Rough Ashlar No. 22: Sins of the Fathers

What's in a word? How do we parse our meanings and our language when we discuss matters Masonic? I find it fascinating how brethren in some obediences, mostly those with ties to the UGLE, but not exclusively, use certain highly charged and judgmental terminology to characterize other paths within Freemasonry, always to describe those Masonic obediences which they feel themselves to be in competition with or which they find intellectually threatening.

Inevitably, when it is pointed out that the terms they are using are offensive, they quickly point to the fact that their obedience, or Grand Lodge, or some Masonic Writer 150 years ago defined the term as they use it, to assert it is correct usage. None of that of course, in any way negates the fact that the terms are offensive. What they conveniently avoid stating, although often their attitude and statements make this clear, is that they were intended to be derogatory when they were coined, and are used in that manner today. The intent then was to discredit other varieties of Freemasonry, and claim sole authority for themselves.  The intent today is to defend what they were taught, because they are usually shocked when anyone contests the legitimacy of such views. It is even more troubling when these people do not behave otherwise like low lifes and have both documentation and educated commentary to back up their statements.

Freemasonry, like almost all other human traditions, is nuanced and multifaceted. It is never monolithic, although there are never a shortage of people who would prefer it were.

Language is at issue here almost as much as the sectarian mindsets it reflects. Terms such as bogus, clandestine, spurious,  and only to a slightly lesser degree, irregular are often used to describe many forms of Freemasonry. The logic of these perceptions and judgments are so ingrained that the average Mason considers them perfectly logical and legitimate perspectives. Seldom do any but a few with broader experience or education, even consider the possibility that the premises upon which these assertions and terms are based is at best seriously flawed. In point of fact, the terms are seldom used correctly even within the so-called Masonic definitions of the terms; they are invariably used as synonyms. In fact, those who do use them tend to get defensive when someone points out to them that such language can actually be derogatory,  insulting and demeaning. It occurred to me as I wrote this that it is very much like institutionalized racism, designed to be unseen to those guilty of it. "We are not biased, this view is correct."

All of this will change over time, one way or another. Either "mainstream" masons will simply get used to other forms being around and will perhaps grudgingly adjust, or by continual exposure, they will come to change their views. Alternately, mainstream masonry will continue to shrink until the variants will mostly be of equal or greater size and their voices will have no real significance anymore. It would be nice, but probably too much to hope for, that the leaders of UGLE derived Freemasonry in the US, will see fit to drop the fossilized ideas of 200 years ago and join the 21st century.

I have recently had a discussion with some brethren, and I must admit there has been a little growth, though not nearly enough, since the last time I dealt with the topic at length. That may just be chance, but I hope it means that prolonged exposure to the wider Masonic world is giving some of my brethren pause for thought.

The terms themselves are not legitimate. In theory, regularity is an important consideration for Masons. But who in reality made it so, and does it even bear any relationship to its origins any longer? At one time, when all masons were operative masons, there was a legitimate reason for that concern. It not only was a matter of being able to perform serious work well, but was tied to one's livelihood. With the advent, not so much of speculative masonry as of the establishment of Grand Lodges, the issue became about power and influence, not safety, skill, and livelihood. One has to question why a group of men, whom we now know were not unique among masons in their day, and by no means the first or only, should represent the establishment of a universal hegemony within Masonry.

Especially when their leadership is driving Freemasonry to its grave.

The History & Posturing of Masonic Regularity & Recognition

Roger Dachez has published a new book, entitled Franc-maçonnerie: Régularité et reconnaissance Histoire et postures, with a preface by Alain Bauer. The subtitle might more appropriately be, as if the book is not provocative enough, deceptions and impertinences, since Roger Dachez makes it clear in the 138 pages of the book's complex history of concepts such as "regularity" and "recognition" that these too terms are in fact more deceptive and impertinent than real.

Reading the book, one can not stop thinking about the irony about our work and think that "luckily Masons are dedicated to reflection and foresight," because it does not leave us in good standing in terms of the history of our mutual encounters and our tendency to absolutize Masonic issues in an effort to limit who may claim Masonic identity or making it universal, confusing both terms and concepts.

In any event, regarding issues of regularity, he indicates that they are more a question of the twentieth century, and one that becomes complicated when the GOdF in 2002 started to describe themselves in their official documents as "regular and symbolic sovereign power," where previously they had only described themselves as "symbolic and sovereign power."

Dachez also highlights the paradox of confusing and assimilating terms such as "regular" and "tradition" when the term "fair" simply distinguishes normal Masons under a status of recognized official authority and therefore make administrative and disciplinary, away from other issues that are often assimilated, as for example in the eighteenth century in England a regular Mason is not a dogmatic Mason as opposed to even liberal mason as is so often claimed today, without losing sight of the fact that the founders of the First English Grand Lodge in 1717 did not even know when, how and where Masons were initiated.

This book provides some very interesting historical references, and should be considered a high priority for translation and be made a required presence in all lodges, for better understanding of the Masonic membership. In reading it, one realizes where we are as a result of the confusion of concepts and Roger Dachez develops this with documented historical support and a summary that can be defined as follows:

Regularity, is a notion introduced by the British in a Masonic vocabulary and adopted in France in the eighteenth century. Initially It designated in the natural sense, only the compliance with the administrative duties of a Brother and his lodge, and in the case of a Grand Lodge recognition and authority for the benefit of work and mutual aid.

In the late nineteenth century, the original Masonic power of the First Empire, which had Lodges in the four corners of the world in reaction to the decision of the GOdF 1877, given its importance to the United Grand Lodge of England (UGLA ) chose to emphasize as its primary landmark, a belief in God.

For the first time in 1913 the UGLE signs an agreement with the Grand Lodge of France, and recognizes the Great National Lodge Independent and Regular (future GLNF) from which point the UGLE replaces the term 'recognized' Freemasonry with "regular Freemasonry ".

Since several major independent lodges appear the first UGLE establishes a precise doctrine about what it called “Basic Principles of Recognition of 1929,” according to its own conventions to require: Belief in a Supreme Being and the Volume of the Sacred Law. In 1952 the Conference of Grand Masters of North America states: Standards of Recognition where the most important is the belief in God.

This doctrine is taken from a 1949 text Amity and relationsships of the Craft partly repeating the above Basic Principles. After the war many grand lodges decide to accept this doctrine to gain recognition from London who will understood to represent what was from then on identified as "regular Freemasonry."

6. “Recognition" is not "regularity", despite the heavy use by the Grand Lodges of the appellation of "regular" or assumption of it, by those lodges  which do not have relationships with any lodge held by England to irregular, by relationship or visitation.

This consideration of "regularity" is claimed by 90% of world Freemasonry, without being part of a homogeneous community under a single Grand Lodge, and many recognized by London do not recognize each other and do not themselves adhere to the aforementioned Basic Principles of Recognition of 1929.

The brash and provocative concept of 'regularity'  which has a double character that is not very accurate should be condemned, and  if in a more rigorous and supportive, serene manner, the Grand Lodges recognized by London, should rate their masonry by the spirit in which they perform their work: traditional, spiritual, initiatory or humanist, liberal, adogmatic or secular, etc.

Therefore outside the Basic Principles of Recognition 1929 the idea of "regularity" is not a value in itself, it does not ennoble those by whom it is claimed, it is a descriptive and technical issue that indicates nothing beyond it being recognized by a body in London or that body's friends, tit is in fact an error to think of a "regular Freemasonry" as existing, it “allows” no deviation and claims itself to be entirely initiatory, traditional and spiritual, and opposing a "social Freemasonry" like the army of Pancho Villa, forgetting what was said in 1726 that the three principles of Freemasonry were brotherly love, charity and truth, issues that in the nineteenth century did not seem to have been understood very well.

Thanks to Victor Guerra.

http://www.victorguerra.net/2015/06/todos-somos-regulares.html

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.