In order of importance, "Do you believe in God" and "Why do you want to become a mason?" Those two questions, if properly discussed, should take an hour of interview time. Bonus question: "If your petition is approved, how do you see yourself participating in our lodge?"
In addition to the questions I would ask, "how much time are you willing to commit to Freemasonry." I also look around and see how he lives, can I tell what his interests are. Talk to his family and determine their enthusiasm for this decision.
I really like the third question, not just as a way of determining if he is fit to be made a Mason, but also because we can use it to help give him a great Lodge experience.
We might have a spot we need to fill in the line, say Chaplain, so when he becomes a Master Mason, we might stick him there, regardless of if he actually is interested in being a Chaplain. Or maybe it's a Temple Board we need to fill, or some particular committee.
Much better to find out what he wants to do, before he is ever a Mason, then ask him to do that.
Our Stated Communications always include two masonic papers and two musical pieces. We currently have three pianists, one concert celloist and one classical guitarist plus yours truly coordinating the meal for the Festive Board. We look for candidates that want to fill these positions that make our lodge meetings meaningful.
Brother Bailey, every member has a role to play. I may not be able to carry a tune, but I can certainly carry a dessert platter. Both tasks are required to make the evening memorable.
I think we all have a regret with regards to one of our investigations. One of my frustrations as a secretary was assigning brothers who failed to participate.
The question about how much time the candidate will have to spend on masonry is important but each man’s. Cable tow is different and fluid constantly changing since we wear many cable tows during different periods of our lives.
In my experience, you are certainly correct. There were a few years in my life when Freemasonry was almost the entirety of my (and my wife's) life. Other times when of necessity I had to step back a great deal. Demands on us, and our time, do seem ever changing.
In addition to the questions already mentioned, I have asked "Why do you think you would be a good Mason?" In otherwards, why should we invite you to join us?
I can see where that question could also shed some light on what he believes Freemasonry to be. I think that we often Initiate men who soon discover that Masonry isn't what they thought it would be. Maybe exploring what the Petitioner believes Masonry to be could help with that some.
My problem, having participated in quite a few investigations, is that by and large, whatever questions we ask, the candidate will generally tell us what we want to hear. I don’t think it’s malicious, they just want to present themselves in the most positive manner, much like a job interview. Questions like “do you have any problems memorizing things?” or “is weekly participation on such and such days going to be ok with you?” are always answered positively.
Of course, a lot of these things should already be discussed with him well before any petition is submitted to the lodge anyway. If he’s making good efforts to “hang around” the brothers and getting to know each other, then the investigation should be more of a formality, mainly to see his family and get a feel for their support. That also brings up a point, don’t do the investigation at the lodge. Go to his home, meet the family, and get a vibe for his lifestyle. They are going to be part of this too.
>>>That also brings up a point, don’t do the investigation at the lodge. Go to his home, meet >>>the family, and get a vibe for his lifestyle. They are going to be part of this too.
Agreed. 100%. This is vitally important. The most important thing in my view.
We just initiated a new EA, who is 81 years old. His age isn’t the issue, the problem was that he was not asked the right questions. No one really told him about how much memorizing of the ritual is required, and he admitted that our meeting nights were a problem, yet this wasn’t brought up by anyone before voting. You try and put in place safeguards, and expect the investigation to be done, but in the end, the lodge isn’t doing enough to avoid this. In the end it’s my fault as WM, lessened learned.
Based on this thread, I'm thinking that it would be a really good idea for Lodges to have a discussion, in a Stated Meeting, or outside of it, about Investigation Committees. What their duties are, and how important they are.
At the risk of being tarred and feathered, I also believe that Lodges would benefit from discussions about dotage.
MW Brother, I appreciate this topic a lot. Sometimes it seems like in our desire to ensure our Lodges survival, things can get lost in the process. You raise an excellent point of consideration.
If we didn’t experience the proper methods, customs, and courtesies ourselves how do we ensure to apply them? If those processes are not known/understood to us.
It reminds me of my time in service where I was given a lengthy manual to read and memorize. Then at the end being told, “that’s not actually how it’s done”. Leading to a fair amount of confusion and uncertainty, often when it matters most.
>>>If we didn’t experience the proper methods, customs, and courtesies ourselves how do >>>we ensure to apply them? If those processes are not known/understood to us.
You raise an important point, and perhaps I can provide a meaningful answer. For the Jurisdiction of Washington anyway.
We have three 'books' that govern Masonry in its entirety here. Our Masonic Ritual, which lays out the teachings of our Craft. (although, of course, behind a veil) Our Masonic Code, which lays out the rules. And our Lodge Officer's Handbook, which lays out our generally accepted processes and procedures.
We also have a sort of training program that won't result in the successful student having all of that information memorized, but that will ensure that he knows where to look for it when he is faced with doing something that he's not done before, or encountering a situation he hasn't encountered before.
I assume, but don't know, that most Grand Lodge's are probably pretty similar in this.
Here we call it the PiLM. The Proficiency in Lodge Management program. I would highly recommend that all Masons go through it, although in practice, few do. I also think that our Lodges would be stronger if they adopted policies requiring that principle officers successfully take the PiLM before being elected to office.
In Washington this course is taken with the assistance of one's District Deputy, as part of it is self study, but part of it will require his testing.
It is also quite good for Lodge Retreats. Years ago, on one of my Lodge's retreats we sat down and all went through the first half of the PiLM together. We figured out how to gamify it somehow, so it was fun, but while having that fun, everyone learned a lot about how things are properly done.
As the newest instructor for the lodge leadership retreat last year, I took on the PiLM class as a challenge to revamp it from just a two hour proctoring session, into a class designed to explain what the PiLM is, why it’s important, who should complete it, and finally discuss which reference materials should be looked at and why, with some examples. The written test is an online, 100 question, open book multiple choice test that every question provides chapter and verse of where to find the answer. I can’t understand why we need to spend two hours demonstrating how to take the test when there are much more important topics we can be talking about. Folks need to be a little bit more self motivated to accomplish goals like that.
Sorry, rant over. I have heard a lot of push back from brothers wanting us to go back to the hand holding classes of old. Boggles my tiny brain.
I think that in some ways, it simply teaches a newer Mason entering a leadership role of some sort how to find the information that exists. But yeah, it certainly requires no study, simply a looking up of stuff. In the first part anyway.
The second part, the demonstration that one knows the Work certainly does require lots of study, but I think our Lodges are much better off if they are led by men who know the Work.
Ultimately though, I still remember when we gamified it on that Lodge retreat years ago. Because we took something dull and made it exciting, and of course exciting helps us to remember. And it was really easy to just take those questions and turn them into a 'game show' kind of thing.
When I've participated in investigations I'm always asking myself two questions: 1) Why does the inquirer desire to become a Mason, and 2) If he does, how will we be able to engage him in our work? Answering those two questions might take an hour of conversation on a multitude of different topics, but will serve our lodges well going forward.
There is no question that we need to guard the West Gate against those of unsavory character. And I very much like the questions of Brothers Nelson and Nielsen as germane to the Investigation Committee, as well as the observation that the Investigation Committee members need to be active in their duties. In addition to the background check, we should also take advantage of the observations of the Prospect Manager.
But, I remain somewhat a skeptic. Over the years I’ve witnessed a lot of change of attitude regarding membership and investigation. The one-day classes of 20 years ago almost bordered on recruitment, or dependent only on having a pulse, IMO. Now the pendulum has swung back. We require an absence of bad character, but what beyond that?
So here are my thoughts, for what they’re worth.
We expect the Candidate to ‘pass muster’, but what do we expect of the members of the Investigation Committee? It is vitally important that the Investigation Committee members fully understand their own importance, limitations and biases. Is each member open-minded, or does he have some personal agenda as to what a good Mason should be? Does the member have some need to ‘impress’ the candidate about his own Masonic history? Is the member himself well-grounded and knowledgeable about Masonic law, landmarks, customs and courtesies?
I’ve wondered if it would be of practical value as a guard to the West Gate, if each Candidate be proactively given a pamphlet of expected Masonic conduct – dos and dont’s. Maybe a blind and short synopsis of why Brothers were disciplined during the prior year would be helpful to the process.
And, I’ve wondered if maybe every Brother ought to be re-investigated, say every ten years. We require re-credentialing for many occupations. Are we making some progress and contributing to our Lodge, or are we simply a card-carrying member? (And maybe that’s OK.)
Lastly, when we vote, we are admonished to vote for the good of Masonry. I’d add that when we investigate, we should see the duty to investigate for the good of Masonry.
You raise some great points, Brother. I've been thinking about this topic since I myself went through the petitioning process earlier this year, and even more so since I've proceeded through the first two degrees.
It oftentimes appears that the whole process of evaluating prospects, and petitioners, is one-sided. What I mean, is the approach seems to be, "what does this individual offer us?" without much introspection on the part of the lodge. While that's not necessarily a bad thing, as it's often the case in most entrance evaluations in life (job interviews, professional networks, social clubs, etc), but there's also an opportunity to adopt a couple methods my employer implemented for their interviewing processes.
First, elimination of bias. Humans subconsciously fall victim to their own biases all the time. We see colors, or logos, or themes, and unintentionally respond either positively or negatively. Being conscious of that bias is critical to making an objective judgement whether a candidate is fitting for the role we're looking to fill. Second, is where the interviewer themselves stands. If we are to raise the bar with each new team member, we must approach the interview cycle objectively knowing where we ourselves stand in terms of ability and contribution.
Ensuring the brothers on the investigation committee are aware of their biases, and honest with themselves, and the lodge, about their own engagements, contributions, and value they themselves add to the lodge will at least give them a baseline off of which to operate from, objectively, during their investigations.
Unfortunately, there is no set of questions we could compile outside of teaching brothers social engineering tactics that would be able to truly reveal a candidate's intentions, aspirations, and limitations. However, we do have an opportunity for us to have open dialog that allows the candidate to feel safe in answering candidly, honestly, with the full depth of what they want to communicate through their words.
Thank you for this, I appreciate it. It does seem to me that you are certainly correct about bias and how that impacts things like an interview. I'm thinking that it might be very good for Lodges to practice their interview/investigative techniques, including ways to look past bias.
Agreed! Looking past one's bias is arguably the most difficult part in interview cycles. We already do well by having three brothers be part of the investigation committees -- that's a core tenant to reducing individual bias, but does little to counter group think.
One of the primary techniques we were taught is to actively evaluate our own responses to contextual information by how it makes us feel, what it makes us think, and as a result, forces us to be mindful of whether we're being swayed one way or another by the information we're receiving, and thus falling victim to our own biases. Part of our response techniques for that active evaluation is to ask further probing questions until it's no longer a matter us feeling one way or another, but having real information whereby we can say, "Due to factors [x,y,z], this individual has [not] provided satisfactory answers to prove they are the right person at this time."
Similar to how a set of detectives will keep asking the same questions, reworded, in the course of acquiring evidence to prove guilt -- we as interviewers should also do the same thing. If the only evidence we have to make a judgement is, "I feel [positively/neutral/negatively] about [this trait]," we didn't ask enough questions, or the right questions, and "I feel" statements tend to be loaded with bias.
I love the idea of practicing interviewing and investigative techniques! That's not only a valuable exercise for the Lodge, but for individual Brothers in their own professional lives. Eventually, almost everyone will end up on the other side of the table, and interviewing can be an incredibly uncomfortable experience if one has not spent much time in that seat. Another great way to make good men better!
>>>I love the idea of practicing interviewing and investigative techniques! >>>That's not only a valuable exercise for the Lodge, but for individual >>>Brothers in their own professional lives. Eventually, almost everyone will >>>end up on the other side of the table, and interviewing can be an incredibly >>>uncomfortable experience if one has not spent much time in that seat. >>>Another great way to make good men better!
I've thought about this quite a bit the past few days, and certainly think it is something we should do. I agree, it will be valuable in the Lodge, but outside of it as well.
You mention giving a Petitioner a pamphlet of expected Masonic conduct.
I like it, but I think I would want to take it a step further.
All of my life I've been a very avid reader of books. Four or five years ago, I decided that I should haul most of my books off to the Used Bookstore from time to time, lest I someday be crushed under the weight of them all when they eventually fell. But, before that, I never got rid of books. I'd keep them forever, overfilling the house, even the garage.
And, sometimes, someone would want to borrow a book from me.
I'd lend the book, but never be very happy about it, because I learned that more often than not, lent books don't seem to return.
And I think that's a pretty good measure of a man's character. Can he be trusted to return a borrowed book?
Some discussion here, years ago resulted in the idea of a Lodge buying a few copies of Freemasons for Dummies, loaning them to their serious prospects, and then seeing if the books return.
One Lodge in our Jurisdiction that I know of did adopt this idea, but I've not been back to ask how it has worked out.
Anyway, I think that is a good measure, but, I might put too much value on it given my feelings about books in general.
In my view, the most important thing is for the committee to meet the Petitioner in his home.
I am aware of three (undoubtedly there are a great many more, but I know a lot about three) investigations that went so horribly wrong that eventually the Grand Lodge had to get involved. The men who were given glowing recommendations from the committees in question were just that bad.
In two out of three of those cases, the committees would not have made the extraordinary errors that they did had they simply insisted on meeting the man in his home. The men's problems would have been instantly obvious.
So, that's what I think is most important. Meeting him in his home.
And indeed, in my Jurisdiction anyway, our procedures call for just that. It's written out in black and white that at least one member of the committee should be going over to the fellow's home.
But, this is ignored far too often. It was ignored in the botched investigation that I was a part of all those years ago. We've got to stop meeting in the Lodge building, or a coffee shop for convenience, and instead meet men (and their families) where they live.
In Florida, years ago, we on investigation committees were provided questions to ask. Of course, the first question is a confident reply that the potential candidate believes in a Supreme being. After nearly 30 years of investigations, my favorite question is, What is a good man? I call them early, days before interviewing them. I tell them to seriously ponder their answer. Their response has shown me the Mason they become. It is a great litmus test.
That is a really excellent question. Thank you Brother!
I remember years ago, I was sort of a 'tag along' on an investigation. One of the Brothers asked the obligatory supreme being question, and we got quite a speech in reply about why the man in question was an atheist. That was certainly unexpected!
In the Washington Grand Lodge Proceedings from 1859, there is an interesting report from MW Brother Alfred Martin from the Grand Lodge of North Carolina. Regarding a large acquisition of members into the order in their jurisdiction, the Grand Master, very justly fearing the evil consequences, wrote;
“I fear that an over anxiety on the part of many of our Lodges to increase their numbers, has induced them to receive applications without the rigid scrutiny into their character that a prudent regard for their own harmony and true prosperity, and the interest and honor of the Order requires. The numerous expulsions and suspensions annually reported, is melancholy evidence of this. You may rely upon it, brethren, we are in this way, gathering into the fold the very elements of our own destruction.
It is folly to flatter ourselves with the idea that we can relieve the Institution from the precarious consequences of such a course, by the expulsion of such as we may find unworthy. The poison once admitted, is diffused through the whole system; and though antidotes may be found against its effects, immediately fatal, we can never entirely eradicate it, or escape from its corroding influence. There is no man so vile, or in a position so degraded, but having once been admitted, can inflict a wound that will be, in some degree, injurious to the Order. The connection once established, he is armed with ten-fold more power for mischief to us, individually, and to our Institution. Our only safety, therefore, consists of guarding against hasty, inconsiderate, or indiscriminate admissions. It is not sufficient that we know nothing, or that we can hear of nothing, in the character of the applicant, to condemn; a negative character is no recommendation. We should know him sufficiently to have discovered some good, something to approve or admire. Men do not and cannot conceal all their virtues, or their good deeds; therefore, let them alone until you have discovered some good in them – some commendable virtue – that may, in some degree, compensate for whatever vices they may have succeeded in concealing from you.
It is far easier to prevent than to right a wrong,”
What stuck most with me is "The poison once admitted, is diffused through the whole system..."
A recent Past Master in Washington wrote some good words...
“If we hope to see Freemasonry survive and thrive, then we must always use great care when deciding who we let pass through our West Gate. Freemasonry is designed to be an elite institution, it has never been for every man, and it is not suitable for every man.
We owe it to ourselves, and our Fraternity, to ensure that only those who truly are good men, and who will be a credit to us are given the Degrees of Masonry.
When we are considering a man for Masonry, and given the election requirements we have, it truly is up to each of us to make the decision, we do well to think back to that time when we knelt at the altar and took our Obligations.
When we took those Obligations, we promised to bind ourselves to every other Mason in the world. We pledged to do certain things, if called upon to do them, for our fellow Masons.
We should ask ourselves when considering a man for Masonry, if we are comfortable giving our pledge to him, Obligating ourselves to him. We should ask if we believe that we can in turn rely upon him to fulfill his Obligation to us.
Freemasonry is a brotherhood. A legendary and factual brotherhood. We need to ask ourselves, is this man good enough for us to be proud to call him Brother. In today’s society many object to the very idea of judging others, or deciding if someone else is good enough or not, but Freemasonry is not a part of society. It stands apart from society, in its own sacred space. Freemasonry has never been for all men; it has always only been for those men judged to be good men. Good men who are striving to become even better men.
Before we vote to make a man a Mason, we should remember that he will be seen as a Mason by those who know him, by random strangers he encounters in his daily life, and in today’s world, online as well.
All those who see him will judge Freemasonry, and Masons, by what they see in him. Will the people who know him credit Freemasonry as an institution of importance and quality when they see that we have made him a Mason? Will the stranger who sees him out shopping, and notices his Masonic ring see someone who is a credit to the Fraternity? Will the things he posts online, and the way he posts them, leave a positive or negative impression of Freemasonry in the minds of those who read his posts?
The Masonic family encompasses youth groups, and Masons have families. Before you vote to make a man a Mason, you should seriously ask yourself, would you trust this man with your daughter? Your granddaughter? The young people in our youth groups?
The man who is recognized as a good man may serve as an inducement for other good men to consider Freemasonry for themselves. Through our long history how many men decided that they wanted to become Freemasons following the example of someone famous like Washington, Franklin, or John Wayne? Likewise, how many men decided that they wanted to become Freemasons not because of any famous Mason, but because of an unknown, but good man within their family or social circle? One need not be famous to exert an influence, if one is seen to be good?
Good men in our Fraternity attract men to our Fraternity. On the other hand, a single bad man, who is seen to be a Mason, will drive good men away in droves. Ask yourself, before you vote to make a man a Mason. Will those non-Masons who see this man be attracted towards Freemasonry or repelled from it? What kind of impression will he make on the non-Masons he encounters?
How many men have shied away from Freemasonry because they have encountered someone who they do not respect, and know him to be a Mason? Before we vote to make a man a Mason, we must ask ourselves if we believe this man can be respected by all.
Lots of Freemasons love to put Masonic stuff on their cars. Will the man we are considering for the Degrees of Masonry drive safely, or will hundreds of people see the Square and Compass flying by, driven by a man in a fit of road rage?
Lots of Freemasons love to participate on social media. Will the man before us reflect well upon our Fraternity in that online space, or will he be seen as an unthinking ass, a troll?
Lots of Freemasons wear Masonic rings, or other bling. Will the person who is truly in need see that Masonic ring and turn away indifferently, or will he or she see the hand reach out with some gesture of sympathy or offer of help? These are the kinds of questions that we must ask before we vote to make a man a Mason, if we hope to see Freemasonry thrive.
It is counterintuitive but true: Initiating all the men who want to join our Lodge, does not grow our Lodge. It shrinks our Lodge because those we Initiate who are unsuitable drive many others away.
Rejecting unsuitable petitioners grows our Lodge, because doing so helps to ensure that those who are allowed to become Masons are the kinds of men who attract others to our Ancient Craft.
I have said it before, I will say it again, Masonry needs a few men of excellence, it does not need large numbers of questionable men.”
There really should be a checklist. But in New York, we have the NorthStar program, where we have a checklist of things to go over and do before even giving them a petition. It gives clear mutual expectations andfilters out those who aren't a good fit.
In order of importance, "Do you believe in God" and "Why do you want to become a mason?" Those two questions, if properly discussed, should take an hour of interview time. Bonus question: "If your petition is approved, how do you see yourself participating in our lodge?"
In addition to the questions I would ask, "how much time are you willing to commit to Freemasonry." I also look around and see how he lives, can I tell what his interests are. Talk to his family and determine their enthusiasm for this decision.
I agree, it is really important to talk with a Petitioner's family.
I really like the third question, not just as a way of determining if he is fit to be made a Mason, but also because we can use it to help give him a great Lodge experience.
We might have a spot we need to fill in the line, say Chaplain, so when he becomes a Master Mason, we might stick him there, regardless of if he actually is interested in being a Chaplain. Or maybe it's a Temple Board we need to fill, or some particular committee.
Much better to find out what he wants to do, before he is ever a Mason, then ask him to do that.
Our Stated Communications always include two masonic papers and two musical pieces. We currently have three pianists, one concert celloist and one classical guitarist plus yours truly coordinating the meal for the Festive Board. We look for candidates that want to fill these positions that make our lodge meetings meaningful.
I might do OK delivering a paper, but I fear that my musical skills stopped growing somewhere around the Kazoo. 🤠
Brother Bailey, every member has a role to play. I may not be able to carry a tune, but I can certainly carry a dessert platter. Both tasks are required to make the evening memorable.
I think we all have a regret with regards to one of our investigations. One of my frustrations as a secretary was assigning brothers who failed to participate.
Agreed as well! If we are assigned, it becomes our duty to the Lodge to do it, and to do it properly. If we don't, our character is on the line.
What are top three questions that are seldom asked but should be asked?
What do you think Brother?
The question about how much time the candidate will have to spend on masonry is important but each man’s. Cable tow is different and fluid constantly changing since we wear many cable tows during different periods of our lives.
In my experience, you are certainly correct. There were a few years in my life when Freemasonry was almost the entirety of my (and my wife's) life. Other times when of necessity I had to step back a great deal. Demands on us, and our time, do seem ever changing.
In addition to the questions already mentioned, I have asked "Why do you think you would be a good Mason?" In otherwards, why should we invite you to join us?
I can see where that question could also shed some light on what he believes Freemasonry to be. I think that we often Initiate men who soon discover that Masonry isn't what they thought it would be. Maybe exploring what the Petitioner believes Masonry to be could help with that some.
My problem, having participated in quite a few investigations, is that by and large, whatever questions we ask, the candidate will generally tell us what we want to hear. I don’t think it’s malicious, they just want to present themselves in the most positive manner, much like a job interview. Questions like “do you have any problems memorizing things?” or “is weekly participation on such and such days going to be ok with you?” are always answered positively.
Of course, a lot of these things should already be discussed with him well before any petition is submitted to the lodge anyway. If he’s making good efforts to “hang around” the brothers and getting to know each other, then the investigation should be more of a formality, mainly to see his family and get a feel for their support. That also brings up a point, don’t do the investigation at the lodge. Go to his home, meet the family, and get a vibe for his lifestyle. They are going to be part of this too.
>>>That also brings up a point, don’t do the investigation at the lodge. Go to his home, meet >>>the family, and get a vibe for his lifestyle. They are going to be part of this too.
Agreed. 100%. This is vitally important. The most important thing in my view.
We just initiated a new EA, who is 81 years old. His age isn’t the issue, the problem was that he was not asked the right questions. No one really told him about how much memorizing of the ritual is required, and he admitted that our meeting nights were a problem, yet this wasn’t brought up by anyone before voting. You try and put in place safeguards, and expect the investigation to be done, but in the end, the lodge isn’t doing enough to avoid this. In the end it’s my fault as WM, lessened learned.
Based on this thread, I'm thinking that it would be a really good idea for Lodges to have a discussion, in a Stated Meeting, or outside of it, about Investigation Committees. What their duties are, and how important they are.
At the risk of being tarred and feathered, I also believe that Lodges would benefit from discussions about dotage.
MW Brother, I appreciate this topic a lot. Sometimes it seems like in our desire to ensure our Lodges survival, things can get lost in the process. You raise an excellent point of consideration.
If we didn’t experience the proper methods, customs, and courtesies ourselves how do we ensure to apply them? If those processes are not known/understood to us.
It reminds me of my time in service where I was given a lengthy manual to read and memorize. Then at the end being told, “that’s not actually how it’s done”. Leading to a fair amount of confusion and uncertainty, often when it matters most.
>>>If we didn’t experience the proper methods, customs, and courtesies ourselves how do >>>we ensure to apply them? If those processes are not known/understood to us.
You raise an important point, and perhaps I can provide a meaningful answer. For the Jurisdiction of Washington anyway.
We have three 'books' that govern Masonry in its entirety here. Our Masonic Ritual, which lays out the teachings of our Craft. (although, of course, behind a veil) Our Masonic Code, which lays out the rules. And our Lodge Officer's Handbook, which lays out our generally accepted processes and procedures.
We also have a sort of training program that won't result in the successful student having all of that information memorized, but that will ensure that he knows where to look for it when he is faced with doing something that he's not done before, or encountering a situation he hasn't encountered before.
I assume, but don't know, that most Grand Lodge's are probably pretty similar in this.
Here we call it the PiLM. The Proficiency in Lodge Management program. I would highly recommend that all Masons go through it, although in practice, few do. I also think that our Lodges would be stronger if they adopted policies requiring that principle officers successfully take the PiLM before being elected to office.
In Washington this course is taken with the assistance of one's District Deputy, as part of it is self study, but part of it will require his testing.
It is also quite good for Lodge Retreats. Years ago, on one of my Lodge's retreats we sat down and all went through the first half of the PiLM together. We figured out how to gamify it somehow, so it was fun, but while having that fun, everyone learned a lot about how things are properly done.
As the newest instructor for the lodge leadership retreat last year, I took on the PiLM class as a challenge to revamp it from just a two hour proctoring session, into a class designed to explain what the PiLM is, why it’s important, who should complete it, and finally discuss which reference materials should be looked at and why, with some examples. The written test is an online, 100 question, open book multiple choice test that every question provides chapter and verse of where to find the answer. I can’t understand why we need to spend two hours demonstrating how to take the test when there are much more important topics we can be talking about. Folks need to be a little bit more self motivated to accomplish goals like that.
Sorry, rant over. I have heard a lot of push back from brothers wanting us to go back to the hand holding classes of old. Boggles my tiny brain.
I think that in some ways, it simply teaches a newer Mason entering a leadership role of some sort how to find the information that exists. But yeah, it certainly requires no study, simply a looking up of stuff. In the first part anyway.
The second part, the demonstration that one knows the Work certainly does require lots of study, but I think our Lodges are much better off if they are led by men who know the Work.
Ultimately though, I still remember when we gamified it on that Lodge retreat years ago. Because we took something dull and made it exciting, and of course exciting helps us to remember. And it was really easy to just take those questions and turn them into a 'game show' kind of thing.
When I've participated in investigations I'm always asking myself two questions: 1) Why does the inquirer desire to become a Mason, and 2) If he does, how will we be able to engage him in our work? Answering those two questions might take an hour of conversation on a multitude of different topics, but will serve our lodges well going forward.
Both excellent questions. Thank you VW Brother!
There is no question that we need to guard the West Gate against those of unsavory character. And I very much like the questions of Brothers Nelson and Nielsen as germane to the Investigation Committee, as well as the observation that the Investigation Committee members need to be active in their duties. In addition to the background check, we should also take advantage of the observations of the Prospect Manager.
But, I remain somewhat a skeptic. Over the years I’ve witnessed a lot of change of attitude regarding membership and investigation. The one-day classes of 20 years ago almost bordered on recruitment, or dependent only on having a pulse, IMO. Now the pendulum has swung back. We require an absence of bad character, but what beyond that?
So here are my thoughts, for what they’re worth.
We expect the Candidate to ‘pass muster’, but what do we expect of the members of the Investigation Committee? It is vitally important that the Investigation Committee members fully understand their own importance, limitations and biases. Is each member open-minded, or does he have some personal agenda as to what a good Mason should be? Does the member have some need to ‘impress’ the candidate about his own Masonic history? Is the member himself well-grounded and knowledgeable about Masonic law, landmarks, customs and courtesies?
I’ve wondered if it would be of practical value as a guard to the West Gate, if each Candidate be proactively given a pamphlet of expected Masonic conduct – dos and dont’s. Maybe a blind and short synopsis of why Brothers were disciplined during the prior year would be helpful to the process.
And, I’ve wondered if maybe every Brother ought to be re-investigated, say every ten years. We require re-credentialing for many occupations. Are we making some progress and contributing to our Lodge, or are we simply a card-carrying member? (And maybe that’s OK.)
Lastly, when we vote, we are admonished to vote for the good of Masonry. I’d add that when we investigate, we should see the duty to investigate for the good of Masonry.
And sorry for the length Brothers! Sometimes I get carried away with things I care about!
The length is great! This is how we can learn from each other!
You raise some great points, Brother. I've been thinking about this topic since I myself went through the petitioning process earlier this year, and even more so since I've proceeded through the first two degrees.
It oftentimes appears that the whole process of evaluating prospects, and petitioners, is one-sided. What I mean, is the approach seems to be, "what does this individual offer us?" without much introspection on the part of the lodge. While that's not necessarily a bad thing, as it's often the case in most entrance evaluations in life (job interviews, professional networks, social clubs, etc), but there's also an opportunity to adopt a couple methods my employer implemented for their interviewing processes.
First, elimination of bias. Humans subconsciously fall victim to their own biases all the time. We see colors, or logos, or themes, and unintentionally respond either positively or negatively. Being conscious of that bias is critical to making an objective judgement whether a candidate is fitting for the role we're looking to fill. Second, is where the interviewer themselves stands. If we are to raise the bar with each new team member, we must approach the interview cycle objectively knowing where we ourselves stand in terms of ability and contribution.
Ensuring the brothers on the investigation committee are aware of their biases, and honest with themselves, and the lodge, about their own engagements, contributions, and value they themselves add to the lodge will at least give them a baseline off of which to operate from, objectively, during their investigations.
Unfortunately, there is no set of questions we could compile outside of teaching brothers social engineering tactics that would be able to truly reveal a candidate's intentions, aspirations, and limitations. However, we do have an opportunity for us to have open dialog that allows the candidate to feel safe in answering candidly, honestly, with the full depth of what they want to communicate through their words.
Thank you for this, I appreciate it. It does seem to me that you are certainly correct about bias and how that impacts things like an interview. I'm thinking that it might be very good for Lodges to practice their interview/investigative techniques, including ways to look past bias.
Agreed! Looking past one's bias is arguably the most difficult part in interview cycles. We already do well by having three brothers be part of the investigation committees -- that's a core tenant to reducing individual bias, but does little to counter group think.
One of the primary techniques we were taught is to actively evaluate our own responses to contextual information by how it makes us feel, what it makes us think, and as a result, forces us to be mindful of whether we're being swayed one way or another by the information we're receiving, and thus falling victim to our own biases. Part of our response techniques for that active evaluation is to ask further probing questions until it's no longer a matter us feeling one way or another, but having real information whereby we can say, "Due to factors [x,y,z], this individual has [not] provided satisfactory answers to prove they are the right person at this time."
Similar to how a set of detectives will keep asking the same questions, reworded, in the course of acquiring evidence to prove guilt -- we as interviewers should also do the same thing. If the only evidence we have to make a judgement is, "I feel [positively/neutral/negatively] about [this trait]," we didn't ask enough questions, or the right questions, and "I feel" statements tend to be loaded with bias.
I love the idea of practicing interviewing and investigative techniques! That's not only a valuable exercise for the Lodge, but for individual Brothers in their own professional lives. Eventually, almost everyone will end up on the other side of the table, and interviewing can be an incredibly uncomfortable experience if one has not spent much time in that seat. Another great way to make good men better!
>>>I love the idea of practicing interviewing and investigative techniques! >>>That's not only a valuable exercise for the Lodge, but for individual >>>Brothers in their own professional lives. Eventually, almost everyone will >>>end up on the other side of the table, and interviewing can be an incredibly >>>uncomfortable experience if one has not spent much time in that seat. >>>Another great way to make good men better!
I've thought about this quite a bit the past few days, and certainly think it is something we should do. I agree, it will be valuable in the Lodge, but outside of it as well.
You mention giving a Petitioner a pamphlet of expected Masonic conduct.
I like it, but I think I would want to take it a step further.
All of my life I've been a very avid reader of books. Four or five years ago, I decided that I should haul most of my books off to the Used Bookstore from time to time, lest I someday be crushed under the weight of them all when they eventually fell. But, before that, I never got rid of books. I'd keep them forever, overfilling the house, even the garage.
And, sometimes, someone would want to borrow a book from me.
I'd lend the book, but never be very happy about it, because I learned that more often than not, lent books don't seem to return.
And I think that's a pretty good measure of a man's character. Can he be trusted to return a borrowed book?
Some discussion here, years ago resulted in the idea of a Lodge buying a few copies of Freemasons for Dummies, loaning them to their serious prospects, and then seeing if the books return.
One Lodge in our Jurisdiction that I know of did adopt this idea, but I've not been back to ask how it has worked out.
Anyway, I think that is a good measure, but, I might put too much value on it given my feelings about books in general.
My own thoughts, for your consideration:
In my view, the most important thing is for the committee to meet the Petitioner in his home.
I am aware of three (undoubtedly there are a great many more, but I know a lot about three) investigations that went so horribly wrong that eventually the Grand Lodge had to get involved. The men who were given glowing recommendations from the committees in question were just that bad.
In two out of three of those cases, the committees would not have made the extraordinary errors that they did had they simply insisted on meeting the man in his home. The men's problems would have been instantly obvious.
So, that's what I think is most important. Meeting him in his home.
And indeed, in my Jurisdiction anyway, our procedures call for just that. It's written out in black and white that at least one member of the committee should be going over to the fellow's home.
But, this is ignored far too often. It was ignored in the botched investigation that I was a part of all those years ago. We've got to stop meeting in the Lodge building, or a coffee shop for convenience, and instead meet men (and their families) where they live.
Bro. Cam,
In Florida, years ago, we on investigation committees were provided questions to ask. Of course, the first question is a confident reply that the potential candidate believes in a Supreme being. After nearly 30 years of investigations, my favorite question is, What is a good man? I call them early, days before interviewing them. I tell them to seriously ponder their answer. Their response has shown me the Mason they become. It is a great litmus test.
That is a really excellent question. Thank you Brother!
I remember years ago, I was sort of a 'tag along' on an investigation. One of the Brothers asked the obligatory supreme being question, and we got quite a speech in reply about why the man in question was an atheist. That was certainly unexpected!
In the Washington Grand Lodge Proceedings from 1859, there is an interesting report from MW Brother Alfred Martin from the Grand Lodge of North Carolina. Regarding a large acquisition of members into the order in their jurisdiction, the Grand Master, very justly fearing the evil consequences, wrote;
“I fear that an over anxiety on the part of many of our Lodges to increase their numbers, has induced them to receive applications without the rigid scrutiny into their character that a prudent regard for their own harmony and true prosperity, and the interest and honor of the Order requires. The numerous expulsions and suspensions annually reported, is melancholy evidence of this. You may rely upon it, brethren, we are in this way, gathering into the fold the very elements of our own destruction.
It is folly to flatter ourselves with the idea that we can relieve the Institution from the precarious consequences of such a course, by the expulsion of such as we may find unworthy. The poison once admitted, is diffused through the whole system; and though antidotes may be found against its effects, immediately fatal, we can never entirely eradicate it, or escape from its corroding influence. There is no man so vile, or in a position so degraded, but having once been admitted, can inflict a wound that will be, in some degree, injurious to the Order. The connection once established, he is armed with ten-fold more power for mischief to us, individually, and to our Institution. Our only safety, therefore, consists of guarding against hasty, inconsiderate, or indiscriminate admissions. It is not sufficient that we know nothing, or that we can hear of nothing, in the character of the applicant, to condemn; a negative character is no recommendation. We should know him sufficiently to have discovered some good, something to approve or admire. Men do not and cannot conceal all their virtues, or their good deeds; therefore, let them alone until you have discovered some good in them – some commendable virtue – that may, in some degree, compensate for whatever vices they may have succeeded in concealing from you.
It is far easier to prevent than to right a wrong,”
What stuck most with me is "The poison once admitted, is diffused through the whole system..."
Thank you for sharing this Brother! It is a really solid message, delivered by a truly wonderful pen!
This line:
>>>You may rely upon it, brethren, we are in this way, gathering into the fold the very >>>elements of our own destruction.
Really speaks to me, and the truth of the one you point out is undeniable.
A recent Past Master in Washington wrote some good words...
“If we hope to see Freemasonry survive and thrive, then we must always use great care when deciding who we let pass through our West Gate. Freemasonry is designed to be an elite institution, it has never been for every man, and it is not suitable for every man.
We owe it to ourselves, and our Fraternity, to ensure that only those who truly are good men, and who will be a credit to us are given the Degrees of Masonry.
When we are considering a man for Masonry, and given the election requirements we have, it truly is up to each of us to make the decision, we do well to think back to that time when we knelt at the altar and took our Obligations.
When we took those Obligations, we promised to bind ourselves to every other Mason in the world. We pledged to do certain things, if called upon to do them, for our fellow Masons.
We should ask ourselves when considering a man for Masonry, if we are comfortable giving our pledge to him, Obligating ourselves to him. We should ask if we believe that we can in turn rely upon him to fulfill his Obligation to us.
Freemasonry is a brotherhood. A legendary and factual brotherhood. We need to ask ourselves, is this man good enough for us to be proud to call him Brother. In today’s society many object to the very idea of judging others, or deciding if someone else is good enough or not, but Freemasonry is not a part of society. It stands apart from society, in its own sacred space. Freemasonry has never been for all men; it has always only been for those men judged to be good men. Good men who are striving to become even better men.
Before we vote to make a man a Mason, we should remember that he will be seen as a Mason by those who know him, by random strangers he encounters in his daily life, and in today’s world, online as well.
All those who see him will judge Freemasonry, and Masons, by what they see in him. Will the people who know him credit Freemasonry as an institution of importance and quality when they see that we have made him a Mason? Will the stranger who sees him out shopping, and notices his Masonic ring see someone who is a credit to the Fraternity? Will the things he posts online, and the way he posts them, leave a positive or negative impression of Freemasonry in the minds of those who read his posts?
The Masonic family encompasses youth groups, and Masons have families. Before you vote to make a man a Mason, you should seriously ask yourself, would you trust this man with your daughter? Your granddaughter? The young people in our youth groups?
The man who is recognized as a good man may serve as an inducement for other good men to consider Freemasonry for themselves. Through our long history how many men decided that they wanted to become Freemasons following the example of someone famous like Washington, Franklin, or John Wayne? Likewise, how many men decided that they wanted to become Freemasons not because of any famous Mason, but because of an unknown, but good man within their family or social circle? One need not be famous to exert an influence, if one is seen to be good?
Good men in our Fraternity attract men to our Fraternity. On the other hand, a single bad man, who is seen to be a Mason, will drive good men away in droves. Ask yourself, before you vote to make a man a Mason. Will those non-Masons who see this man be attracted towards Freemasonry or repelled from it? What kind of impression will he make on the non-Masons he encounters?
How many men have shied away from Freemasonry because they have encountered someone who they do not respect, and know him to be a Mason? Before we vote to make a man a Mason, we must ask ourselves if we believe this man can be respected by all.
Lots of Freemasons love to put Masonic stuff on their cars. Will the man we are considering for the Degrees of Masonry drive safely, or will hundreds of people see the Square and Compass flying by, driven by a man in a fit of road rage?
Lots of Freemasons love to participate on social media. Will the man before us reflect well upon our Fraternity in that online space, or will he be seen as an unthinking ass, a troll?
Lots of Freemasons wear Masonic rings, or other bling. Will the person who is truly in need see that Masonic ring and turn away indifferently, or will he or she see the hand reach out with some gesture of sympathy or offer of help? These are the kinds of questions that we must ask before we vote to make a man a Mason, if we hope to see Freemasonry thrive.
It is counterintuitive but true: Initiating all the men who want to join our Lodge, does not grow our Lodge. It shrinks our Lodge because those we Initiate who are unsuitable drive many others away.
Rejecting unsuitable petitioners grows our Lodge, because doing so helps to ensure that those who are allowed to become Masons are the kinds of men who attract others to our Ancient Craft.
I have said it before, I will say it again, Masonry needs a few men of excellence, it does not need large numbers of questionable men.”
Ah, I'm not too sure about that guy... 🤠
There really should be a checklist. But in New York, we have the NorthStar program, where we have a checklist of things to go over and do before even giving them a petition. It gives clear mutual expectations andfilters out those who aren't a good fit.
We have something quite similar here, but while all Lodges seem to pay lip service to it, much fewer seem to actually consistently use it.