Through the years we’ve talked a lot here on Emeth about the need to guard the West Gate with great care. Indeed, doing so is the only way we can ensure a thriving future for our Ancient Craft.
Last night, on Rummer & Grapes we heard a way of considering the potential candidate. To look at him as a Rough Ashlar in the quarry. And, while looking, deciding if he has the potential to become a Perfect Ashlar.
But to do these things, we have to develop a skill. We have to be able to separate the good from the bad.
To answer this question one needs to be the Oracle of Delphi. How do we define "good or bad"? What qualities make up such a judgment call? One person may see a characteristic as "bad" and another "good" depending on their partisan or philosophical point of view. For example, one member may be a strict Article 2 gun-toter while another may be totally anti-gun. How does each characterize a prospect who believes in open carry?
I think the question comes down to "what is his "intent" for wanting to join," "how does he "fit" with our particular lodge," "do we get the feeling that he is sincere in wanting to "grow his own capabilities and learn to become a better man.""
To know what is good or bad is the skill the Master Mason. The ritual teach us to distinguish one from the other and that is why in the third degree the Master is risen, otherwise it would have stayed in the "grave".
The tool to know this is the tool that was given to us since the very beginning, the gavel. But how? We knock.
To know the integrity of any material the ancient technique was to hammer said piece and listen to the sound it gave. Depending of that sound the quality of the material is established and therefore we can determined if it useful or not.
How can we translate that to our world? That easy, I have some good Brothers at my lodge and also have some good friends that are not Masons but these ones are not masonic material, is not their time yet.
To know that is necessary to go back to our roots, to the first degree and sit down and just listen.
While it’s not possible to truly see into the heart of a man, the six step process our jurisdiction has adopted is vastly better than the “investigation” conducted by three brothers. I’ve attended several investigations where the candidate voiced all the right words with enthusiasm but then withered on the vine. The six step program gives us a much better opportunity to get to know the candidate and his aspirations.
Men seeking to join our fraternity will tell everyone just what they want to hear.
I remember one man who when asked if our scheduled meeting times would be ok said "oh, absolutely". After initiation it turns out no, he always flew up to Canada every Friday. We never saw him again. Just as well, he probably was just joining to network for his business.
For the embezzler down in Vancouver, everyone loved the guy. Was considered a great mason. Up until they found he had stolen almost a million dollars from the lodges.
Closer to home, we had a long time master mason, had been worshipful master of the lodge multiple times. Was heavily involved with the youth groups. I personally looked up to him as a mason's mason. Until he was caught in a pedophile sting operation.
You can't know. A lot of times, until it's too late. Bad people have a lifetime of experience fooling others.
Following my relocation to Michigan, I began looking into a dual membership with a Michigan lodge. Fortunately, my new hometown had a Masonic lodge that I contacted about membership. A schedule was set where the examination committee would come to my home. They said to allow about an hour. After checking my dues card, I was asked to state the Tyler's Oath. For the next 30 minutes, we engaged in a friendly conversation about my military service, job experience, and what brought me into Freemasonry. I assume that during our conversation, the brothers were silently evaluating my home to establish my bona fides. The interview must have done well as I was welcomed to become a member. While I decided against a dual membership, I became a welcomed visitor, including participating in degree work, when time permitted.
Although the basic minimum is accepting a good man to make better, one of the first things that has to happen is we need to ask questions and have conversations that go well beyond the scripted questions on the petition. We then need to be more strict in the adherence of the 6 Step program or whatever program your jurisdiction uses. In AZ a man that wants to petition a lodge must participate in lodge functions for six months prior to a petition being accepted (three months if he’s a legacy of a known member). The potential candidate comes for dinner and interacts with the different brothers. During lodge, one of the brothers sits out and has an educational time with the man/men. This gives the lodge an opportunity to get to know the man and the man get to know if the lodge will be a good fit for him.
Indeed we must develop a skill. The skill must be nobler than our belief in Faith in the Grand Architect of the Universe, so we can go beyond, "Making Good Men Better", if that is what we want to do. Otherwise I don't think we have a clue if what a bad man is nor a man whom is no good rather we shall be inclined to the Craft & the working tools of the 2nd Degree under which a Rough Ashlar is made into a Perfect Ashlar as an Entered Apprentice. The Lodge must examine its' entire self. This eludes to the Hoodwink, and also the Cable Tow; the Hoodwink prevents a man of our interest from being guilty Fraternally, and the Cable Tow prevents us from visiting sorts of doubt about our gentle Craft rather sets our attention where it is best as you point out that some men are no good.
I think that one of the best things about Freemasonry is its glacial speed of change.
But, one of the worst things about Freemasonry is its glacial speed of change.
My great-great grandparents moved to Snohomish WA in 1890, and my great grandfather bought a farm. My grandparents stayed on that farm, their children stayed on that farm, and better than half of my siblings and cousins remain there today.
My mother's family was much the same, they came after WWI, and largely stayed in Snohomish, at least until my generation.
But now, we scatter. My generation scatters for employment or whatever. The generations after me scatter even more, for similar reasons.
My point is that when I became a Mason, not in Snohomish proper, but in the next town, it would have been really easy for the Lodge to know who I was. I'd lived in the same place for the majority of my life, as had my father, his father, his father, and his father. Somebody knew me, or knew someone who knew me, good and bad, for my life.
That made the investigation easy. Someone would have known if I had done bad things.
But, now it isn't that way. People move around for opportunities. People don't know their neighbors like they used to. Rural populations are rapidly urbanizing.
That makes investigations much more difficult.
Because of that, if we want to weed out bad men, we have to work a heck of a lot harder on our investigations than we ever had to do in the past. Not because there are more bad men, or because the bad men are worse than they were in the past, but because the bad men, like the good men, do not have community reputations like they did in the past.
Getting to know them, and getting to know them well, before we ever accept a petition is I think the only way that we can approach having the information about their character that we had a few decades ago.
As many have expressed, it's really hard to know. I'd say we do have some tools we could use. 1-the six step program is good. 2- a Background check, with the fore knowledge of the candidate. 3- a probationary period before the degrees are given, and sadly 4- low tolerance for bad conduct of initiated Masons. That last one may seem a little like closing the barn door after the horse is gone, but if we get a reputation for demanding 'good' behavior then we might prevent some from applying who should not. Philosophically, we need to decide what 'good' means, bad is everything else. Exploring issues of morality and ethics would be a good regular topic of Lodge meetings, and that might help brethren get on the same page.
In the 1859 Washington Grand Lodge Proceedings, and at a period when there was an increase in membership after the Morgan Affair, there is an interesting report from MW Alfred Martin from the Grand Lodge of North Carolina. - In regard to a large acquisition of members to the order in that jurisdiction wrote:
I fear that an over anxiety on the part of many of our Lodges to increase their numbers, has induced them to receive application 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 a 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.
With out being overly verbose: The bad man, in my opinion, is someone who is unyieldingly dogmatic, obsessively self-centered, and indifferent to the harm they cause to others. He is the narcissist, vain, materialistic and vulgar. He uses people. The good man in contrast, is open-minded, compassionate, acts with integrity, always considering the impact of his actions on others and the world around him selfless, supportive and a doer. He builds and adds to those around him. IMHO..
I thought long and hard about this. I have been a Mason a long time and have belonged to and visited Masonic lodges near and far. Being a microcosm of society some of our members will be bad guys. Legs Diamond was a Brother in NY. Many of our founders were revolutionaries who if they lost would have been hanged as blackguarded traitors. They won so they got to be heroes. Were they bad men? Were they bad Masons? Of course I say hero because I would have rode with them if I was around. As for bad Masons I have noted a few, they are Masons as a strategy so they can be somebody or thought to be a good guy or gain something. I tell you good guys are cannon fodder for such people. There was a time a Brother could toss his wallet on the floor of the lodge and forget about. Someone would pick it up and return it him or he would come back find where he left it. Today I think not. A Brother might get it back after everything in had been examined and held for future exploitation. I hope this doesn't make me a bad Mason for saying so. But I think some packages need to checked. How about a guy who went as so far as to fake bank statements for audits while ripping off his lodge? That is way bad. One tries ones best. Be excellent to each other!
To answer this question one needs to be the Oracle of Delphi. How do we define "good or bad"? What qualities make up such a judgment call? One person may see a characteristic as "bad" and another "good" depending on their partisan or philosophical point of view. For example, one member may be a strict Article 2 gun-toter while another may be totally anti-gun. How does each characterize a prospect who believes in open carry?
I think the question comes down to "what is his "intent" for wanting to join," "how does he "fit" with our particular lodge," "do we get the feeling that he is sincere in wanting to "grow his own capabilities and learn to become a better man.""
To know what is good or bad is the skill the Master Mason. The ritual teach us to distinguish one from the other and that is why in the third degree the Master is risen, otherwise it would have stayed in the "grave".
The tool to know this is the tool that was given to us since the very beginning, the gavel. But how? We knock.
To know the integrity of any material the ancient technique was to hammer said piece and listen to the sound it gave. Depending of that sound the quality of the material is established and therefore we can determined if it useful or not.
How can we translate that to our world? That easy, I have some good Brothers at my lodge and also have some good friends that are not Masons but these ones are not masonic material, is not their time yet.
To know that is necessary to go back to our roots, to the first degree and sit down and just listen.
While it’s not possible to truly see into the heart of a man, the six step process our jurisdiction has adopted is vastly better than the “investigation” conducted by three brothers. I’ve attended several investigations where the candidate voiced all the right words with enthusiasm but then withered on the vine. The six step program gives us a much better opportunity to get to know the candidate and his aspirations.
Men seeking to join our fraternity will tell everyone just what they want to hear.
I remember one man who when asked if our scheduled meeting times would be ok said "oh, absolutely". After initiation it turns out no, he always flew up to Canada every Friday. We never saw him again. Just as well, he probably was just joining to network for his business.
For the embezzler down in Vancouver, everyone loved the guy. Was considered a great mason. Up until they found he had stolen almost a million dollars from the lodges.
Closer to home, we had a long time master mason, had been worshipful master of the lodge multiple times. Was heavily involved with the youth groups. I personally looked up to him as a mason's mason. Until he was caught in a pedophile sting operation.
You can't know. A lot of times, until it's too late. Bad people have a lifetime of experience fooling others.
It’s a two part question, as the answers above show.
So how do we:
Tell if a man is no good?
- before he joins
- after he joins
Following my relocation to Michigan, I began looking into a dual membership with a Michigan lodge. Fortunately, my new hometown had a Masonic lodge that I contacted about membership. A schedule was set where the examination committee would come to my home. They said to allow about an hour. After checking my dues card, I was asked to state the Tyler's Oath. For the next 30 minutes, we engaged in a friendly conversation about my military service, job experience, and what brought me into Freemasonry. I assume that during our conversation, the brothers were silently evaluating my home to establish my bona fides. The interview must have done well as I was welcomed to become a member. While I decided against a dual membership, I became a welcomed visitor, including participating in degree work, when time permitted.
Although the basic minimum is accepting a good man to make better, one of the first things that has to happen is we need to ask questions and have conversations that go well beyond the scripted questions on the petition. We then need to be more strict in the adherence of the 6 Step program or whatever program your jurisdiction uses. In AZ a man that wants to petition a lodge must participate in lodge functions for six months prior to a petition being accepted (three months if he’s a legacy of a known member). The potential candidate comes for dinner and interacts with the different brothers. During lodge, one of the brothers sits out and has an educational time with the man/men. This gives the lodge an opportunity to get to know the man and the man get to know if the lodge will be a good fit for him.
Indeed we must develop a skill. The skill must be nobler than our belief in Faith in the Grand Architect of the Universe, so we can go beyond, "Making Good Men Better", if that is what we want to do. Otherwise I don't think we have a clue if what a bad man is nor a man whom is no good rather we shall be inclined to the Craft & the working tools of the 2nd Degree under which a Rough Ashlar is made into a Perfect Ashlar as an Entered Apprentice. The Lodge must examine its' entire self. This eludes to the Hoodwink, and also the Cable Tow; the Hoodwink prevents a man of our interest from being guilty Fraternally, and the Cable Tow prevents us from visiting sorts of doubt about our gentle Craft rather sets our attention where it is best as you point out that some men are no good.
I think that one of the best things about Freemasonry is its glacial speed of change.
But, one of the worst things about Freemasonry is its glacial speed of change.
My great-great grandparents moved to Snohomish WA in 1890, and my great grandfather bought a farm. My grandparents stayed on that farm, their children stayed on that farm, and better than half of my siblings and cousins remain there today.
My mother's family was much the same, they came after WWI, and largely stayed in Snohomish, at least until my generation.
But now, we scatter. My generation scatters for employment or whatever. The generations after me scatter even more, for similar reasons.
My point is that when I became a Mason, not in Snohomish proper, but in the next town, it would have been really easy for the Lodge to know who I was. I'd lived in the same place for the majority of my life, as had my father, his father, his father, and his father. Somebody knew me, or knew someone who knew me, good and bad, for my life.
That made the investigation easy. Someone would have known if I had done bad things.
But, now it isn't that way. People move around for opportunities. People don't know their neighbors like they used to. Rural populations are rapidly urbanizing.
That makes investigations much more difficult.
Because of that, if we want to weed out bad men, we have to work a heck of a lot harder on our investigations than we ever had to do in the past. Not because there are more bad men, or because the bad men are worse than they were in the past, but because the bad men, like the good men, do not have community reputations like they did in the past.
Getting to know them, and getting to know them well, before we ever accept a petition is I think the only way that we can approach having the information about their character that we had a few decades ago.
As many have expressed, it's really hard to know. I'd say we do have some tools we could use. 1-the six step program is good. 2- a Background check, with the fore knowledge of the candidate. 3- a probationary period before the degrees are given, and sadly 4- low tolerance for bad conduct of initiated Masons. That last one may seem a little like closing the barn door after the horse is gone, but if we get a reputation for demanding 'good' behavior then we might prevent some from applying who should not. Philosophically, we need to decide what 'good' means, bad is everything else. Exploring issues of morality and ethics would be a good regular topic of Lodge meetings, and that might help brethren get on the same page.
In the 1859 Washington Grand Lodge Proceedings, and at a period when there was an increase in membership after the Morgan Affair, there is an interesting report from MW Alfred Martin from the Grand Lodge of North Carolina. - In regard to a large acquisition of members to the order in that jurisdiction wrote:
I fear that an over anxiety on the part of many of our Lodges to increase their numbers, has induced them to receive application 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 a 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.
With out being overly verbose: The bad man, in my opinion, is someone who is unyieldingly dogmatic, obsessively self-centered, and indifferent to the harm they cause to others. He is the narcissist, vain, materialistic and vulgar. He uses people. The good man in contrast, is open-minded, compassionate, acts with integrity, always considering the impact of his actions on others and the world around him selfless, supportive and a doer. He builds and adds to those around him. IMHO..
I thought long and hard about this. I have been a Mason a long time and have belonged to and visited Masonic lodges near and far. Being a microcosm of society some of our members will be bad guys. Legs Diamond was a Brother in NY. Many of our founders were revolutionaries who if they lost would have been hanged as blackguarded traitors. They won so they got to be heroes. Were they bad men? Were they bad Masons? Of course I say hero because I would have rode with them if I was around. As for bad Masons I have noted a few, they are Masons as a strategy so they can be somebody or thought to be a good guy or gain something. I tell you good guys are cannon fodder for such people. There was a time a Brother could toss his wallet on the floor of the lodge and forget about. Someone would pick it up and return it him or he would come back find where he left it. Today I think not. A Brother might get it back after everything in had been examined and held for future exploitation. I hope this doesn't make me a bad Mason for saying so. But I think some packages need to checked. How about a guy who went as so far as to fake bank statements for audits while ripping off his lodge? That is way bad. One tries ones best. Be excellent to each other!