I’ve got my theory about how Freemasonry was created, and I imagine that you’ve got yours too. The thing is though, no one actually knows. The circumstances surrounding the birth of our Ancient Craft are truly lost to the mists of time. We just can’t know.
What we can know is why so many men were drawn to our Lodges so long ago.
In a time when one who disagreed with the Monarch risked death for saying so, and when one who disagreed with the Church risked death for saying so, our Lodges provided a safe environment for otherwise extremely dangerous conversations. Brothers were seen to be able to keep the secrets of other Masons, to not reveal what was discussed in Lodge.
Freemasonry was, and still needs to be, the opposite of the Inquisition. The opposite of tyranny. Masons need to be able to discuss anything, with open minds, all in a quest to discover Truth. We should never act to stifle discussion.
Unfortunately, in the places that Masons gather online, one often encounters fellow Freemasons acting as Inquisitors. Deeming the kind of Masonry they practice as the only Masonry, trying to shut down discussion of anything else.
I encountered this yet again this past week when a (presumed) member of the Grand Orient of France posted about a Masonic book, written by other members of the Grand Orient in English, that purports to explain that Obediences practices and views.
This is, in my view, a great thing. Masonry as we practice it in the English speaking world has been in schism with the Grand Orient and the orders related to it for a very long time. Understanding each other is the first step towards possible healing of this division within Freemasonry, but even if that healing never comes about, it is still good to learn how Freemasonry is practiced elsewhere, even if we don’t think those practices to be correct.
Yet, as happens far too often, this man’s post was metaphorically ‘shouted down.’ He was deemed, of course, Clandestine, and it was declared that even reading things published by those from the Grand Orient was somehow a violation of one’s Obligations. Of course that is nonsense, but it happened, and if we spend much time at all in those online spaces Masons hang out in, we will see it.
Most often it happens I think whenever there is mention of mixed or female only Masonic Orders.
I am a firm believer in Masonic Recognition. It is what allows me to be seen and accepted as a Freemason no matter where I might be in the world. I understand how Masonic Recognition works, being one of seven members of the Conference of Grand Masters of North America’s Commission on Information for Recognition. I am not advocating that our Grand Lodges lower or change our Standards for Recognition, nor that we should Recognize those Grand Lodges/Orients that practice Freemasonry in an irregular way.
I am however saying that knowledge is vital. That for Freemasons, Masonic knowledge is vital. That learning is something that no man who loves liberty can object too.
I am saying that only tyrants and would-be tyrants object to other people seeking knowledge.
Freemasons are not Inquisitors. Freemasons acting online as if they are Inquisitors clearly do not understand the history of our Ancient Craft, nor those timeless principles espoused by our Craft.
We should be pleased to have the opportunity to learn about how others practice Freemasonry, and why. Even if we disagree, knowledge is always of value. If we see someone posting about a Freemasonry different from our own, Freemasonic practices we disagree with, we don’t have to read it. We can just keep scrolling. But we should never try to stop the discussion from happening at all, for if we do, we are no better than little would-be Inquisitors.
When we don't think independently, social norms can reinforce in us all of the wrong behaviors. I see this among some (not all) brothers online. Their shouting down of conversations is less about thinking clearly or applying the principles of the Craft, and it's more about participating in, and reinforcing social norms.
The "Five Monkeys" experiment here is a classic, Freemasons take heed. :)
A researcher puts five monkeys in a cage. There’s a bunch of bananas hanging from a string, with a ladder leading to the bananas. When the first monkey goes for the bananas, the researcher sprays all five monkeys with freezing water for five minutes. Some time later, when a second monkey inevitably tries to go for the bananas, the researcher once again sprays all five monkeys with the cold water for five minutes. The researcher then puts the hose away and never touches it again. But, when a third monkey tries to go for the bananas, the other four attack him to prevent him from climbing that ladder. They are afraid of the punishment that may come.
Then, the researcher replaces one of the monkeys with a new monkey who wasn’t part of the original experiment and was never sprayed with water. And, as soon as he touches the ladder to go for the bananas, the other four monkeys attack him to keep him from doing so. If he tries again, they attack him again. Thus, the new monkey learns not to go after the bananas because he’ll get attacked if he does.
The researcher replaces a second monkey with another new monkey. When this monkey goes for the bananas, the other four attack him, including the new monkey who was never sprayed with water. The researcher then continues to replace all the monkeys one at a time, until all five of the original monkeys are removed from the cage. Each time the newcomer goes for the bananas, the others attack, even when they, as new monkeys, have never received punishment for going after the bananas. And thus, the new monkeys, who have never been sprayed with cold water, learn not to go after the temptation of the bananas.
The researchers hypothesize that, if they were to ask the monkeys why they don’t go for the bananas, they’d answer “because that’s the way it’s always been done”.
i have seen three types of dialogue concerning Masonic topics. 1- intrenched thinking that leads to personal attacks, 2- Everyone is right, leading to nothing, 3- Respectful debate intended to discover the truth. The first one is a cancer on the Craft. The second one prevents us from moving forward or growing as men. 3- the final one, not only pursues the truth (as best as we can) but teaches us to hold differing opinions and still get along, as well as learn to abandon ideas we may have held when confronted with better data. I support the 3rd. Over my years i have developed 2 rules that have served me well. Rule 1- The Truth is a lie and the lie is a trap, Rule 2- Everyone is right. These rules might make it sound like i hold the 2nd approach to be best, but they don't. These rules apply to MY behavior and thinking. Rule one calls me to question everything i hold as Truth. The second advises me to consider that every idea held by everyone is true, in some sense, even if just their point of view. I look for the truth in everyone's belief. These rules allow me to respect others point of view, and to loossen my hold on my truth.