies and doctrines found in Hermeticism, which had just been rewrapped in new packaging. Indeed, Hermeticism and Gnosticism share many fundamental details, and the influence of Hermetic thought and Hermes in particular could be a whole separate article. Therefore we will just explore Gnostic connections in this article.

allegorical Idealism, Middle Platonic philosophers, Jewish mysticism

Gnosticism and Gnostic thought are mentioned several times in the Scottish Rite degrees, and we can see it as a general theme in Freemasonry, though it is rarely mentioned specifically by name outside of the Scottish Rite. This is partially due to the fact that the Gnostics generally considered themselves their own form of religion, and as Freemasonry accepts brothers of all faiths, it is important not to make the mistake of portraying Freemasonry itself as a Gnostic religion. That being said, the idea associated with Gnosticism can be found in almost all religions, and as such, it can be viewed as more of an esoteric philosophy that unites people across various religions- though some people today claim to be Gnostics as a religion. For example, the ideas associated with a Gnostic Christian are fundamentally almost identical to a Buddha or Boddisatva in the Buddhist religion, Gnanis in Hinduism, an Arif in the Islamic tradition, and a “knower” in the Taoist tradition, and it is for this reason that it is believed that Gnosticsm had an influence on all of these religious philosophies as it spread between Egypt and Tibet, and likewise these other schools contributed to Gnostic doctrine. Though Gnostic philosophies vary somewhat depending on the school, in their essential details and philosophy they are mostly the same. The Gnostic philosopher Mani alluded to this universality when he said, “But my hope will go to the West and to the East. And they will hear the voice of its teaching in all languages and they will teach it in all cities. Gnosticism surpasses in this first point all earlier religions, for the earlier religions were founded in individual places and in individual cities. Gnosticism goes out to all cities and its message reaches every land.”1 Therefore it is important to explore some of these ideas and see how they relate to Freemasonry.

To begin with, there is a lot of confusion when it comes to ancient Gnostic thought, with most scholars explaining Gnosticism as a form dualism in which there is a god of darkness and a god of light who are battling for the souls of humanity. In my opinion, this is kind of a way over simplified version of Gnosticism, and one that is potentially more tied with modern Christian ideas, though there certainly were different types of Gnostic schools and some likely had a more dualistic way of interpreting Gnostic philosophy, and we particularly find this in some later Gnostic movements like the Cathars of southern France. We must remember that much of what had been written about the Gnostics prior to the wide spread translation of Gnostic texts, consisted of harsh critiques by the Roman Catholic Church, which view Gnostcism as a rival movement. Therefore we would also expect a harsh and biased interpretation of Gnostic doctrine. A more correct and widespread view of general Gnosticism, in my mind, would be to suggest that there is a single God, which manifests itself into two forces. These forces have been labeled as Spirit and matter, light and darkness, yin and yang. Gnostics believed that the world of spirit is always subtly directing the world of matter, in order that we, as conscious beings, may grow and become more in line with our spiritual potential. Understanding God’s laws of spirit in matter could enable one to come to a better comprehension of God. This moment of “ah-ha”, or awareness of God’s work, is the Gnosis. It was believed by Gnostic schools that this divine knowledge was necessary for humanities salvation- as it was a personal knowledge of God, and to the Gnostics it was represented by Light. “Gnosis” then, in many ways is similar to ideas associated with “revelation”, “enlightenment” and “nirvana” from different traditions.

From a Gnostic standpoint, then, it was ridiculous to worship anything matter based, as it is just a shadow of a very real spiritual phenomenon from the realm of light. The quest for salvation was believed by most Gnostics to take place over several incarnations on the earth plane, and therefore the battle between two gods over the soul of man was a symbolic metaphor of the battle within oneself over the focus and perceptions in life. Mastering the Gnostic process was considered to be true living, as opposed to being asleep and non-living, which was usually associated with “evil”. Ultimately, the Gnostic must free himself from the illusions of attachment to matter and, leaving the darkness of the mundane world, unite with the Divine Light of God, the first Principle Creator. Metaphors associated with raising the dead, or giving the blind sight were said to be symbolically associated with this awakening. Biblical scholars, for example, usually translate the early Greek word “anastasis” as “resurrection”, but the word more correctly means “awakening”. Therefore most Christian Gnostics considered Jesus’ resurrection as a metaphor for an awakening to Gnosis. The Gnostics did not require the intervention of a Priest to know God, as they became their own conduit for God’s revelation. They did set up a series of initiations to help in the development of consciousness and to lead to Gnosis. These initiations were also sometimes associated with stages of consciousness development after the transition from this life at death, and prior to new incarnation.

The initiations of the Gnostics were primarily centered around the classical elements and the seven planets recognized in antiquity, and they usually involved various baptismal rites and the conferral of passwords at each stage of initiation. It was believed that the four classical elements of antiquity, earth, water, air, and fire represented stages of consciousness illumination, with earth representing the consciousness obsessed with the passions and enslaved by matter on one extreme, and fire representing the consciousness free to shine with the light of God on the other extreme. The initiate therefore learned to master their emotions with the initiation associated with baptism by water, the intellect with the initiation associated with air, and the spiritual understanding with the baptism associated with fire. There was usually also a symbolic death of the old lower self and a resurrection of the new spiritual self that was illustrated in these later degree initiations. The lower false self, called the Eidelon or the Twin, symbolically died, and the higher self- called the Daemon, was free to express itself in Mastery as a reflection of God. God was therefore represented as the supreme light, and in fact, the Gnostics were often called the “Sons of Light”, or sometimes the “Religion of Light”- especially in the case of the Manichean Gnostics. They were also referred to as the “Sons of the Widow”, as found in the Manichean, Valentinian and Mandean traditions. There is even some speculation that the Ming Dynasty got its name from the abundance of Manichean Gnostics at the Chinese court, as “Ming” means “light”. The Chinese believed the Gnostic teacher Manni to be the reincarnation of the Taoist sage Lao Tzu, and even referred to him as the “Buddha of Light”2. Obviously this terminology is something we are very familiar with in Freemasonry.

With each Gnostic degree, the aspirant attained new metaphors for how consciousness was connected in the world, and they attained new passwords which were deemed to be a valuable aid when either their transition came, or they went through the symbolic death, so that they could ascend the higher spheres of consciousness. Along these lines, it was believed that souls incarnated down to earth from the highest heavens, passing through all the planetary spheres with their influences, and cloaking the soul with the tools of consciousness needed for incarnation. After death or during certain breakthroughs of consciousness the souls went back by the same path to the higher realms of consciousness, abandoning at each stage of their ascent what they had taken while incarnating, and this purified them for pure Gnosis. To pass out of the sphere of one planet and into the next above it, they had to go through gateways guarded by Archons, who were like Tilers or Inner Guards, and would give way only to those who had the passwords conferred in the Gnostic initiation ceremonies3. Some schools even taught that the soul could not ascend after death until it was “drawn up by the rays of the sun and, after passing the moon, where it was purified, it went on to lose itself in the shining star of the day” 4. In some Gnostic traditions, like the Mandeans, they even attained secret hand grips and were given special signs of the hands and feet associated with each stage of the initiation process. Ultimately the realization of spiritual awakening and Mastery overcoming the slavery of material senses is hoped to be achieved in these initiations.

In Freemasonry, we may recognize this similar symbolism emphasized with the compasses and the square- as the square represented things material and the compasses represented things spiritual and eternal. We can also recognize the same order of initiation from water to air to fire, as emphasized in the penalties associated with each degree, and the planetary influence may be recognized by the emphasis of the seven liberal arts and sciences- each of which was ruled by one of the classical planets. In Freemasonry, we are likewise given hand grips and signs associated with the hands and the feet in each degree. Ultimately each brother must likewise go through a symbolic death and raising into a new life- just like the Gnostics illustrated in their initiation rites and writings.

The Christian Gnostics were principally concerned with the Christian drama however, and the symbolism associated with it, and as Freemasons we can see how it also relates to the symbolism found in the Masonic degrees themselves, and to the meanings behind the experiences associated with Hiram. Therefore we will examine the path to Gnosis from this early Gnostic Christian vantage point. Keep in mind that this same general myth can be found in different forms all over the ancient world- including with Mithras, Krishna, Odin, Buddha, Jupiter, Apollo, Dionysus, Indra, Pythagoras, Semiramis, Prometheus, and even Quetzalcoatl- mainly because most of these traditions had a root in some Gnostic thought. This being the case, even though we are looking at the Christian myth, keep in mind that the initiation aspects of this myth are actually universal and were incorporated into the Gnostic initiations.

As mentioned, within the Gnostic tradition, there were four states of consciousness with three initiatory steps between them in most schools- particularly the Valentinian. The first type of personality was represented by earth and involved people whose consciousness were totally obsessed with the physical world, the physical senses and by extension their own ego. These personalities were referred to as “Hylics”, and the early Gnostics taught that they identified with a false physical body- called the “eidolon”- or double. Biblical terminology referred to these people as “blind” or “dead” or “asleep”, since they couldn’t perceive the spiritual root of things and didn’t understand that their true body was spiritual and not physical. In Freemasonry we would refer to them as a profane- or uninitiated. Since these people were consumed with their ego, this ego was sometimes represented symbolically by a donkey- since the animal can be so stubborn. Overcoming this stage was usually represented by the person riding the donkey- symbolizing control over the lower nature- and represented by Jesus riding into Jerusalem on a donkey, or other Avatars like Mithras and Osiris also riding the donkey in their traditions. In the story of Pinocchio (written by Freemason Carlo Collodi), he almost turns into a donkey when he is obsessed with his own ego, but later turns into a real boy when he overcomes this stage of development. Restoring Hylics to the spiritual path was therefore alluded to as “giving the blind sight” and later “raising the dead”. Throughout the Bible, places of slavery or bondage usually represented this hylic state- for example the earth before the flood, the slavery of Egypt, the Babylonian captivity, or the control of Rome being a few examples. In some Masonic degrees we may clearly see it represented by the Babylonian captivity. Again, this stage was associated with the “earth bound” personality of the elements.

Once a person had an experience of the divine nature of the world however, they underwent a change of heart, so to speak, and had achieved the witnessing of some light. Most English translations of the Bible refer to this change of heart as “repentance”- though the Greek word associated with it is “metanoia.” “Metanoia” didn’t mean that you need to confess to a Priest or join a church, or apologize to God for “missing the mark”- as it is so often interpreted, but rather that you simply changed your heart and your focus towards attempting to understand your connection with God, and you were therefore free in the truest sense. It is the first step in spiritual awakening, and in Freemasonry it is symbolized by the sharp implement being pressed against the heart at the EA degree. This stage of initial awakening symbolically was represented as the realization that you live in a prison of your mind or in a tomb and the first initiation in the Gnostic rites involved baptism by water- sometimes referred to as a “catharmos” or purification in early texts. Some Masonic traditions to this day still begin the first degree with the candidate starting out in a small dark room (a Chamber of Reflection) which has bread and water- like a prison, as well as symbols pointing to the way out of that prison. The initiation then proceeds with the candidate’s first initiation out of the symbolic prison- which makes the brother a free-Mason, and thereby freeborn, and of their own free will and accord. The first stage of Gnostic initiation was generally concerned with subduing the passions and ethics. It was called the “psychic” stage by early Gnostics, and it was a stage in which the initiate discovered they were not merely a physical body. The emphasis on water in the Bible and the overcoming of this stage can be found in such metaphors as the flood of Noah and Jesus walking on water. In our EA degree today in Freemasonry, we likewise find a system which is primarily concerned with ethics, and this is where the first light is received, after having been introduced to a penalty associated with water. The candidate becomes a brother, and in so doing, is no longer blind. The essential details are identical to the Gnostic rites.

The next Gnostic initiation was usually done with air or breath and was called “pneumatic”. A pneumatic initiate came to understand their nature in impersonal terms and God not as a person on a cloud somewhere, but rather as the One. Duality begins to become understood and then transcended and all relationships with God begin to be brought into Oneness. God and the initiate become the mystery of God in love with itself. All is perfectly One. In the ancient Gnostic mystery theatres of Egypt, the various parts of the body of the slain Osiris represented different aspects of reality that all had their roots in this One source. The parts of Osiris are recollected and put back together through the love of Isis. If God was One with creation, then the Pneumatic initiate in the Gnostic schools began the study of the arts and sciences in order to understand God and glorify Him. In fact, it was during the Pneumatic stage that most Gnostic schools had represented steps associated with the seven planets, which by extension ruled the seven noble metals, the seven days of the week, and the seven liberal arts and sciences. The Pythagoreans extended it further and suggested that the notes of the octave and the seven Greek vowels were also under this influence. Therefore we should likewise not be surprised to find this emphasis in the second degree of Freemasonry, in which the penalty is related to air- just like the second initiation in the Gnostic schools. In this degree the world of duality is likewise brought into focus with the pillars.

The pneumatic initiate also came to understand that if God was a point within a circle, and the outer circumference of the circle represented the physical form, then lines of radius emanating from the point in the center of the circle represented various stages of consciousness and various personas of the One. In the outer circumference of the circle each radius appeared as unique and distinct, but at the source of all was God- the mystery of mysteries5. The point within the circle therefore not only represents the brother kept in due bounds, but in ancient symbolism it symbolized gold and the sun, and it was a symbol found in part of the Gnostic initiation process. Getting to the center of the circle was the path of Gnosis, which is why Christ said that those who came before him were baptized with water and air, but he came to baptize with fire. Fire represented the initiation into Gnosis, and in Freemasonry it is related to our third degree.

At some point in the Gnostic pneumatic process, attachment to the false self- or eidolon had to symbolically die so that the new higher spiritual body- sometimes called the “daemon” could awaken. (Notice that I wrote daemon and not demon!!!) The word usually translated as “resurrection” in the Bible is the Greek word “anastasis”, which as discussed actually means “awakening”. This awakening was the Gnosis and to the Christian Gnostics it was represented by Christ. The Christ was the point within the circle that Gnostics were trying to reach, and it is symbolically why that point lies between the two Saint John’s in Masonic EA instruction. This is why “doubting Thomas” questions Christ’s awakening. “Thomas” means “twin” in Greek- and represented the eidolon- or false physical self. This is also how it came to be in Islam that the Koran suggests that someone other than Jesus died on the cross for Jesus. The Koran says, “They did not kill him. They did not crucify him. They were taken in by an appearance.” Islamic Gnostics, such as Ishmaili Shiites and Sufi Sunnis teach that they represent the true Islamic tradition of which Mohammed and the original Muslims were initiated into6. It was these same initiation groups that the Knights Templar had come in contact with and learned alchemy and other ideas from. This tradition came from the Gnostic teachings and Apocryphal texts which suggested that the false twin- or eidolon symbolically died on the cross and Jesus (in the Gnostic Christian traditions) awakened to the Christos of Gnosis (representative of the daemon), and therefore united with God (the Universal Daemon). Mystery school tradition maintains that the tying of an initiate to a cross at this stage, or a symbolic death of some kind, goes all the way back to ancient Egypt.  Like the original Christians, Islamic Gnostics treat Christ as an image of the consciousness of God, our shared essential identity. This was all symbolic, of course, to the initiatory and psychological path that we all take, and to the early Gnostic Christians it was irrelevant if a man named Jesus actually went through this crucifixion or if he actually had a twin brother named Thomas. What mattered is that each Christian symbolically went through the symbolic death in order to realize Christ, and by extension a reintegration with God and an understanding of the spiritual Kingdom all around them. Initiation provided the symbolic roadmap to achieve this realization in the Gnostic schools.

This same symbolic death obviously occurs in the Master Mason degree, as the brother represents Hiram Abiff. Even more so, there are two Hirams (or twins) in the degree – Hiram Abiff and Hiram King of Tyre. Some have seen the symbolic death of Hiram Abiff as representing the death of the Gnostic Twin- or Eidolon, who is then attempted to be raised by the Kingly Daemon self (represented by Hiram King of Tyre), but he can’t be raised without the help of King Solomon (representing the Universal Daemon). Some have seen this same twin motif as suggested in the seal of the Knights Templar, which had two knights riding on one horse. It has been debated a great deal if the Templars had any type of secret Gnostic doctrine reserved for the few of the inner circle, however in support of the idea, it is known that they also used a seal of the Gnostic figure of Abraxas7. Abraxas was a rooster headed figure that represented time, among other things, and it was a rooster because a rooster heralds in the new light of the new day with its cry. This was a perfect Gnostic metaphor, and some have suggested that this is the origin of the rooster image found in the Chamber of Reflection in some Masonic traditions, particularly the Traditional Observance. Going back to the twin idea, this same symbol was reflected in the astrological symbol of Gemini (the twins)- whose symbol is two pillars together. We have seen this same two pillar symbol in Freemasonry.

The symbolic death for a “third degree” can be found going all the way back to ancient Egypt. In fact, some researchers suggest that the raising of Lazarus from the dead by Jesus was just such a reenactment of this ancient mystery school drama. The name “Lazarus” in Hebrew is “El Ausor”. “El” was a Hebrew name for God, and “Ausor” was the Egyptian name for the God Osiris- who symbolically dies and was raised from the dead. In fact, in the Mandean Gnostic tradition of the Middle East, one of the names for God continues to be “Aursor”. The story of Lazarus takes place in Bethany, which in Hebrew is “Bethanu”. “Beth” in Hebrew means “house” and “anu” in ancient Egyptian was the abode of the dead. Therefore “Bethany” or “Bethanu” means “house of the dead”. Interestingly, if we change the Hebrew name for Lazarus around so that “El” is last and “ausor” is first, we get the name “Ausorel” or “Azrael”- which is the angel of death. In any event, it is widely believed by researchers that the raising of Lazarus was illustrating an initiatory rite, which is why Jesus took so long to go get him out of the cave he was symbolically buried in.

The Gnostic likewise revered John the Baptist as a supreme Gnostic, and some Gnostic traditions even went so far as to name each of their leaders “John”- as a title, and they believed that John the Evangelist was a Gnostic of the same lineage. They thereby became “holy Saints John”, and the Gnostic leaders likewise named John fell into this same category. Other Gnostic schools, like the Mandeans in Iraq, have even been referred to as “John Christians” throughout most their history, due to their revearing of John the Baptist and emphasis on baptismal rites. The same emphasis is found in the Grail legends, like Parzival by Wolfram von Eschenbach, and it may be related to the Prester John myths. Some have speculated that the emphasis on John in Gnostic traditions is tied to the earlier Babylonian myths of Oannis, whose feast day was June 24th– like John the Baptist, and who was known in myth to anoint Priest Kings, have them don aprons, and teach them the arts and sciences needed for building civilization. According to this theory, Oannis became the Greek Ionanis, which became the Latin Johannis, which finally got abbreviated to John. For the Gnostics this name of John was important however because of the vowels in the name- composed of IOA. Many Gnostics referred to the name of God as IOA or IAO. These vowels were also emphasized in Hebrew words like Adonai- meaning “lord”. The Latin letters IOA were significant from a Gnostic and sacred geometry standpoint, as “I” represented a point extending itself, and therefore the “word” of creation. “O” represented the word extended through space to the point that it comes back in contact with itself, and it therefore represented the extension of the word in creation, or the Christos.  “A” represented a triangle that forms as two dualities come in contact with themselves and therefore form a third point of manifestation, and it symbolized the Sophia, or reflection of the word in matter. In the Gnostic text known as the Pistis Sophia, Jesus explains the mystery of the vowels IAO to his disciples thus: “This is its interpretation: Iota, the Universe came out; Alpha, they will turn them; Omega, will become the completion of all completions.”8

As late as the 1803 there was a Gnostic Church started for French Templars called the Johannite Church of Primitive Christians, by Bernard-Raymond Fabre-Palaprat. This church later had close ties with Martinist movements, and developed into l’Englise Catholique Gnostique under the influence of Gerard Encause. This Gnostic lineage has continued to exist in various strains to today, some of which only allow Master Masons or Martinists to become members of the church. The Gnostic  Johannite Church tradition itself was often mentioned by Eliphas Levi in his writings of the 1800’s, and it is from here that we likewise find mention of it a number of times in Albert Pike’s Morals and Dogma9. The early Knights Templar likewise revered John the Baptist, as along with the Abraxas seal mentioned before, there have been numerous other seals found of theirs which depicted the head of John the Baptist, and some have even suggested that they venerated it as a talisman. Obviously the emphasis on both John the Baptist and John the Evangelist features predominantly in most forms of Freemasonry around the world today.

Another interesting similarity that we find in both early Manichean Gnostic rituals and in some degrees in Freemasonry consisted of the placing of an empty chair on a platform in the east which symbolized the “unseen Master” or “unknown Master” of their sect. The Manichean members who had purified themselves for the special annual ritual were permitted to kneel before this empty chair10. The empty chair is reminiscent of the vacant throne of Osiris in Egyptian initiation rituals, though a similar chair is found reflected in the York Rite degrees of Freemasonry in many jurisdictions, and in the Royal Order of Scotland.

We certainly see the ideas found in both Gnosticism and Freemasonry in other traditions as well, which has led some to believe these ideas in Freemasonry came from other sources. For example, the same progression in initiations from earth to water, water to air, and air to fire, is found in other traditions than just the Gnostics, as it is also emphasized in alchemy and in qabbalah11. However it has been argued that the mystics of these different traditions shared similar doctrines, and some have even gone so far as to suggest the Knights Templar secured the doctrines of Gnosticism of the early Christians, Qabbalah of the Jews, and alchemy of  the Islamic societies while in the Holy Land- all of whom had been sharing doctrines and similar initiations as the Templars themselves. By extension, the myth is that Templarism grew into early Freemasonry. Such ideas can also be found in many of the early Rosicrucian manifestos. Ultimately the goal of both the Gnostic tradition and Freemasonry was a level of Mastery- which both systems represent by Light. Gnosticism, on the one hand, teaches that Mastery comes from understanding the spiritual forces behind creation and matter. Freemasonry, on the other hand, emphasizes the same idea- particularly in relation to the compasses that have overtaken the square. Compasses are an instrument used to draw the arcs which define the points behind geometric forms, whereas squares can be used to define those physical forms. The Master Mason is therefore likewise one who understands and utilizes the knowledge of the hidden spiritual and eternal forces behind creation. This is not to get rid of the square, but rather to use it is a tool for the expression of the compasses. Though Gnosticism is a philosophy to some, a religion to others, and a heresy to a few, I hope I have shown that in the essential details we cannot ignore that it shares much in common with the rituals of Freemasonry. This is not written to suggest that Freemasonry itself is a Gnostic religion, but rather to show that much of the symbolism within Freemasonry can best be understood by also understanding some of the symbolism found in the Gnostic philosophy, schools, and initiations.

References:

  1. Rudolph, Kurt, Gnosis: The Nature & History of Gnosticism, Harper & Row, San Fransisco, 1987, pg. 332.
  2. Barnstone, Willis & Marvin Meyer, The Gnostic Bible, Shambhala Press, Boston, pg. 572-573.
  3. Doresse, Jean, The Secret Books of the Egyptian Gnostics, MJF Books, New York, 1986, pg 267.
  4. Abid, pg 267.
  5. Freke, Timothy & Peter Gandy, Jesus and the Lost Goddess, Three Rivers Press, New York, 2001, pg 60-64.
  6. Freke, Timothy & Peter Gandy, Jesus and the Lost Goddess, Three Rivers Press, New York, 2001, pg 205.
  7. Olsen, Oddvar (editor), The Templar Papers, New Page Books, Franklin Lakes, NJ, 2006, pg 122.
  8. Horner, G. (translation), Pistis Sophia, Macmillan, London, 1924, pg. 180.
  9. Pike, Albert, Morals and Dogma, The Supreme Temple of the AASR SJ, Charleston, 1950, pg 817
  10. Hall, Manly P, Orders of the Quest: The Holy Grail, The Philosophical Research Society, Los Angeles, CA, 1949, pg. 14. Also on this page is a reference to Manicheans calling themselves “sons of the widow”.

For more on these associations see my books The Alchemical Keys to Masonic Ritual and The 32 Secret Paths of Solomon: A New Examination of the Qabbalah in Freemasonry.

Sources of general reference:

  • Barry, Kieren, The Greek Qabalah, Samuel Weiser, Maine, 1999.
  • Barnstone, Willis & Marvin Meyer, The Gnostic Bible, Shambhala Press, Boston.
  • Copenhaver, Brian, Hermetica, Cambridge University Press, 1992.
  • Churton, Tobias, The Gnostics, Barnes and Nobles books, New York, 1987.
  • Churton, Tobias, Gnostic Philosophy, Inner Traditions, Rochest VT, 2005.
  • Doresse, Jean, The Secret Books of the Egyptian Gnostics, MJF Books, New York, 1986.
  • Fabre D’Olivet, The Golden Verses of Pythagoras, Solar Press, New York, 1995.
  • Freke, Timothy & Peter Gandy, The Jesus Mysteries, Three Rivers Press, New York, 1999.
  • Freke, Timothy & Peter Gandy, Jesus and the Lost Goddess, Three Rivers Press, New York, 2001.
  • Gardiner, Philip, Gnosis: The Secret of Solomon’s Temple Revealed, New Page Books, NJ, 2006.
  • Guthie, Kenneth Sylvan (compiled and translated by), The Pythagorean Sourcebook and Library, Phanes Press, Michigan, 1988.
  • Hall, Manly P., The Wisdom of the Knowing Ones: Gnosticism: The Key To Esoteric Christianity, The Philosophical Research Society, Los Angeles, CA, 2000.
  • Hall, Manly P, Orders of the Quest: The Holy Grail, The Philosophical Research Society, Los Angeles, CA, 1949.
  • Hoeller, Stephen A., Gnosticism: A New Light on the Ancient Tradition of Inner Knowing, Quest Books, Theosophical Publishing House, Wheaton, IL, 2002.
  • Holroyd, Stuart, Elements of Gnosticism, Element Books, Shaftsbury, Dorset, 1994.
  • Horner, G. (translation), Pistis Sophia, Macmillan, London, 1924.
  • Kahn, Charles, Pythagoras and the Pythagoreans, Hackett Publishing, Cambridge, 2001.
  • Levi, Eliphas, Transcendental Magic, translated by A.E. Waite, Weiser Books, Boston, 2001.
  • Meyer, Marvin, The Ancient Mysteries: A Sourcebook of Sacred Texts, University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, 1987.
  • Olsen, Oddvar (editor), The Templar Papers, New Page Books, Franklin Lakes, NJ, 2006.
  • Pike, Albert, Morals and Dogma, The Supreme Temple of the AASR SJ, Charleston, 1950.
  • Rudolph, Kurt, Gnosis: The Nature & History of Gnosticism, Harper & Row, San Fransisco, 1987.

What will Freemasonry Offer My Son?

father, son, freemasonry, joining freemasonry, 2b1ask1

Fatherhood can change your perspective in a hurry.

I realize that’s probably the biggest understatement in history, but our six-year-old son has got me thinking about a lot of things.

Mainly, I wonder what Freemasonry will look like as he grows up, and if it will offer anything to him and his truly 21st century generation.

Will our local lodges finally be permitted to undertake the actions that other organizations do to recruit and retain members, or will our leaders continue to restrict and stifle us with their antiquated philosophies of membership?

Will our few young members and officers continue to think outside the suffocating boundaries of tradition and develop new outlets of community involvement? Or, when they see so few brothers of an already sparse roster of members support them, will they succumb to an overwhelming sense of frustration and discouragement?

Will we at last choose forward, progressive-thinking Grand Lodge officers, or will this line of dedicated and selfless Masonic devotees continue adhering to cobwebbed philosophies of the past that would crack and fracture into dust if shown the light of modern day?

Will we ever welcome men of color into our lodge rooms, or will we hold true to ancient prejudices, bigotries and intolerance that have no room in the Masonic conscience whatsoever?

My son is now in school. When he’s old enough, will he be able to join a DeMolay chapter – as his father did – and be exposed to the Biblical principles of brotherhood, honesty, charity and courtesy, or are those Rockwellian notions merely romantic shadows of a vanished society? Of all the organizations that Freemasonry sponsors, the young men of DeMolay face the changing world more than any, and yet we still frown upon the admission of other cultures.

Will the many organizations of which I’m involved, with their declining rosters and seemingly apathetic constituencies, survive long enough for him to enjoy their benefits? Finally, will he even have a desire to do so, or merely regard them as musty relics of a long-past civic existence in which his father once found satisfaction and fulfillment?

I am different from many members of my generation. Unlike many others, I joined my lodge as soon as I became of age, following in my family’s Masonic footsteps. My father, both my grandfathers, and two uncles were Masons (one uncle was Worshipful Master of Chamblee Lodge, and presided over my Entered Apprentice degree). My mother and grandmother were standard fixtures at lodge events. At 29, I was the youngest Master in my lodge’s then-100-plus-year history.

And yet, the issues facing our fraternity do not center themselves around age or generation gaps. During my year in the East, the brother with whom I shared more common beliefs and observations was 40 years older than me.

I look at Freemasonry’s dwindling attendance and interest, and I wonder. In a fraternity so obsessed with antiquated rituals of the past and so intolerant of the future, who will ensure that our lodges survive for our sons?

Or will anyone even care to do so?


This work was contributed by Tim Darnell in 2009.
Past Master, Chamblee Lodge #444, Atlanta GA
32nd Scottish Rite, Valley of Atlanta
DeMolay Legion of Honor

A Short(er) History of Early Women Freemasons

womenfreemasons_featBy Karen Kidd
Author of  “Haunted Chambers: the Lives of Early Women Freemasons”

Controversial American author Robert Temple observed “Technology is forbidden when it is not allowed to exist.”

“It is easy to forbid technology to exist in the past because all you have to do is to deny it. Enforcing the ban then becomes a simple matter of remaining deaf, dumb and blind. And most of us have no trouble in doing that when necessary. . . I call it consensus blindness. People agree not to see what they are convinced cannot exist.”

Temple made these comments in his paper “Forbidden Technology”, which is about optical technology, long denied by “experts”, that none-the-less existed for millennia.

“Consensus blindness” long has been the unwritten/unspoken rule among Malecraft Masons, likewise accepted by many non Masons including women, about the existence of early women Freemasons. However, just as there are lenses in Ancient Egyptian archaeological finds dating to the 4th and 5th dynasties at Abydos, so also have women Masons existed throughout all of the modern Freemasonic period[1].

Denying their existence, for centuries, was the expected norm and any Masonic historian who wrote about them had to adopt a sort of double-speak. For instance, 20th Century Masonic scholar Carl Claudy, when he wrote about women Freemasons in his “Masonic Harvest”, spent the first page of that chapter stating that women could not be Freemasons; then ten pages describing – with continual double-speak  –  the lives of those women Freemasons.

Claudy, whatever his personal opinions, had no choice but to write about early Women Freemasons in this way. Had he attempted to be more straight-forward, it likely would never have been published. In this way, Claudy and other Masonic writers kept from complete obscurity the lives of these women Freemasons.

Their existence is a fact, despite determined effort to ignore, marginalize and deny it. That effort, however, ongoing for centuries, has done its worst. The very vast majority of early women Freemasons are unknown to us. Finding them can take as much effort as it did to obscure them.

They include:

  • Gunnilda the Mason: a female operative mason mentioned by name as living in  Norwich in the Calendar of Close Rolls for the year 1256[2].
  • Elizabeth St. Leger Aldworth: initiated into her father’s lodge in County Cork in Ireland before the founding of the modern Freemasonry Grand Lodges.
  • Hannah Mather Crocker: Grand Mistress of the Femalecraft St. Ann’s Lodge in Boston during the 1770s.
  • Henriette Heiniken: better known as “Madame de Xaintrailles”, a hero of the Napoleonic wars initiated into an otherwise Malecraft Lodge in Paris the early 19th Century.
  • Mary Ann Belding Sproul: an early New Brunswick settler initiated into her husband’s Lodge in the early 19th Century.
  • Catherine Sweet Babington: a teen-ager when she snuck into her uncles’ lodge in East Kentucky, initiated into that Lodge at the height of the anti-Masonic era spawned by the disappearance of William Morgan.
  • Salome Anderson: late 19th Century wealthy matron of Oakland, CA, outed as a Freemason by a respected Masonic publication six years before her death in 1898.

And many more. Late 19th Century Masonic history W. Fred Vernon, writing when Malecraft Masons were a bit more laid back about the subject, commented, “I have no doubt other ancient Lodges have their lady members just as ancient buildings have their haunted chambers.”[3]

I’ve heard my book is a threat to all Freemasonry, Malecraft Masonry in particular. This is no more true than admitting to the existence of their contemporary male brethren is a threat to any part of Freemasonry. All our Brethren who have passed to the Grand Lodge above, be they male or female, are to be remembered and emulated.

While none of these women were Co-Masons, they did pave the way for that part of Freemasonry. And, today, women can become Freemasons without eavesdropping, sneaking into lodges or hiding in furniture.

For more than a century, Freemasonry has operated in three parts. There is Malecraft Masonry, there is Femalecraft Masonry and there is Co- or Mixed Masonry. And we know this system can work, largely before it does.

And so it will continue with the past duly recalled. I wrote about these women to follow in the tradition of Claudy and other Masonic historians who kept their stories alive. I wrote the truth that this generation, and the next, may find worthy of remembrance.

Listen to the Masonic Central Podcast with Br. Kidd.


[1] Temple’s paper was published in the Summer 2001 edition (Issue 17) of Freemasonry Today and is available online here: http://www.freemasonrytoday.com/17/p11.php

[2] See “Calendar of Close Rolls 1254-1256”, page 366

[3] See “Ars Quatour Coronatorum, Vol. V (1892)“.

Teachings of Diogenes-Lesson 2 Honesty

sealOn one bright, clear day, Diogenes was walking up and down the market place, holding a lighted lantern high in front of him and peering around as if searching for something. When people gaped and asked him what he was doing, he replied, “I am looking for an honest man.”

In our Masonic Lodges we use several symbols to guide us in our endeavors. These are all referred to as rays of light.

  • The Great Lights; the Volume of the Sacred Law, the Square & Compasses;
  • The Lesser Lights; the sun, the moon and the master of the lodge;
  • Last but not the least, the All-seeing Eye.

These all represent the knowledge to be gained from following the designs of the GAOTU’s teachings laid out not only in the Volume of the Sacred Law, but surrounding us in Nature and Science.

We ultimately stand before our brothers in the degree’s and receive many lectures on what a Mason should be, how he should act and how to prepare for his final degree. We are told that

The distinguishing characteristics of every Free and Accepted Mason are Virtue, Honor and Mercy, and the tenets or fundamental principles of Ancient Freemasonry are Brotherly Love, Relief and Truth.

It is a lot to absorb in such a short time and we can only hope we will figure it out as fast as possible. Most catch on fairly quickly but some are a little slower. So to help out, here are the “Principals for Good Guys” I found on Wiki. These don’t look like the Ancient Charges of Masonry but if you study them closely they make Masonic Sense.

Principles for Good Guys

  • Ethical standards apply uniformly to all
  • Assist those in need
  • Defend those in trouble
  • Pursue human rights for all
  • Protect the environment
  • Use force prudently
  • Respect and honor diversity
  • Listen to your heart
  • Listen to people carefully before giving your opinion
  • Fear not evil
  • Improve global quality of life
  • Be courteous to other souls
  • Fear not to harm another in a just cause this is one of those risk things

We have a  duty to our ourselves, our lodges and all our Brethren throughout world to understand and act honestly for the betterment of Masonry. We are our brothers keeper, and we must be vigilant for those who haven’t gotten the message. Most Worshipful Brother Herman M. Forrester, Grand Master of The Grand Lodge of Kentucky in his May message brings this point sharply into focus.

One of the privileges of being Grand Master of Masons is the opportunity to travel and meet the most outstanding men in our great Commonwealth. These dedicated brethren live their daily lives living up to the lofty ideas and standards that Freemasonry teaches. I am so very proud to serve these men who devote their lives trying to be good Masons, husbands, Fathers, churchmen and citizens. How blessed I am to serve with the Grand Lodge Officers, elected and appointed who are so dedicated not only to Freemasonry but to the Craft of Kentucky. I treasure and revere the great Freemasons of Kentucky.

I cannot thank these brothers enough for being what they profess to be, men of Honor and integrity.

We as Grand Lodge Officers should be shouting their praises from the highest mountain tops. Unfortunately there is always a small segment of any membership who will not conform to the principles of our beloved brotherhood. They disrupt their lodges with picks and quarrels, they will not conform to the Constitution, their conduct outside the lodge is un-Masonic, such behavior includes Spouse/Child Abuse, Alcoholism, Drug/Substance Abuse, just to name a few of these offenses that have come to our attention.

These so-called Masons must be removed from the Craft and should have NEVER been permitted to be a part of our Great Fraternity. The World is watching us and will judge a tree by the fruit that it bears! It is time for each Lodge to do their duty to the utmost, investigate the men who knock at their doors, with the most thorough scrutiny, and vote for the good of the order, and confer impressive meaningful ritual that will touch the hearts of good men. Brothers, we can’t change yesterday but together we can have an impact on tomorrow. Remember a journey of a thousand miles begins with just one step.

DO YOUR DUTY FOR THE BETTERMENT OF FREEMASONRY.

HERMAN M. FORRESTER
Grand Master, Grand Lodge of Kentucky

It’s a pretty tall order but we must try and excel in all things good and great. So the next time you find a man in cynic’s robes holding a lantern up to you and says “I am looking for an honest man”, how will you answer, better yet can you don those robes and hold up that lantern yourself?

Read Teachings of Diogenes-Lesson 1 Emptiness
Read Teachings of Diogenes-Lesson 3 Light of Teaching

Wor.Bro. Ian M. Donald

Wor.Bro. Ian M. Donald

Fraternally

Wor.Bro. Ian M. Donald

A man is not measured by how tall he stands,

But by how often he bends to help, comfort and teach!

 

Diogenes (c. 412- c. 323 B.C ) was a very playful philosopher who liked to use great wit when challenging the values and beliefs of his fellow citizens in ancient Athens.    He lived in great poverty, probably begging and stealing his food, and steadfastly disdained all forms of luxury.   It was because of his determination to follow his own dictates and not adhere to the conventions of society that he was given the epithet “dog,” from which the name cynic” is derivedi

i From the web site of David Quinn