Reading a comment on one of my essays, led me to contemplate something, and I thought it would be interesting to hear other’s perspective on it.
Now, we all know, despite the propaganda, that Freemasonry wasn’t invented in 1717. Rather four pre-existing Lodges got together and started organizing a governing system for our Craft.
But plenty of Lodges existed and thrived long before that formation.
From what or whom did these early Lodges get their Charter?
OK, rhetorical question. They didn’t have Charters. They were formed by the free association of men, who joined together and formed a Lodge within which to practice Freemasonry. They existed by their own right, with no permission from anyone.
They just did it.
That brings up today’s thought experiment:
Let’s say that you go to Lodge faithfully. But, the building is fairly rundown. The dinners aren’t very good and there is never any wine with them nor alcohol following the meeting. The rituals are performed poorly. The Degrees aren’t great. There’s little to no education, and the vast majority of the overly long meetings are taken up by discussion of business items.
Let’s say that you, and a few friends, have tried to change this, and have been able to improve things when one of the group is standing in the East, but that the Lodge always eventually falls back into its old mediocrity.
You could, in every Jurisdiction, start a new Chartered Lodge. Round up your friends who hold similar views about Masonry and strike out to get a Charter of your own. I know some Masons who did just that.
But, let’s say, you and your friends don’t want to do that. You all agree that there is far too much bureaucracy involved in doing so.
One day, one of your friends calls you on the phone. He says:
“I’m tired of this, I’m starting a Lodge in the basement of my house. We’re going to focus on education, great degrees, and spend really quality time together over scotch and cigars. We don’t need a Grand Lodge, we don’t need a Charter, we are going to do Freemasonry as we believe Freemasonry should be. Will you come join us?”
Based on what I’ve seen in twenty-seven years, I can sympathize with the frustration, but based on what I’ve seen in twenty-seven years, I know these start-ups fizzle out pretty quickly.
Start small. Start an AMD council, if possible, or a Cryptic council, and make that idyllic. If that is proven sustainable, then maybe saving a faltering lodge might be feasible.
A wise Masonic writer, who quit the Craft in anguish over his disappointment with the fraternity, was fond of saying he’d rather meet in someone’s living room with a few guys who get it than in a lodge room with Masonarians. Maybe both are necessary. Keep the troubled lodge alive for the next generation, and gather with confederates privately for the enjoyment that brings.
>>>A wise Masonic writer, who quit the Craft in anguish over his disappointment with the >>>fraternity, was fond of saying he’d rather meet in someone’s living room with a few guys who >>>get it than in a lodge room with Masonarians.
When I was a really new Mason, knee high to a grasshopper, I remember one of the best Masons in my Lodge telling me that:
"An excellent Masonic experience needs nothing more than three committed men sitting in a garage, talking about Masonry."
Towards your way of thinking, years ago we had a really tiny Appendant Body here. It was supported by the Grand Lodge, but it was just a funny little group that had its own ritual, and met over a great meal with good wine. I was lucky enough to belong to it for some time, and those meetings were probably the best Masonic meetings I was ever a part of.
It didn't survive because it lost it's sweetheart deal on a really nice meeting space, so tried to move the whole thing into a banquet room in a restaurant, but that took a lot of the fun out of it with the wait staff coming in and out, so a decision was made to discontinue.
Certainly groups like that can be extremely valuable, even if they tend to come and go. Related to that, I think that Masonic clubs might be on the upswing here. Over the past couple of months, I've heard of two new ones being formed in this Jurisdiction, and I don't imagine that I hear about all of them.
I think you’ll find that charters, warrants, etc. originated in the grand lodge era, and are not ancient. (For example, when the lodge at Fredericksburg, Virginia made George Washington a Mason, it did not possess any charter.)
Taking this thought experiment to its extreme, I imagine that if Grand Lodges no longer existed, Lodges themselves would have to determine the Regularity of other Lodges.
That would be a pain in the behind.
It would also result in a lot more Recognition errors than we suffer from now. (I'm not too shy to admit that errors do get made now on occasion.)
But, I think it would get done, because without doing it visitation would be impossible.
I presume that the Time Immemorial Lodges in Europe had to do this prior to the formation of Grand Lodges.
There is no harm in practicing the craft with other regularly made masons. As long as you keep up your dues with your Blue and grand lodges. Allowing you to still travel and attend as a visitor with any lodge in the world. The problem would arise when new EAs would not get the same privileges.
If a group of Masons created a new, unchartered Lodge, but kept it secret so were still able to maintain their membership in their Chartered Lodge, they would still possess the ability to travel. But, any new Mason created in that unchartered Lodge would not have that ability.
I think it may be a path to saving and growing Freemasonry. Originally, a Charter was given to a lodge to ensure “Freemasonry” was staying within the guidelines and rules that groups of Masons have been putting together because they think they know best. Today, a lodge receives a Charter from their jurisdiction and it becomes the document that allows the jurisdictions GL to tax the lodge members. When did Freemasonry become something that needed to be taxed. Was it when the original four lodges formed the UGLE. It seems that Freemasonry, which has its roots in promoting freedoms from the church and government, adopted the one part of both institutions that upset people the most, taxation. Why did Freemasonry decide there needed to be a governing body? In the United States there are 50+ governing Grand Lodges. Why isn’t there a single National Grand Lodge? Again, why does there need to be a governing lodge, so we can be told that our aprons must conform to someone’s idea of what aprons must be. I’ll end with this thought, what if I live in a state that practices AF&M Freemasonry but there are a large group of Brothers that prefer to practice AF&AM Masonry. Can a Charter from a neighboring jurisdiction be sought? If not, why? Are we about the Practicing of Freemasonry or collecting taxes in the form of assessments from the lodges? Thank you GM for a great question today.
You point out a lot of great things for consideration, I'll just touch up on a few:
>>>Why did Freemasonry decide there needed to be a governing body?
My understanding is that the first Grand Lodge, what eventually became UGLE, was formed by those four Lodges in order to have an organization that would plan big Masonic feasts on a regular basis.
>>>In the United States there are 50+ governing Grand Lodges. Why isn’t there a single National >>>Grand Lodge?
There was a move to do this in the past that failed. Our system doesn't bother me. There are too many differences in Freemasonry from region to region for us to all get along well. I remember the first Conference of Grand Masters of North America that I attended. One of our Past Grand Masters suggested that I pay attention to the differences between the approach of the GM's here in the west with the approach of the GM's in another region of the country. I did, and there is certainly difference.
But the main reason is related to the formation of the United States. Our Founding Fathers did not envision this as one nation, and Freemasonry took its lead from them. They envisioned the United States as a confederation of 13 little nations, all independent, but working together. Hence our use of the word State instead of Province to denote our discrete geographical areas. Of course that changed in time, and no one today would argue that the United States is anything other than a single nation. But our Grand Lodges were well in place by then.
>>>Again, why does there need to be a governing lodge, so we can be told that our aprons must >>>conform to someone’s idea of what aprons must be.
Here in Washington, when it happened, this was a naked abuse of power. I can't argue that what was done was fair or right. Unfortunately, we do see abuses like that in our Craft from time to time.
>>>Can a Charter from a neighboring jurisdiction be sought? If not, why?
I agree that our insistence on Exclusive Territorial Jurisdiction in the United States is goofy.
A few short years ago forty or so Washington Masons joined me in Mexico. We visited two different Lodges, each Chartered by a different Grand Lodge, and each using a different ritual work. Both those Lodges met in the same building.
In my view, that is much more in keeping with the Liberty that Freemasonry encourages in our wider world.
The problem with opening this hypotetical lodge is the last part; "over scotch and cigars".
I'm not saying it is wrong but it is wrong if that is a reason for opening a lodge.
In a more serious way, Grand Lodges exists because of the Lodges. The Grand Lodge can close tomorrow and all the Lodges will continue their respective work. Regularity or irregularity has being misinterpreted as having membership in a "recognized" organization. True regularity comes from the proper practice of the rituals and ceremonies and imparting the teachings in a consistent manner.
Unfortunately since the beginning of modern Freemasonry a lot of knowledge has been lost because of this same reason. A person or a group of people leave a Lodge because they do not feel is working for them, this cause the problem that they may lost some of the deepest knowledge of the Craft, so they star working with a diluted version. And the process repeat itself up to what we have now, were Masonry is consider more a social club than an Initiatic School.
Freemasonry is the inheritor of a very ancient knowledge that comes from far back Egypt. It was not called Freemasonry at that time. The clues are there in the open.
I agree that it would be wrong for a Lodge to only exist for purposes of scotch and cigars.
But, these things can be an excellent compliment to the Lodge experience. Take my Seattle Lodge for instance. I generally try to arrive around 4:00PM, there are usually a few guys around by then, and I usually have a drink to decompress from the long drive. Most guys get there around 6, and we have a superb meal at 6:30. We open the Lodge at 7:30, and some brief Masonic education is always first on the agenda. I try to have the Lodge closed about 45 minutes after opening. Then we spend hours talking and sharing fellowship in our Library, with the scotch and cigars (or whatever else floats the boat.)
That fellowship has built an extremely strong Lodge.
Now, I'm not saying that a similar thing would work for all Lodges. I think that a Lodge is best when it reflects the needs and desires of its Masons, and therefore all Lodges should be different.
That’s a tough question for me. My commitment to the Craft is to the ideals of Freemasonry, not the governing body. Like all institutions the creation of a grand administrative office is done to unify and codify the institution. This is usually done to increase efficiency and coordinate resources. These activities cost money so these governing bodies eventually require modest income (taxes). Over time, however, institutions move from facilitating to controlling. They inevitably pass laws/rules that perpetuate their power. Lodges can also follow a similar trend. No one probably ever formed a lodge or grand lodge and said, “I really hope we can build a boring, oppressive structure that sucks the life out of our stated mission!” Nope, every one of these bodies was formed in hopes of creating something good. Over time they drifted toward mediocrity, until today we find ourselves discussing the option of unaffiliated, unregulated lodges as a path to restoration. What makes this hard for me is; I can imagine saying I would join a clandestine lodge in search of Masonic Light, BUT, why should I expect the new Lodge to not fall into the same quagmire as the current Lodges? Like I said, every Lodge is formed with high hopes and noble goals. Why would the new ones be different?
Maybe it’s time to reconsider the whole structure of the Grand Lodge/District/Lodge relationship. I personally think we could do with a lot less regulation and more encouragement, encouragement that leads to the Light. The way things are organized now, a combination of skills in public speaking and a love of bureaucratic structure is all that is required to ascend in power in Masonry (not to say that is all any particular officer has, many men I have met in leadership are amazing men). Maybe we should reassess what being a leader in Masonry should look like. I am NOT picking on anyone currently or who has been in any office, but I am saying maybe the reasons we choose leaders should change. With all the complaints about Grand Lodge, we must remember we elected EVERY SINGLE GL OFFICIER and WE APPROVED EVERY SINGLE ELEMENT OF THE CODE. In short, if there is a problem, it’s ‘us’, not ‘them’. Someone could propose in Grand Lodge that we rewrite the entire code, and if the majority supported it, it would happen. We are empowered to recreate the Craft. Maybe it would be better to become a revolutionary fraternity (again), rather than revolt from our own fraternity. Just my thoughts.
Agreed, but to accomplish that requires organization, a plan, and an understanding of how to bring desired changes about. We did see this happen in a sister Jurisdiction recently proving that it can be done.
And modern communication methods certainly make something like that much easier.
It seems to me that it would have to be decided what changes the majority of people would support, those put forward in the form of resolution(s), and if those determined to be out of order, the report making that decision rejected by a vote of the membership. It is likely this last that would have to be most carefully explained to the Brothers attending as we are so used to simply accepting all of these reports.
Something very similar could be done with the proposal of a budget alternative. It would mean that someone with the skills to draft a budget be tasked with creating a workable budget, and Brothers would have to make difficult decisions re: income and expense.
The big question to my mind is, would a majority support any proposed changes, or are the majority pleased with the current status when these things come up? Broad, detailed discussions are the only way to really get questions like that answered in advance.
I agree with everything you said. Having heard grumbling for years about the 'burden' of Grand Lodge, and the general dislike of just boring old business meetings, I think the true nature of the problem is revealed in the complexity required of a plan that would effect change. Is it that people are getting what they want by complaining , or is it that they can't agree on what it is they want? I'm not sure what the answer there is. I do think you laid things out nicely to begin the work. Maybe begin with a survey of "what did you expect to find in Masonry, that t does not provide?" Focus on what we want rather than what we hate. and start from there??
That survey question would be a very fine place to begin. In Lodges first I think, and then in Grand Lodge as a whole.
Much could be learned.
But then we would have to muster the will and courage to bring about whatever it was determined needed to be changed. I wonder if we could collectively do this last part.
The scenario you describe is not so different from the version of Masonry I find myself in today. Expanding on that, I don't feel that it is a "pushback" from members too stubborn to change, but rather it's hard to escape the gravity of "tradition". This is the way it has been done for a while now, and it's hard to push against the tide. In short, I would say it's apathy, not malice, that prevents rapid change.
I don't know how it works in other jurisdictions, but in Oregon Masonry we have 25 Landmarks of Freemasonry. Of these, number 25 states that: "The Landmarks of Freemasonry cannot be changed". It even states in the code that it is not in the power of any man (GMs included) or body of men, to make the least innovation to these. That's never sat right to me. An organization which limits its own potential for growth seems doomed to fail to keep up with progress alongside the march of time.
Of course, man's reach often exceeds his grasp. This coming Annual Communication we will be voting to change a part of the code regarding "the furnishings of a lodge" which now reads as having "The Holy Bible" as a required piece of furniture. The Landmark regarding this says "The Book of the Law of God" must be present. Apparently, so many years ago, a GM shoehorned the specific mention of "The Holy Bible" into the furnishings section of the code, and it was for whatever reason not challenged.
A group of Oregon Masons now seek to change the code to return it to be in line with the landmarks. It will be hotly contested, I'm sure. I bring all this up, because I feel it's a larger part of the question you are positing: do you break the rules if you feel the rules are unjust?
Take this as a scenario: as society progresses and social perspectives change, say we find ourselves in a situation where we now think the moral and just thing to do is to admit women into Freemasonry. My obligation (here in Oregon) prevents me and any other Oregon Mason from being present at the making a woman a Mason. Ok, well let's say that the Grand Lodge says its ok to ignore that. That obligation was taken under the watch of the all-seeing eye. That is a sacred obligation between me and The Great Architect. Does the Grand Lodge have the authority to ask me to break that obligation? I think not. This is somewhat of a problem about modern American Masonry that I feel many Masons of my generation are struggling with. Did I read the entire code before I took my obligations? No. Was I allowed to know the specifics of what I was obligating myself to? Of course not. I was told there would be nothing conflicting with my duties to myself, but how could Masonry know what my sacred duties in my heart are? What if equality and women's rights were a central part of my being? The lodge has immediately betrayed that assurance they sought to provide before the obligation.
I think this is why younger members seek to rebel against formal Masonry as you describe in your scenario. We see the amazing esoteric history that is still woven into the tapestry of Freemasonry, yet it's also obscured by (oddly enough) what I would label religion and politics. In this country, both of those things carry a lot of weight in the identity of the average American. It's very difficult, nigh impossible, for us to truly insulate our organization against these polarizing topics. They are not necessarily the lifeblood of Freemasonry, but they are the lifeblood of America.
I think you’ll find there was Freemasonry and lodges before VSLs became part of the furniture. As for “furniture,” it means something that has been furnished, but not necessarily tables and chairs.
Thanks for the clarification. Regarding the Volume of the Sacred Law, is now the Bible, before it was the Torah and Tanakh, before that was the Book of the Dead. Thats what I learned from the Oral Tradition.
Thanks for sharing. I’ve never heard that, nor can I substantiate it.
Before lodges placed bibles on their altars, they placed Masonic Constitutions. Jewish texts, I would say, were unthinkable. Jews were very rare in the fraternity, so literacy in Hebrew was nonexistent. The Egyptian Book of the Dead was not discovered until late in the 1800s, and it would not have sufficed as a holy text for a Masonic lodge.
I’d be interested in more about that Oral Tradition, if possible.
You've shared a number of really interesting things for our consideration. I'll touch up on some of them:
>>>I would say it's apathy, not malice, that prevents rapid change.
I do think that this is largely correct. At the Lodge level, and at the Grand Lodge level. How many times do we raise our hands to approve a Committee Report, not because we agree with it, or are even paying much attention to it, but because we have, for years, simply raised our hand to accept Committee Reports?
>>>I don't know how it works in other jurisdictions, but in Oregon Masonry we have 25 >>>Landmarks of Freemasonry....... An organization which limits its own potential for growth >>>seems doomed to fail to keep up with progress alongside the march of time."
Landmarks are those things that without which whatever we are doing would not be Freemasonry. They are the absolute essentials.
The Grand Lodge of Washington does not have an adopted list of Landmarks. We, like all Grand Lodges insist on preservation of the Landmarks, but they remain unwritten in our Jurisdiction.
That said, we do have two separate lists of Landmarks, written by two different Masonic authors included in our written work. As examples, not as adopted Masonic Law.
Beyond Washington, different Grand Lodges and other Masonic organizations that have adopted written Landmarks do have different lists of them, there is no list accepted for all.
There is a Resolution coming up before our upcoming Annual Communication to adopt a written list of Landmarks as Masonic Law in our Jurisdiction. The Resolution is being pushed through in an improper manner, and I certainly hope that the Brothers have the wisdom to reject it.
>>>This coming Annual Communication we will be voting to change a part of the code regarding >>>"the furnishings of a lodge" which now reads as having "The Holy Bible" as a required piece of >>>furniture.
Here, most Masons refer to the Holy Bible when doing the ritualistic work (at least in my experience) but Volume of Sacred Law in our ritual and code. I prefer to use the latter term because Freemasonry is a universal Craft, not limited to a single religious belief. Many Lodges here also include multiple Holy Books on their altars, and I believe that to be good practice. A non Christian man sitting in Lodge has just as much right to have his particular Holy Book on the altar as the Christian man does.
But, on a deeper level, the Book in question is symbolic. A representation of any and all Holy Books.
>>>do you break the rules if you feel the rules are unjust?
Yes. The rules are created by men. That which is right and wrong is determined by the Grand Architect.
I think we can look to our own history to prove this true. On February 8, 1945 Brother Jean Sugg member of Lodge Liberte Cherie in Esterwegen concentration camp was murdered by Germans in full compliance with the law.
The Catholic Priest who stood watch while Masonic Initiations into Liberte Cherie were taking place was violating the law by doing so.
The right and wrong is clear, as is the lesson. We can't follow unjust and immoral laws of men. We must think for ourselves, not blindly accept that which we are told.
>>>Does the Grand Lodge have the authority to ask me to break that obligation?
We discussed this in some detail on Rummer and Grapes last week. One of our Obligations in my Jurisdiction says that we will not write the least letter of our Masonic 'secrets'. But the once taking the obligation the new Mason is provided with a book that contains letter after letter, the cypher that serves as a memory aid for our 'secrets'. By publishing the cypher are we, as members of the Grand Lodge allowing our own Obligation to be violated? It is a question of little practical value as cyphers have been published for a very long time, officially and unofficially, but it is I think an important question of Masonic philosophy.
Most of us are doing this already. The lodges came first, the lodges will exist long after the Grand Lodges has gone away. I for one love the lodges I have the honor to belong to and not being one to jump ship would never forsake them. Russian peasants used to toast the Czar " And God keep the Czar, ... far away from us". As it is with all power grabbing central authorities. Lip service and formalities are given. Fun is poked. I belong to many vast and powerful organizations, it is the same with them all.
I agree that if Grand Lodges were to fail and disappear, Lodges would survive. Freemasonry would survive. In my view, we are taught this very thing in the Fellowcraft Degree in my Jurisdiction.
I also believe that sometimes it is necessary, even in the modern world, to create Lodges without any sanction from any Grand Lodge. As in the case of Lodge Liberte Cherie discussed in another comment. No one could reasonably argue that Liberte Cherie was anything less than vital to its Masons, and to Freemasonry as a whole. It was certainly Regular by any meaningful definition of the term. But, it had no Charter, no permission to operate from any Masonic Authority (beyond the Authority granted by God to all free assemblies of men) and I truly doubt if it possessed any of the required furnishings of a Lodge. This is why, in my view, we must be so very careful when considering the Landmarks of Freemasonry.
Id say, It wont last. It takes the whole to make something viable. And perhaps what that member is looking for isn't freemasonry. Its not for every one.
We do this already. Not on a large scale but with Masonic breakfast, lunch, dinner, education, party and brotherhood clubs organizations, groups and congregations.
I belong to Goose & Gridiron; a lunch based organization of Masons. We don't open, close or otherwise use Masonic ritual, but we could if we wanted in a secure place for instruction. We don"t do degrees but don't need to. We are open to affiliated and unaffiliated Masons alike. We don't pretend to be a Chartered Lodge but preform some of the same functions.
The question posed is the veracity and rectitude of forming a group of Masons, formal or informal, outside the grasp of the Grand Lodge system.
My answer is that we have been doing it for centuries and are doing it now.
So, go ahead and get a group of Masons together who are seeking something that their experience in Grand Lodge Masonry has not given them. Call it whatever you want so long as it is not implied that it is endorse by a Grand Lodge Masonry. Discuss Masonic philosophy, ritual, governance ...what ever.
Do not share Masonic "secrets" with the "profane".
A somewhat loosely organized group of Masons, along with some seekers, who join in an online space to discuss Freemasonry.
It is my version of the "Three Guys In A Garage" that I mentioned in another comment.
And I think that these less formal, unaffiliated, gathering spaces for Masons are really important. Online and offline. Certainly this was made clear to me during the pandemic lockdowns, when Emeth and its predecessor blog were just about my only available form of Masonic fellowship.
A large, grand old lodge building sitting on priceless real estate was rotting away when some new members noticed that the real estate was owned by a public charity under the auspices of the State of Ohio, rather than the state's GL. So there was a valid and binding vote to surrender the charter to the GL and to run the Bldg as an independent charity.
As you can imagine. OHIO GL went ballistic. Expensive lawyers were let off their leashes. In the end, the GL lost the case, the Halcyon charity went bankrupt, and Masonic principles were not advanced. There are several lesser known cases where the NEW ENTITY is run like an independent lodge. But without a "sugar-brother" the ending is about the same.
IN THE ANCIENT DAYS:
Ironically, 3 or more brothers creating a nee lodge out of noting may be one if the oldest of usages, but no longer tolerated. Even then, the 3 would eventually endeavor to make the new lodge robust enough and distant enough, that the pre-existing lodge (or lodges) would WANT another well run place for work and refreshment. During the historic period, daughter lodges would intentionally arrange for sponsorship from a mother lodge. Thus was common in Scotland during the extended period when there wasn't a Scottish GL at all.
The Premier Lodge of London limited its authority to London and a few areas just outside London's limits. But the excitement of a Grand Lodge kept pushing the boundary out further and further - - until all of England was embraced!
Thank you Brother! I remember when this happened, but had forgotten about it in the years since.
I think that ultimately there were three problems that pretty much guaranteed that Halcyon would fail.
-The whole effort to keep the building. Saddling any new Masonic organization with a hugely expensive building is a promise of disaster. But I do understand that the point of their effort was to somehow wrest ownership of the building from the Craft.
-The inclusion of at least one notorious suspended/expelled Brother. That rather communicated that they were not the best and the brightest.
-They tried to create a Grand Lodge/Orient. So instead of just trying to do one thing and make it work, as I understand it they were trying to run: A public charity, a clandestine Lodge, and a Grand Orient.
I would not join them.
Based on what I’ve seen in twenty-seven years, I can sympathize with the frustration, but based on what I’ve seen in twenty-seven years, I know these start-ups fizzle out pretty quickly.
Start small. Start an AMD council, if possible, or a Cryptic council, and make that idyllic. If that is proven sustainable, then maybe saving a faltering lodge might be feasible.
A wise Masonic writer, who quit the Craft in anguish over his disappointment with the fraternity, was fond of saying he’d rather meet in someone’s living room with a few guys who get it than in a lodge room with Masonarians. Maybe both are necessary. Keep the troubled lodge alive for the next generation, and gather with confederates privately for the enjoyment that brings.
Jay
I really like this approach.
>>>A wise Masonic writer, who quit the Craft in anguish over his disappointment with the >>>fraternity, was fond of saying he’d rather meet in someone’s living room with a few guys who >>>get it than in a lodge room with Masonarians.
When I was a really new Mason, knee high to a grasshopper, I remember one of the best Masons in my Lodge telling me that:
"An excellent Masonic experience needs nothing more than three committed men sitting in a garage, talking about Masonry."
I've never forgotten his words.
I wrote a bit about this some years ago:
https://emeth.substack.com/p/three-guys-in-a-garage
Towards your way of thinking, years ago we had a really tiny Appendant Body here. It was supported by the Grand Lodge, but it was just a funny little group that had its own ritual, and met over a great meal with good wine. I was lucky enough to belong to it for some time, and those meetings were probably the best Masonic meetings I was ever a part of.
It didn't survive because it lost it's sweetheart deal on a really nice meeting space, so tried to move the whole thing into a banquet room in a restaurant, but that took a lot of the fun out of it with the wait staff coming in and out, so a decision was made to discontinue.
Certainly groups like that can be extremely valuable, even if they tend to come and go. Related to that, I think that Masonic clubs might be on the upswing here. Over the past couple of months, I've heard of two new ones being formed in this Jurisdiction, and I don't imagine that I hear about all of them.
Irregular!
I’m all for it but without a proper charter for a lodge, not an association, you’re not following the ancient landmarks and usages.
I’m all for free association though.
I think you’ll find that charters, warrants, etc. originated in the grand lodge era, and are not ancient. (For example, when the lodge at Fredericksburg, Virginia made George Washington a Mason, it did not possess any charter.)
Jay
I’m aware Jay but that’s the legal language we use, thus that’s what I used.
Taking this thought experiment to its extreme, I imagine that if Grand Lodges no longer existed, Lodges themselves would have to determine the Regularity of other Lodges.
That would be a pain in the behind.
It would also result in a lot more Recognition errors than we suffer from now. (I'm not too shy to admit that errors do get made now on occasion.)
But, I think it would get done, because without doing it visitation would be impossible.
I presume that the Time Immemorial Lodges in Europe had to do this prior to the formation of Grand Lodges.
It also makes the Master's degree that much more prescient.
There is no harm in practicing the craft with other regularly made masons. As long as you keep up your dues with your Blue and grand lodges. Allowing you to still travel and attend as a visitor with any lodge in the world. The problem would arise when new EAs would not get the same privileges.
The issue you point out is certainly valid.
If a group of Masons created a new, unchartered Lodge, but kept it secret so were still able to maintain their membership in their Chartered Lodge, they would still possess the ability to travel. But, any new Mason created in that unchartered Lodge would not have that ability.
I think it may be a path to saving and growing Freemasonry. Originally, a Charter was given to a lodge to ensure “Freemasonry” was staying within the guidelines and rules that groups of Masons have been putting together because they think they know best. Today, a lodge receives a Charter from their jurisdiction and it becomes the document that allows the jurisdictions GL to tax the lodge members. When did Freemasonry become something that needed to be taxed. Was it when the original four lodges formed the UGLE. It seems that Freemasonry, which has its roots in promoting freedoms from the church and government, adopted the one part of both institutions that upset people the most, taxation. Why did Freemasonry decide there needed to be a governing body? In the United States there are 50+ governing Grand Lodges. Why isn’t there a single National Grand Lodge? Again, why does there need to be a governing lodge, so we can be told that our aprons must conform to someone’s idea of what aprons must be. I’ll end with this thought, what if I live in a state that practices AF&M Freemasonry but there are a large group of Brothers that prefer to practice AF&AM Masonry. Can a Charter from a neighboring jurisdiction be sought? If not, why? Are we about the Practicing of Freemasonry or collecting taxes in the form of assessments from the lodges? Thank you GM for a great question today.
The answer is power and money. Some see Masonry as a business organization. The real dues of Freemasonry are paid with sweat and blood.
You point out a lot of great things for consideration, I'll just touch up on a few:
>>>Why did Freemasonry decide there needed to be a governing body?
My understanding is that the first Grand Lodge, what eventually became UGLE, was formed by those four Lodges in order to have an organization that would plan big Masonic feasts on a regular basis.
>>>In the United States there are 50+ governing Grand Lodges. Why isn’t there a single National >>>Grand Lodge?
There was a move to do this in the past that failed. Our system doesn't bother me. There are too many differences in Freemasonry from region to region for us to all get along well. I remember the first Conference of Grand Masters of North America that I attended. One of our Past Grand Masters suggested that I pay attention to the differences between the approach of the GM's here in the west with the approach of the GM's in another region of the country. I did, and there is certainly difference.
But the main reason is related to the formation of the United States. Our Founding Fathers did not envision this as one nation, and Freemasonry took its lead from them. They envisioned the United States as a confederation of 13 little nations, all independent, but working together. Hence our use of the word State instead of Province to denote our discrete geographical areas. Of course that changed in time, and no one today would argue that the United States is anything other than a single nation. But our Grand Lodges were well in place by then.
>>>Again, why does there need to be a governing lodge, so we can be told that our aprons must >>>conform to someone’s idea of what aprons must be.
Here in Washington, when it happened, this was a naked abuse of power. I can't argue that what was done was fair or right. Unfortunately, we do see abuses like that in our Craft from time to time.
>>>Can a Charter from a neighboring jurisdiction be sought? If not, why?
I agree that our insistence on Exclusive Territorial Jurisdiction in the United States is goofy.
A few short years ago forty or so Washington Masons joined me in Mexico. We visited two different Lodges, each Chartered by a different Grand Lodge, and each using a different ritual work. Both those Lodges met in the same building.
In my view, that is much more in keeping with the Liberty that Freemasonry encourages in our wider world.
The problem with opening this hypotetical lodge is the last part; "over scotch and cigars".
I'm not saying it is wrong but it is wrong if that is a reason for opening a lodge.
In a more serious way, Grand Lodges exists because of the Lodges. The Grand Lodge can close tomorrow and all the Lodges will continue their respective work. Regularity or irregularity has being misinterpreted as having membership in a "recognized" organization. True regularity comes from the proper practice of the rituals and ceremonies and imparting the teachings in a consistent manner.
Unfortunately since the beginning of modern Freemasonry a lot of knowledge has been lost because of this same reason. A person or a group of people leave a Lodge because they do not feel is working for them, this cause the problem that they may lost some of the deepest knowledge of the Craft, so they star working with a diluted version. And the process repeat itself up to what we have now, were Masonry is consider more a social club than an Initiatic School.
Freemasonry is the inheritor of a very ancient knowledge that comes from far back Egypt. It was not called Freemasonry at that time. The clues are there in the open.
I agree that it would be wrong for a Lodge to only exist for purposes of scotch and cigars.
But, these things can be an excellent compliment to the Lodge experience. Take my Seattle Lodge for instance. I generally try to arrive around 4:00PM, there are usually a few guys around by then, and I usually have a drink to decompress from the long drive. Most guys get there around 6, and we have a superb meal at 6:30. We open the Lodge at 7:30, and some brief Masonic education is always first on the agenda. I try to have the Lodge closed about 45 minutes after opening. Then we spend hours talking and sharing fellowship in our Library, with the scotch and cigars (or whatever else floats the boat.)
That fellowship has built an extremely strong Lodge.
Now, I'm not saying that a similar thing would work for all Lodges. I think that a Lodge is best when it reflects the needs and desires of its Masons, and therefore all Lodges should be different.
Short answer, it happened in Ohio over a Masonic Temple years ago and ultimately failed due to lack of organizational structure.
I remember that happening, but had forgotten all about it. Thanks for the reminder!
Maybe have private parties at your house to satisfy the need of bonding with those who have similar views as your own, but still keep the lodge.
That’s a tough question for me. My commitment to the Craft is to the ideals of Freemasonry, not the governing body. Like all institutions the creation of a grand administrative office is done to unify and codify the institution. This is usually done to increase efficiency and coordinate resources. These activities cost money so these governing bodies eventually require modest income (taxes). Over time, however, institutions move from facilitating to controlling. They inevitably pass laws/rules that perpetuate their power. Lodges can also follow a similar trend. No one probably ever formed a lodge or grand lodge and said, “I really hope we can build a boring, oppressive structure that sucks the life out of our stated mission!” Nope, every one of these bodies was formed in hopes of creating something good. Over time they drifted toward mediocrity, until today we find ourselves discussing the option of unaffiliated, unregulated lodges as a path to restoration. What makes this hard for me is; I can imagine saying I would join a clandestine lodge in search of Masonic Light, BUT, why should I expect the new Lodge to not fall into the same quagmire as the current Lodges? Like I said, every Lodge is formed with high hopes and noble goals. Why would the new ones be different?
Maybe it’s time to reconsider the whole structure of the Grand Lodge/District/Lodge relationship. I personally think we could do with a lot less regulation and more encouragement, encouragement that leads to the Light. The way things are organized now, a combination of skills in public speaking and a love of bureaucratic structure is all that is required to ascend in power in Masonry (not to say that is all any particular officer has, many men I have met in leadership are amazing men). Maybe we should reassess what being a leader in Masonry should look like. I am NOT picking on anyone currently or who has been in any office, but I am saying maybe the reasons we choose leaders should change. With all the complaints about Grand Lodge, we must remember we elected EVERY SINGLE GL OFFICIER and WE APPROVED EVERY SINGLE ELEMENT OF THE CODE. In short, if there is a problem, it’s ‘us’, not ‘them’. Someone could propose in Grand Lodge that we rewrite the entire code, and if the majority supported it, it would happen. We are empowered to recreate the Craft. Maybe it would be better to become a revolutionary fraternity (again), rather than revolt from our own fraternity. Just my thoughts.
>>>We are empowered to recreate the Craft.
Agreed, but to accomplish that requires organization, a plan, and an understanding of how to bring desired changes about. We did see this happen in a sister Jurisdiction recently proving that it can be done.
And modern communication methods certainly make something like that much easier.
It seems to me that it would have to be decided what changes the majority of people would support, those put forward in the form of resolution(s), and if those determined to be out of order, the report making that decision rejected by a vote of the membership. It is likely this last that would have to be most carefully explained to the Brothers attending as we are so used to simply accepting all of these reports.
Something very similar could be done with the proposal of a budget alternative. It would mean that someone with the skills to draft a budget be tasked with creating a workable budget, and Brothers would have to make difficult decisions re: income and expense.
The big question to my mind is, would a majority support any proposed changes, or are the majority pleased with the current status when these things come up? Broad, detailed discussions are the only way to really get questions like that answered in advance.
Internet communications make that possible.
I agree with everything you said. Having heard grumbling for years about the 'burden' of Grand Lodge, and the general dislike of just boring old business meetings, I think the true nature of the problem is revealed in the complexity required of a plan that would effect change. Is it that people are getting what they want by complaining , or is it that they can't agree on what it is they want? I'm not sure what the answer there is. I do think you laid things out nicely to begin the work. Maybe begin with a survey of "what did you expect to find in Masonry, that t does not provide?" Focus on what we want rather than what we hate. and start from there??
That survey question would be a very fine place to begin. In Lodges first I think, and then in Grand Lodge as a whole.
Much could be learned.
But then we would have to muster the will and courage to bring about whatever it was determined needed to be changed. I wonder if we could collectively do this last part.
That is the question......isn't it?
The scenario you describe is not so different from the version of Masonry I find myself in today. Expanding on that, I don't feel that it is a "pushback" from members too stubborn to change, but rather it's hard to escape the gravity of "tradition". This is the way it has been done for a while now, and it's hard to push against the tide. In short, I would say it's apathy, not malice, that prevents rapid change.
I don't know how it works in other jurisdictions, but in Oregon Masonry we have 25 Landmarks of Freemasonry. Of these, number 25 states that: "The Landmarks of Freemasonry cannot be changed". It even states in the code that it is not in the power of any man (GMs included) or body of men, to make the least innovation to these. That's never sat right to me. An organization which limits its own potential for growth seems doomed to fail to keep up with progress alongside the march of time.
Of course, man's reach often exceeds his grasp. This coming Annual Communication we will be voting to change a part of the code regarding "the furnishings of a lodge" which now reads as having "The Holy Bible" as a required piece of furniture. The Landmark regarding this says "The Book of the Law of God" must be present. Apparently, so many years ago, a GM shoehorned the specific mention of "The Holy Bible" into the furnishings section of the code, and it was for whatever reason not challenged.
A group of Oregon Masons now seek to change the code to return it to be in line with the landmarks. It will be hotly contested, I'm sure. I bring all this up, because I feel it's a larger part of the question you are positing: do you break the rules if you feel the rules are unjust?
Take this as a scenario: as society progresses and social perspectives change, say we find ourselves in a situation where we now think the moral and just thing to do is to admit women into Freemasonry. My obligation (here in Oregon) prevents me and any other Oregon Mason from being present at the making a woman a Mason. Ok, well let's say that the Grand Lodge says its ok to ignore that. That obligation was taken under the watch of the all-seeing eye. That is a sacred obligation between me and The Great Architect. Does the Grand Lodge have the authority to ask me to break that obligation? I think not. This is somewhat of a problem about modern American Masonry that I feel many Masons of my generation are struggling with. Did I read the entire code before I took my obligations? No. Was I allowed to know the specifics of what I was obligating myself to? Of course not. I was told there would be nothing conflicting with my duties to myself, but how could Masonry know what my sacred duties in my heart are? What if equality and women's rights were a central part of my being? The lodge has immediately betrayed that assurance they sought to provide before the obligation.
I think this is why younger members seek to rebel against formal Masonry as you describe in your scenario. We see the amazing esoteric history that is still woven into the tapestry of Freemasonry, yet it's also obscured by (oddly enough) what I would label religion and politics. In this country, both of those things carry a lot of weight in the identity of the average American. It's very difficult, nigh impossible, for us to truly insulate our organization against these polarizing topics. They are not necessarily the lifeblood of Freemasonry, but they are the lifeblood of America.
So sad that they considered the Holy Bible as a piece of furniture. There is no Freemasonry without the VSL.
I think you’ll find there was Freemasonry and lodges before VSLs became part of the furniture. As for “furniture,” it means something that has been furnished, but not necessarily tables and chairs.
Jay
Thanks for the clarification. Regarding the Volume of the Sacred Law, is now the Bible, before it was the Torah and Tanakh, before that was the Book of the Dead. Thats what I learned from the Oral Tradition.
Thanks for sharing. I’ve never heard that, nor can I substantiate it.
Before lodges placed bibles on their altars, they placed Masonic Constitutions. Jewish texts, I would say, were unthinkable. Jews were very rare in the fraternity, so literacy in Hebrew was nonexistent. The Egyptian Book of the Dead was not discovered until late in the 1800s, and it would not have sufficed as a holy text for a Masonic lodge.
I’d be interested in more about that Oral Tradition, if possible.
Jay
I would gladly share. My email is wjgonz@gmail.com
You've shared a number of really interesting things for our consideration. I'll touch up on some of them:
>>>I would say it's apathy, not malice, that prevents rapid change.
I do think that this is largely correct. At the Lodge level, and at the Grand Lodge level. How many times do we raise our hands to approve a Committee Report, not because we agree with it, or are even paying much attention to it, but because we have, for years, simply raised our hand to accept Committee Reports?
>>>I don't know how it works in other jurisdictions, but in Oregon Masonry we have 25 >>>Landmarks of Freemasonry....... An organization which limits its own potential for growth >>>seems doomed to fail to keep up with progress alongside the march of time."
Landmarks are those things that without which whatever we are doing would not be Freemasonry. They are the absolute essentials.
The Grand Lodge of Washington does not have an adopted list of Landmarks. We, like all Grand Lodges insist on preservation of the Landmarks, but they remain unwritten in our Jurisdiction.
That said, we do have two separate lists of Landmarks, written by two different Masonic authors included in our written work. As examples, not as adopted Masonic Law.
Beyond Washington, different Grand Lodges and other Masonic organizations that have adopted written Landmarks do have different lists of them, there is no list accepted for all.
There is a Resolution coming up before our upcoming Annual Communication to adopt a written list of Landmarks as Masonic Law in our Jurisdiction. The Resolution is being pushed through in an improper manner, and I certainly hope that the Brothers have the wisdom to reject it.
>>>This coming Annual Communication we will be voting to change a part of the code regarding >>>"the furnishings of a lodge" which now reads as having "The Holy Bible" as a required piece of >>>furniture.
Here, most Masons refer to the Holy Bible when doing the ritualistic work (at least in my experience) but Volume of Sacred Law in our ritual and code. I prefer to use the latter term because Freemasonry is a universal Craft, not limited to a single religious belief. Many Lodges here also include multiple Holy Books on their altars, and I believe that to be good practice. A non Christian man sitting in Lodge has just as much right to have his particular Holy Book on the altar as the Christian man does.
But, on a deeper level, the Book in question is symbolic. A representation of any and all Holy Books.
>>>do you break the rules if you feel the rules are unjust?
Yes. The rules are created by men. That which is right and wrong is determined by the Grand Architect.
I think we can look to our own history to prove this true. On February 8, 1945 Brother Jean Sugg member of Lodge Liberte Cherie in Esterwegen concentration camp was murdered by Germans in full compliance with the law.
The Catholic Priest who stood watch while Masonic Initiations into Liberte Cherie were taking place was violating the law by doing so.
The right and wrong is clear, as is the lesson. We can't follow unjust and immoral laws of men. We must think for ourselves, not blindly accept that which we are told.
>>>Does the Grand Lodge have the authority to ask me to break that obligation?
We discussed this in some detail on Rummer and Grapes last week. One of our Obligations in my Jurisdiction says that we will not write the least letter of our Masonic 'secrets'. But the once taking the obligation the new Mason is provided with a book that contains letter after letter, the cypher that serves as a memory aid for our 'secrets'. By publishing the cypher are we, as members of the Grand Lodge allowing our own Obligation to be violated? It is a question of little practical value as cyphers have been published for a very long time, officially and unofficially, but it is I think an important question of Masonic philosophy.
Most of us are doing this already. The lodges came first, the lodges will exist long after the Grand Lodges has gone away. I for one love the lodges I have the honor to belong to and not being one to jump ship would never forsake them. Russian peasants used to toast the Czar " And God keep the Czar, ... far away from us". As it is with all power grabbing central authorities. Lip service and formalities are given. Fun is poked. I belong to many vast and powerful organizations, it is the same with them all.
I agree that if Grand Lodges were to fail and disappear, Lodges would survive. Freemasonry would survive. In my view, we are taught this very thing in the Fellowcraft Degree in my Jurisdiction.
I also believe that sometimes it is necessary, even in the modern world, to create Lodges without any sanction from any Grand Lodge. As in the case of Lodge Liberte Cherie discussed in another comment. No one could reasonably argue that Liberte Cherie was anything less than vital to its Masons, and to Freemasonry as a whole. It was certainly Regular by any meaningful definition of the term. But, it had no Charter, no permission to operate from any Masonic Authority (beyond the Authority granted by God to all free assemblies of men) and I truly doubt if it possessed any of the required furnishings of a Lodge. This is why, in my view, we must be so very careful when considering the Landmarks of Freemasonry.
Id say, It wont last. It takes the whole to make something viable. And perhaps what that member is looking for isn't freemasonry. Its not for every one.
>>>And perhaps what that member is looking for isn't freemasonry.
Agreed.
I would also add that perhaps that member has been rejected by Freemasonry. Either formally or informally.
We do this already. Not on a large scale but with Masonic breakfast, lunch, dinner, education, party and brotherhood clubs organizations, groups and congregations.
I belong to Goose & Gridiron; a lunch based organization of Masons. We don't open, close or otherwise use Masonic ritual, but we could if we wanted in a secure place for instruction. We don"t do degrees but don't need to. We are open to affiliated and unaffiliated Masons alike. We don't pretend to be a Chartered Lodge but preform some of the same functions.
The question posed is the veracity and rectitude of forming a group of Masons, formal or informal, outside the grasp of the Grand Lodge system.
My answer is that we have been doing it for centuries and are doing it now.
So, go ahead and get a group of Masons together who are seeking something that their experience in Grand Lodge Masonry has not given them. Call it whatever you want so long as it is not implied that it is endorse by a Grand Lodge Masonry. Discuss Masonic philosophy, ritual, governance ...what ever.
Do not share Masonic "secrets" with the "profane".
I guess that I rather see Emeth in this way.
A somewhat loosely organized group of Masons, along with some seekers, who join in an online space to discuss Freemasonry.
It is my version of the "Three Guys In A Garage" that I mentioned in another comment.
And I think that these less formal, unaffiliated, gathering spaces for Masons are really important. Online and offline. Certainly this was made clear to me during the pandemic lockdowns, when Emeth and its predecessor blog were just about my only available form of Masonic fellowship.
A Mason after my own heart!
The most dramatic, and some might say tragic example of this was in 2007 (Ohio):
See Br Hodapp's serial history of Halcyon Lodge 498:
https://burningtaper.blogspot.com/2007/11/halcyon-lodge-letter-to-former-halcyon.html
A large, grand old lodge building sitting on priceless real estate was rotting away when some new members noticed that the real estate was owned by a public charity under the auspices of the State of Ohio, rather than the state's GL. So there was a valid and binding vote to surrender the charter to the GL and to run the Bldg as an independent charity.
As you can imagine. OHIO GL went ballistic. Expensive lawyers were let off their leashes. In the end, the GL lost the case, the Halcyon charity went bankrupt, and Masonic principles were not advanced. There are several lesser known cases where the NEW ENTITY is run like an independent lodge. But without a "sugar-brother" the ending is about the same.
IN THE ANCIENT DAYS:
Ironically, 3 or more brothers creating a nee lodge out of noting may be one if the oldest of usages, but no longer tolerated. Even then, the 3 would eventually endeavor to make the new lodge robust enough and distant enough, that the pre-existing lodge (or lodges) would WANT another well run place for work and refreshment. During the historic period, daughter lodges would intentionally arrange for sponsorship from a mother lodge. Thus was common in Scotland during the extended period when there wasn't a Scottish GL at all.
The Premier Lodge of London limited its authority to London and a few areas just outside London's limits. But the excitement of a Grand Lodge kept pushing the boundary out further and further - - until all of England was embraced!
Thank you Brother! I remember when this happened, but had forgotten about it in the years since.
I think that ultimately there were three problems that pretty much guaranteed that Halcyon would fail.
-The whole effort to keep the building. Saddling any new Masonic organization with a hugely expensive building is a promise of disaster. But I do understand that the point of their effort was to somehow wrest ownership of the building from the Craft.
-The inclusion of at least one notorious suspended/expelled Brother. That rather communicated that they were not the best and the brightest.
-They tried to create a Grand Lodge/Orient. So instead of just trying to do one thing and make it work, as I understand it they were trying to run: A public charity, a clandestine Lodge, and a Grand Orient.
No. I made a promise. It is as simple as that.
Indeed. A great many of these discussions do come down to our Obligations, our interpretation of them, and our commitment to them.
the observations of our Obligations! Yes!