Rough Ashlar No. 2

Doubtlessly those of our brethren resistant to the idea that working on the rough ashlar means changing that with which one is comfortable, will accuse me of being unjustly critical of the status quo. I thank them for the complement. I am simply noting the truth. If someone doesn't find the truth comfortable, change it.

With that advice in mind, I will from time to time present a rough ashlar. A rough ashlar is a pithy fact that points out where we, as masons, need to do as we say, rather than as we do. I think that is self explanatory.  These may be observations of my own, or quotes of others. Either way, they represent a specific aspect of our experience which needs improvement. That is after all, what we are supposed to be about, is it not?

Masonic Landmarks and Regularity

"Of the ancient landmarks it has been observed with more or less foundation of truth: 'Nobody knows what they comprise or omit as they are of no earthly authority, because everything is a landmark when an opponent desires to silence you; but nothing is a landmark that stands in his own way." 

- Robert Freke Gould (1836-1915)

"However, it is sad to see men of enlightened reason, who should no longer be swayed by prejudice, indulge their passions and blindingly behave as sectarian clerics."

- Gerard Encausse (Papus) (1865-1916)

As I have noted elsewhere not so long ago, the only "Regular" mason is one who uses Exlax. The idea of regularity as used by masonic jurisdictions is so unmasonic as to be laughable. Or, it would be laughable if it hadn't been used since that non-event, the foundation of the Grand Lodge in London in  1717, to commit immeasurable harm to many sincere brothers and sisters. Every so often, an idea is just so bad it deserves to be ridiculed, and "regularity" is one of those ideas.

Regularity is supposedly based upon two factors. The first is that the masonic institution in question was founded in a correct way by a similarly correctly founded institution which preceded it or exists above it in hierarchy. The second factor which speaks to the maintenance of regularity after it is established is grounded upon faithfully maintaining the landmarks of Freemasonry.

There are two problems with this concept and the way it might play out. The first is that as noted by Gould in the quote above,  landmarks are about as slippery as a pig in mud, not to mention about as clear. They are in short, a fraud. I know, I know, this amounts to sacrilege; except, I thought Freemasonry wasn't a religion. Everyone knows the truth and nobody wishes to speak it. It is the 3 ton elephant in the room. Landmarks are dragged out for three things - to write pieces of architecture for lodge, to impress potential candidates with what a tradition bound and hoary institution Freemasonry is, and the most common use, to charge some other mason or masonic body with being irregular. Since nobody really cares about the first two, it must be that the main purpose of landmarks, is as Gould said, to deprecate our competition.

The other big problem, as I see it, with regularity, is that the least regular of the masonic organizations make the loudest claims about being regular. Let's draw back the curtain fully for a minute and let the light of day stream in. I know, that's unmasonic, but let's do it for a minute. We can all deny it ever happened afterwards and strike it from the minutes. 

If we seek more light, something which it seems, most masons prefer to talk about rather than do, we will have to admit that there is no substantive evidence, apart from the word of a man known to fabricate falsehoods professionally some 25 years after the purported event, that the convocation of the first Grand Lodge in 1717 ever took place. There are no minutes, no official documents, no charters... nothing. OK, that strips the Blue lodge of regularity. Now, if we look at the Scottish Rite, apart from the fact that it is generally acknowledged that the Morin Rite upon which the Modern Scottish Rite was founded was an invention by Morin himself, there is a small matter of the falsehood, broadly hinted at by Pike himself eventually, of the supposed charter issued by Frederick. It was a fake. And it would appear, Pike entered the Scottish Rite under a Cerneau initiation. Further examples of "irregularity." 

Isn't it really high time, that along with bigotry, racism, sexism, and general pomposity, we ditch regularity and show that we are adult enough to not call each other names? Heck, even the Pope is able to break bread with the Archbishop of Canterbury. 

Freemasonry in the Academic Perspective

The informed modern mason, and at least a few among the more progressive leaders in Mainstream Masonry in the US, and elsewhere, are aware of the steady advances that have been made in the academic study of the fraternity over the past decade. This renewed attention must be viewed as positive, in that it will greatly increase the quality and depth of scholarship on the history of Freemasonry and its impact on civil society since its inception. Nobody can deny that Freemasonry has had a profound impact upon the modern world, and it did not have that effect by remaining apart from the world.

Academic attention will among other things help to marginalize the conspiracy devotees. Of course, another change it brings with it, is the need to address a number of unfortunate perspectives which have been allowed to become commonplace among some sectors of the Masonic world. This will require some maturation and change if not in private opinion, then at least in public discourse. A new civility must of necessity be embraced in the conversation between the varying masonic institutions which up to now has left much to be desired. This should be sought and supported at the highest levels, demonstrating to the rank and file that fraternity, even in the absence of visitation, can and should be adopted in our conversations. That is the most basic of beginnings.

While I could say more about this, nothing I could write would state these issues and the academic perspective that all of Freemasonry will have to learn to live with if not to wholeheartedly embrace, more succinctly than these words from Jan A M Snoek's preface to his most recent work, which follows. It gives much for Freemasons of every obedience to consider.


"Much has changed since in 1986 John Hamill showed that the hitherto generally accepted theory about the origin and early history of Freemasonry, first formulated by such scholars as Gould in the 1880s, could not be maintained when the facts available were analysed anew from a modern scholarly perspective. Since then, scholars have rediscovered the archives and found many documents which had previously been overlooked, or the significance of which had not been understood. This has led to important new insights, often radically contradictory to those which had been previously assumed. Generally, we now tend to assume that the so called speculative form of freemasonry-the 'speculating' (philosophising) about possible symbolical interpretations of the working tools of a freestone mason, of his 'craft' in general, of what he is working at, etc.-was part and parcel of the training of craftsmen, long before the so called 'Premier Grand Lodge' was formed in 1717, and even before the Schaw Statutes were written in 1598 and 1599. Thus, what changed in the early 18th century was not that 'gentlemen masons' introduced this aspect, but rather that fewer and fewer craftsmen were members of the lodges, so that the 'operative' aspect was gradually lost. Also, there never existed a fixed form of what 'true' or 'authentic' freemasonry once was. Rather, it constantly developed and develops, changing its form all the time, in different ways in different times and places, sometimes very radically. Finally, from a scholarly perspective, there never existed 'bad', 'deviant' forms of freemasonry (as in the past such systems as Cagliostro's 'Egyptian Rite', Von Hund's 'Strict Observance' and Weishaupt's 'Illuminati' have been qualified), but just forms which were successful and those which were not (which is not necessarily a criterion of quality, measured according to ritual theories)."


"Also, the number of scholars-historians and sociologists, mainly-who are not freemasons but are nevertheless of the opinion that freemasonry had such an impact on the development of the Western culture, that this development cannot be understood without paying due attention to the role of freemasonry, has increased significantly. As a result, the study of freemasonry has become part and parcel of the academic enterprise, even creating a few chairs and institutes dedicated to the subject. Today, scholars who are also freemasons, and those who are not, cooperate harmoniously and critically in mutually complementing ways. With the exception of France, this development has so far given rise to very few new books about freemasonry, written from the new perspective. This is the case for nearly all aspects of freemasonry which have been or should be investigated, including the relationship between women and freemasonry, which has been traditionally regarded as a purely male phenomenon. Significant research in this area has been done over the past two decades, again, especially in France. But very little of the new insights have been made available in English."

                                                                   — Link to Jan A M Snoek's latest book with Brill


We must be prepared for the inevitability that this research and these perspectives will be and indeed are beginning to be discussed among anglophone academics in the United States and elsewhere. The impact will begin very soon to be felt in the anglophone Masonic world.

Let us hope that we can learn to embrace a new search for common ground.