I think that decades ago, in a lot of cases, we knew a great deal more about our neighbors. There was widespread community involvement, and people didn't move from place to place very often. Now we rarely know anything about a man before he knocks on our doors. Given that, I think we must do a better job getting to know him.
It may well have simply been perception, Cameron. I grew up in Port Angeles. A local fellow was the toast of the town. Since I was so young, I can’t say if he was a Masonic brother or not. In later life, however, it was learned he was an unrepentant spousal abuser. I pray for his soul.
The point is that with only 2 faces to consider, we are bound to make mistakes of character. Many will blame the order. My God understands the dilemma. Praise Him!
Thank you for this perspective, I appreciate it, and I imagine you are right, we can never truly know another.
I must say, I love Port Angeles! Melinda and I have talked from time to time about retiring there. It certainly holds the most impressive Masonic Temple in our entire Jurisdiction.
In the jurisdiction where I currently reside, before a man can petition for the Degrees of Masonry, he is expected to attend the dinner before the meetings of the lodge for 6 months (3 months if he’s a legacy). A Brother will excuse himself from the stated / educational meeting and remain with the potential candidate(s) to answer questions, but mostly get to know the man. I realize this is a form of the 6-Step program but I had never seen it used at my Mother Lodge. I have balloted on many men based on the trust I had in the Brother who brought the petition to Lodge to be read. I know that to be a failure on my part now.
I think that the system utilized in your new Jurisdiction seems like a very good plan.
Not only would it give the Lodge a good opportunity to get to know the man a little bit, but it would also I think help retention because he would have a much better idea about what the Lodge is, and the men in it, prior to being Initiated. Much better in my mind that a man who decides that Freemasonry isn't for him discovers that prior to Initiation rather than post.
Petitioners will always show their public face when meeting new people. So, that begs the question, are you really getting to know that man?
Long ago I read the novel Shogun, about a english captain living in Japan during the feudal period. In the book, it's mentioned that the Japanese have three faces. One, that they show the world, a second they show to their close friends and loved ones, and a third that they only show themselves.
It's not just the Japanese.
In order to truly know someone, you would have to be close to them, and even then, you won't really know their true selves. We're not going to know that person just by a few months of hanging around the lodge.
I joined a few months before the fraternity started the whole six steps process. When I walked into the lodge for the first time, I was given a petition right off the bat. The men who signed it didn't know who I was. It's been almost 10 years now, and I'd like to think that I have been a good mason and a benefit to the fraternity.
There was another man who joined after me, and went through the six steps. He held himself up as the poster child for the program. He is also still a mason, but he moved away due to family obligations.
My point is, while I believe there is some benefits to having a six step program, you won't really know how things are going to turn out. It's that 3rd face that matters, what is truly in that man's heart, not the public display he puts on.
In truth, there are very few really bad apples in masonry. There is also no one that walks on water either, while a few probably think they can. I've met some exceptional men in my years as a mason, but most are ordinary guys just trying to be better.
Your point is well taken. We can never truly know another person, most especially after just a few public meetings over dinner or some other Masonic happening.
But, I think we can try. We can look for clues. I guess that is what I was trying to get at with this post, I think we need to be afforded that opportunity. I think that the issue you raise can be made worse if we aren't given a chance to even meet the man.
It is interesting indeed to favor the rites in which we adhere to the different perspectives, and anticipation in a cognitive 'weigh' in that we use as the value of the sacred rights under which we expand the fraternal contact during such as the initiation cycle of the fraternity I agree; in regard to the First Degree it seems to be that we are instructed to 'make good men better', and by some score of intimacy we must demean this man as he undergoes the working tools of the Fellow Craft entitling us to some sublime degree in that he, the man should be of virtue & purity in his own way to make good once in the fraternity under the first degree before the third degree since he is, as a man whom is made better, graduating through the degrees wherein his character as a brother is a factual succumbed Mason by the third degree. In this spectacular vision we have a created 'share' in the prospects of the candidate that guides the whim of the fraternity towards appreciating the initial rhetoric of the man because he is submissive unto the fraternity for the custom purpose of being made better; if he is to prove he is first willing to be made a better man as a standing good man, which petitioning by instruction of Masons which is required in many lodges in order to be considered, (not initiated), for membership, it strikes Masons quite sincerely that he have a personal idea of the God that governs all men on the square to the effect of finding among the men of the fraternity, not Freemasonry, himself acceptable enough on the level in an applied essence. This inhabits the sublime degrees upon him which are in the third degree upon him and the second degree wherein he is, if made, destined to become a Master. He should have a pending rate of his character in that the fraternity is not lifelong for every Mason rather we as men have to search for masonic light often because sometimes it can simply be hard to find. The area in the lodge that he must become made a BETTER man should enable his petition unto his own self- identity image to say more or less that he himself is worthy enough to be made unto the third, and sublime degree, for he has no option as a Mason but to go through the degrees in chronological order, so as a man he should petition first, be evaluated by the fraternity for which all Masons stand ideally on the level, and thus be accepted according to the sublime degree instead of the manhood he is subjecting to the brothers as he petitions voluntarily to specifically undergo the working tools of the Fellow Craft. The reason why he is to be prepared in this way into the Perfect Ashlar is not known according to the old monitors where we find the smaller volume, if you will, of the craft as it is found spellbinding us since our mission began. He should say he is good enough to pend to the fraternity some direction in which he alone is subscribed to go in, as he is destined to be made once a member, in the same manner rather than some unknown ways we take in hand under the Second Degree, (we are mostly as masters still most nigh to the First Degree because of the meaning of the craft as new generations of Freemasons are among us), so that he can stand in light of the sublime degree, and not have his temperance waived in the Second Degree because this degree is too sublime- this makes him sure HE is ready to accept the fraternity which is the Speculative Freemason hallmark in Lux of Operative Masonry & the Third Degree. If no one vouches for him, he has not need to pend to the fraternity what makes him of good standing let the fraternity subliminally speak on his behalf in the Fellow Craft, thus the Perfect Ashlar instead of the Rough Ashler. I like the tone of your panel, brother. It is of somber volume, and not all online lodge platforms manage as well as others due to college education, lexicon, or philosophy. Thank you gratis the society for letting me post.
>>>I like the tone of your panel, brother. It is of somber volume, and not all online lodge platforms >>>manage as well as others due to college education, lexicon, or philosophy. Thank you gratis the >>>society for letting me post.
Thank you for your kind words Brother. I am pleased that you are enjoying Emeth, and find value in the postings here!
Though I agree 100% with the ideas presented here and the GL's direction, it seems to me to be two conflicting instructions. A petitioner is required to get 3 signatures from brothers on their petition and then 3 different brothers are tasked with the investigation of said petitioner. All said and done 6 brothers have "vouched" for the quality of the man.
As Masons we are asked to trust our brothers and to not lie to one another.
This juxtaposition is interesting to me for the scenario speaks to going beyond the perceived rules a petition follows and speaks to a lodges distrust of it's brethren.
Honestly, I like that a potential brother meet the lodge members, it's a practice the lodge I'm a member of has done for at least 15 years. It allows us to get to the candidate, educate him on what we do, and he too learn if our lodge is a good fit for him. We've had cause to send a candidate to a lodge in a different city because that was closer to home and he had no idea one was there. That lodge gained a brother who is likely to attend more often than he ultimately would had we been selfish.
I think it comes down to taking care of others and practicing being the role model to the public Masonry asks us to be. A candidate, and his family, should leave their interactions with a brother or brothers feeling that we are worthy of the time commitment and that we are not a college frat. (I've heard us referred to as this due to a brother or brothers words and/or actions being less than honorable).
I say this because we are interviewing the candidate just as much as he and his family are interviewing us. To present ourselves as we're striving to be tells a different story and for those candidates who really identify with that it most certainly a poor president for the brothers to black ball him because they've not met him.
Perhaps, instead of this selfishness a lodge can practice caring for the candidate by and treating them Masonically. I think a lodge that doesn't trust 6 of it's brothers to vouch for a candidate then we have a much more fundamental Masonic problem to take to task.
Becoming better men is achieved only through focused effort hewing on our rough ashlars. The actions of this fictitious lodge are, to me, cruel and unmasonic.
>>>It allows us to get to the candidate, educate him on what we do, and he too learn if our lodge is a >>>good fit for him.
I think that this point is key to retaining a man once he is made a Mason. Some Lodges are just not a good fit for a man, but the next Lodge just might be. I have helped Masons who were down on Masonry find Lodges that were much better fits for them. In those cases, the Lodge may have lost the Mason, but Freemasonry retained him.
How much better though, if he was Initiated in a Lodge that was a good fit for him right from the start?
That is, I think, another really important reason to get to know a man prior to handing him a petition. To make sure that our Lodge is a good fit for him. That's better for the man, and better for the Lodge.
While I agree it's nice for the candidate to meet everyone, it might not be possible sometimes. I feel that if you were wanting to black ball a candidate, despite positive feedback from the investigation committee, solely on the basis you don't know him, then you should speak up prior to the vote. "Worshipful Master, I understand that the candidate has been investigated and found favorable. However in good conscience, I cant vote favorably until I myself know this man better " then the ballot is postponed giving that opportunity. Simple.
It's a multiple step process to become a mason requiring a 1st and 2nd reading. It should not be a suprise that the lodge is wanting to ballot that night.
The worst part of it in your situation is the secretary or brother reaching out to the candidate and telling him the bad news, without the ability to provide positive feedback or next steps, beyond simply waiting 1 more year and trying again.
I certainly agree that it is not always possible for all of the active members to meet a petitioner. But I think that there is a difference between it just not working out due to schedules or other circumstances, and it being made not possible because the leadership in the Lodge pushed it through too quickly for people to have the opportunity.
In the first instance, I think it would be unreasonable for Masons to drop black cubes. In the second instance I don't think it necessarily is.
Jan 29, 2023·edited Jan 29, 2023Liked by Cameron M. Bailey
As stated below...great article. Not only should we be Guarding the West Gate by offering petitions to the right men, but we need to make sure that our processes for determining 'the right men' is known, followed, and constantly improved.
Too often we are quick to give a petition out and have no issues voting in favor of the candidate (even though we've never met them) because we trust the judgement of 3 other Brothers. I'm in no way saying we should not trust them, but as an IT Professional...Trust but Verify. Mistakes can be made and, as called out below, it's not improbable that the would-be candidate may act differently with different people. A good example is if they are younger and have only interacted with older members, what happens when they are talking with someone from their peer group (vice versa).
Generally, we are quick to offer petitions and rush candidates through the degrees. What's the harm in taking it slow? If in their heart they are prepared to become a Mason, then a few more dinners/meet ups, and slower overall progression will be worth it.
I think that sometimes the process is so rushed that it isn't even a matter of trusting our Brothers.
The worst example I've ever known of happened in a Lodge in my Jurisdiction maybe three or four years ago.
A fellow showed up for dinner, no one had ever met him prior, but they gave him a petition. He filled it out during dinner, and three guys signed it. Then he was asked to wait while the rest of the men went to open Lodge. Lodge was opened, and the WM appointed an Investigation Committee. Those three men went back to the dining room and 'investigated' him, signing the appropriate forms. They then returned to the Lodge meeting, gave their report, and the Lodge ballotted to grant him the Degrees. All in one night, all on someone no one had met before.
Needless to say, it did not end well. Not surprisingly, that Lodge no longer exists.
We must always remember that a single unsuitable man, made a Mason in our Lodge, will drive at least ten suitable men away from our doors.
We make a big deal about guarding the west gate. The opposite is true with guarding the opposite side. Some brothers are just not prepared for leadership or understand the real responsibilities of leading a Lodge. Leadership is hard work and is not something owed to you if you are sitting in the Oriental chair. On the other hand, brothers who are qualified need to be visible in Lodger activities and connecting with people so that they become a known and trusted member who is dedicated to everyone's well being. Covey's Seven Habits is a good Bible on effective leadership.
I can't disagree at all. The widespread practice of making a Mason Worshipful Master simply because it is his turn has probably done more harm to Freemasonry over the last 100 years than anything else.
Leaders should be chosen for merit. Not time served.
Thank you for the reminder, MW..
it’s a challenge with everyone having crazy schedules these days - perhaps that makes it more important.
I think that decades ago, in a lot of cases, we knew a great deal more about our neighbors. There was widespread community involvement, and people didn't move from place to place very often. Now we rarely know anything about a man before he knocks on our doors. Given that, I think we must do a better job getting to know him.
It may well have simply been perception, Cameron. I grew up in Port Angeles. A local fellow was the toast of the town. Since I was so young, I can’t say if he was a Masonic brother or not. In later life, however, it was learned he was an unrepentant spousal abuser. I pray for his soul.
The point is that with only 2 faces to consider, we are bound to make mistakes of character. Many will blame the order. My God understands the dilemma. Praise Him!
Thank you for this perspective, I appreciate it, and I imagine you are right, we can never truly know another.
I must say, I love Port Angeles! Melinda and I have talked from time to time about retiring there. It certainly holds the most impressive Masonic Temple in our entire Jurisdiction.
In the jurisdiction where I currently reside, before a man can petition for the Degrees of Masonry, he is expected to attend the dinner before the meetings of the lodge for 6 months (3 months if he’s a legacy). A Brother will excuse himself from the stated / educational meeting and remain with the potential candidate(s) to answer questions, but mostly get to know the man. I realize this is a form of the 6-Step program but I had never seen it used at my Mother Lodge. I have balloted on many men based on the trust I had in the Brother who brought the petition to Lodge to be read. I know that to be a failure on my part now.
I think that the system utilized in your new Jurisdiction seems like a very good plan.
Not only would it give the Lodge a good opportunity to get to know the man a little bit, but it would also I think help retention because he would have a much better idea about what the Lodge is, and the men in it, prior to being Initiated. Much better in my mind that a man who decides that Freemasonry isn't for him discovers that prior to Initiation rather than post.
I am of two minds over the matter.
Petitioners will always show their public face when meeting new people. So, that begs the question, are you really getting to know that man?
Long ago I read the novel Shogun, about a english captain living in Japan during the feudal period. In the book, it's mentioned that the Japanese have three faces. One, that they show the world, a second they show to their close friends and loved ones, and a third that they only show themselves.
It's not just the Japanese.
In order to truly know someone, you would have to be close to them, and even then, you won't really know their true selves. We're not going to know that person just by a few months of hanging around the lodge.
I joined a few months before the fraternity started the whole six steps process. When I walked into the lodge for the first time, I was given a petition right off the bat. The men who signed it didn't know who I was. It's been almost 10 years now, and I'd like to think that I have been a good mason and a benefit to the fraternity.
There was another man who joined after me, and went through the six steps. He held himself up as the poster child for the program. He is also still a mason, but he moved away due to family obligations.
My point is, while I believe there is some benefits to having a six step program, you won't really know how things are going to turn out. It's that 3rd face that matters, what is truly in that man's heart, not the public display he puts on.
In truth, there are very few really bad apples in masonry. There is also no one that walks on water either, while a few probably think they can. I've met some exceptional men in my years as a mason, but most are ordinary guys just trying to be better.
Well said brother
Couldn’t have said it better.
Your point is well taken. We can never truly know another person, most especially after just a few public meetings over dinner or some other Masonic happening.
But, I think we can try. We can look for clues. I guess that is what I was trying to get at with this post, I think we need to be afforded that opportunity. I think that the issue you raise can be made worse if we aren't given a chance to even meet the man.
Greetings Brother,
It is interesting indeed to favor the rites in which we adhere to the different perspectives, and anticipation in a cognitive 'weigh' in that we use as the value of the sacred rights under which we expand the fraternal contact during such as the initiation cycle of the fraternity I agree; in regard to the First Degree it seems to be that we are instructed to 'make good men better', and by some score of intimacy we must demean this man as he undergoes the working tools of the Fellow Craft entitling us to some sublime degree in that he, the man should be of virtue & purity in his own way to make good once in the fraternity under the first degree before the third degree since he is, as a man whom is made better, graduating through the degrees wherein his character as a brother is a factual succumbed Mason by the third degree. In this spectacular vision we have a created 'share' in the prospects of the candidate that guides the whim of the fraternity towards appreciating the initial rhetoric of the man because he is submissive unto the fraternity for the custom purpose of being made better; if he is to prove he is first willing to be made a better man as a standing good man, which petitioning by instruction of Masons which is required in many lodges in order to be considered, (not initiated), for membership, it strikes Masons quite sincerely that he have a personal idea of the God that governs all men on the square to the effect of finding among the men of the fraternity, not Freemasonry, himself acceptable enough on the level in an applied essence. This inhabits the sublime degrees upon him which are in the third degree upon him and the second degree wherein he is, if made, destined to become a Master. He should have a pending rate of his character in that the fraternity is not lifelong for every Mason rather we as men have to search for masonic light often because sometimes it can simply be hard to find. The area in the lodge that he must become made a BETTER man should enable his petition unto his own self- identity image to say more or less that he himself is worthy enough to be made unto the third, and sublime degree, for he has no option as a Mason but to go through the degrees in chronological order, so as a man he should petition first, be evaluated by the fraternity for which all Masons stand ideally on the level, and thus be accepted according to the sublime degree instead of the manhood he is subjecting to the brothers as he petitions voluntarily to specifically undergo the working tools of the Fellow Craft. The reason why he is to be prepared in this way into the Perfect Ashlar is not known according to the old monitors where we find the smaller volume, if you will, of the craft as it is found spellbinding us since our mission began. He should say he is good enough to pend to the fraternity some direction in which he alone is subscribed to go in, as he is destined to be made once a member, in the same manner rather than some unknown ways we take in hand under the Second Degree, (we are mostly as masters still most nigh to the First Degree because of the meaning of the craft as new generations of Freemasons are among us), so that he can stand in light of the sublime degree, and not have his temperance waived in the Second Degree because this degree is too sublime- this makes him sure HE is ready to accept the fraternity which is the Speculative Freemason hallmark in Lux of Operative Masonry & the Third Degree. If no one vouches for him, he has not need to pend to the fraternity what makes him of good standing let the fraternity subliminally speak on his behalf in the Fellow Craft, thus the Perfect Ashlar instead of the Rough Ashler. I like the tone of your panel, brother. It is of somber volume, and not all online lodge platforms manage as well as others due to college education, lexicon, or philosophy. Thank you gratis the society for letting me post.
>>>I like the tone of your panel, brother. It is of somber volume, and not all online lodge platforms >>>manage as well as others due to college education, lexicon, or philosophy. Thank you gratis the >>>society for letting me post.
Thank you for your kind words Brother. I am pleased that you are enjoying Emeth, and find value in the postings here!
Though I agree 100% with the ideas presented here and the GL's direction, it seems to me to be two conflicting instructions. A petitioner is required to get 3 signatures from brothers on their petition and then 3 different brothers are tasked with the investigation of said petitioner. All said and done 6 brothers have "vouched" for the quality of the man.
As Masons we are asked to trust our brothers and to not lie to one another.
This juxtaposition is interesting to me for the scenario speaks to going beyond the perceived rules a petition follows and speaks to a lodges distrust of it's brethren.
Honestly, I like that a potential brother meet the lodge members, it's a practice the lodge I'm a member of has done for at least 15 years. It allows us to get to the candidate, educate him on what we do, and he too learn if our lodge is a good fit for him. We've had cause to send a candidate to a lodge in a different city because that was closer to home and he had no idea one was there. That lodge gained a brother who is likely to attend more often than he ultimately would had we been selfish.
I think it comes down to taking care of others and practicing being the role model to the public Masonry asks us to be. A candidate, and his family, should leave their interactions with a brother or brothers feeling that we are worthy of the time commitment and that we are not a college frat. (I've heard us referred to as this due to a brother or brothers words and/or actions being less than honorable).
I say this because we are interviewing the candidate just as much as he and his family are interviewing us. To present ourselves as we're striving to be tells a different story and for those candidates who really identify with that it most certainly a poor president for the brothers to black ball him because they've not met him.
Perhaps, instead of this selfishness a lodge can practice caring for the candidate by and treating them Masonically. I think a lodge that doesn't trust 6 of it's brothers to vouch for a candidate then we have a much more fundamental Masonic problem to take to task.
Becoming better men is achieved only through focused effort hewing on our rough ashlars. The actions of this fictitious lodge are, to me, cruel and unmasonic.
>>>It allows us to get to the candidate, educate him on what we do, and he too learn if our lodge is a >>>good fit for him.
I think that this point is key to retaining a man once he is made a Mason. Some Lodges are just not a good fit for a man, but the next Lodge just might be. I have helped Masons who were down on Masonry find Lodges that were much better fits for them. In those cases, the Lodge may have lost the Mason, but Freemasonry retained him.
How much better though, if he was Initiated in a Lodge that was a good fit for him right from the start?
That is, I think, another really important reason to get to know a man prior to handing him a petition. To make sure that our Lodge is a good fit for him. That's better for the man, and better for the Lodge.
While I agree it's nice for the candidate to meet everyone, it might not be possible sometimes. I feel that if you were wanting to black ball a candidate, despite positive feedback from the investigation committee, solely on the basis you don't know him, then you should speak up prior to the vote. "Worshipful Master, I understand that the candidate has been investigated and found favorable. However in good conscience, I cant vote favorably until I myself know this man better " then the ballot is postponed giving that opportunity. Simple.
It's a multiple step process to become a mason requiring a 1st and 2nd reading. It should not be a suprise that the lodge is wanting to ballot that night.
The worst part of it in your situation is the secretary or brother reaching out to the candidate and telling him the bad news, without the ability to provide positive feedback or next steps, beyond simply waiting 1 more year and trying again.
I certainly agree that it is not always possible for all of the active members to meet a petitioner. But I think that there is a difference between it just not working out due to schedules or other circumstances, and it being made not possible because the leadership in the Lodge pushed it through too quickly for people to have the opportunity.
In the first instance, I think it would be unreasonable for Masons to drop black cubes. In the second instance I don't think it necessarily is.
As stated below...great article. Not only should we be Guarding the West Gate by offering petitions to the right men, but we need to make sure that our processes for determining 'the right men' is known, followed, and constantly improved.
Too often we are quick to give a petition out and have no issues voting in favor of the candidate (even though we've never met them) because we trust the judgement of 3 other Brothers. I'm in no way saying we should not trust them, but as an IT Professional...Trust but Verify. Mistakes can be made and, as called out below, it's not improbable that the would-be candidate may act differently with different people. A good example is if they are younger and have only interacted with older members, what happens when they are talking with someone from their peer group (vice versa).
Generally, we are quick to offer petitions and rush candidates through the degrees. What's the harm in taking it slow? If in their heart they are prepared to become a Mason, then a few more dinners/meet ups, and slower overall progression will be worth it.
I think that sometimes the process is so rushed that it isn't even a matter of trusting our Brothers.
The worst example I've ever known of happened in a Lodge in my Jurisdiction maybe three or four years ago.
A fellow showed up for dinner, no one had ever met him prior, but they gave him a petition. He filled it out during dinner, and three guys signed it. Then he was asked to wait while the rest of the men went to open Lodge. Lodge was opened, and the WM appointed an Investigation Committee. Those three men went back to the dining room and 'investigated' him, signing the appropriate forms. They then returned to the Lodge meeting, gave their report, and the Lodge ballotted to grant him the Degrees. All in one night, all on someone no one had met before.
Needless to say, it did not end well. Not surprisingly, that Lodge no longer exists.
We must always remember that a single unsuitable man, made a Mason in our Lodge, will drive at least ten suitable men away from our doors.
We make a big deal about guarding the west gate. The opposite is true with guarding the opposite side. Some brothers are just not prepared for leadership or understand the real responsibilities of leading a Lodge. Leadership is hard work and is not something owed to you if you are sitting in the Oriental chair. On the other hand, brothers who are qualified need to be visible in Lodger activities and connecting with people so that they become a known and trusted member who is dedicated to everyone's well being. Covey's Seven Habits is a good Bible on effective leadership.
I can't disagree at all. The widespread practice of making a Mason Worshipful Master simply because it is his turn has probably done more harm to Freemasonry over the last 100 years than anything else.
Leaders should be chosen for merit. Not time served.