It didn’t take me too long after leaving college to realize that I wasn’t going to work well in the role of “alumnus who always hangs out at the house”. So I started looking for another organization which was similar in character, and it didn’t take too long for me to find Freemasonry. I didn’t know much about it — at the time, I didn’t know my great-grandfather was a Mason, and I didn’t know anything about the mythology that it is based on. I simply saw it as a fraternity like ΘΧ but for grown ups. I contacted Minneapolis #19 because they were close to my work, and was put in contact with a guy who was really stellar, and who I deeply admire. His enthusiasm for the organization sold me almost immediately. He talked about how Freemasonry was an organization of peers who were interested in religious ideas and charitable works, as well as the Freemasonic ideological basis of the United States. That was the kind of organization I wanted to be a part of: rich and accomplished. The post-Vietnam struggling of a traditional organization, which he also told me about, was nothing new or intimidating — I had just come off of driving recruitment for a ΘΧ chapter that was damn near closing up.

So I signed up. As I progressed through initiation, I had a voracious appetite for Masonic knowledge. I wanted to know everything. I showed up early to lodge meetings just to talk to the old guys about the history of the lodge and the Grand Lodge of Minnesota. I took the initiation in three consecutive months, and during those months the memorization work given to me was hard — memorization has always been my weak suit. Even so, if I had wanted I could have gotten all the memorization down in about five hours a week of work. However, I spent the entire month leading up to the next degree trying to ring every piece of knowledge out of the oath and the experience that I just had. It was exhilarating — like moving to a foreign country, but without leaving your home.

Each degree of initiation opened up a new take on things. The first degree began the initiatory process by introducing the odd words and customs of the organization, in particular emphasizing the overarching theme of the organization as life and death. The second degree began introducing concepts of duty and really drove home the drive for self-improvement and self-education as a personal responsibility. Yet despite being “in the flow” of initiation, I was completely blindsided when the meat of the third degree hit. The mythology aspect of it was totally new to me, and I didn’t know what was happening. The experience was all the greater for my lack of expectation, and by the end of it, I was totally blown away. I simply didn’t know what to make of it all.

I went from there directly into the Scottish Rite. I was warned against doing that, but there was more information in the Scottish Rite and I wanted to have at it. Plus, the best Masons of my lodge were Scottish Rite Masons, regularly talking about what was going on up there, and it sounded interesting. The Scottish Rite also has one of the most awesome mission and creeds I’ve ever encountered.

Moving through the Scottish Rite was fascinating. The Minneapolis Valley of the Scottish Rite performed each of the degrees, and did a pretty good job of it. For those that don’t know, the degree work of the Southern Jurisdiction of the Scottish Rite is divided into four parts: the “Lodge of Perfection“, the “Chapter of Rose Croix“, the “Council of Kadosh“, and the “Consistory“. Moving through each of those degrees really drove home lessons that were sidebars or consequences of other degrees. I took particularly well to the “Lodge of Perfection” degrees, which are focused so much on governance and a continuation of the mythos: I still remember those degrees clearly and think about their lessons daily. The “Consistory” degrees were also excellent, but they’re effectively the capstone to and climax of the Scottish Rite, so they’ve got lots of energy to work with.

After moving through all those degrees, and having lived with them for a while, I’ve discovered that the Masonic symbols and degree work provided a kind of bridge between my religious symbols and understanding and the real world. The symbol of Christ and Abraham and the messages of Christianity are hard for me to connect to the day-to-day life. I found the Masonic symbols to be a lot more practical than the Christian symbols, while still connecting to the truths that the Christian symbols represent. Unlike some of those Christian symbols, the Masonic lessons have really direct and obvious application to my day-to-day practicalities . And there’s a message I’m still struggling with about the basic nature of all religions — something that’s been curiously picked up in the stuff I’ve been reading about A.’.A.’..

Since my degree work, I went to a “Traditional Observence” lodge, and a bit of a dark spot in terms of my Masonic involvement, and now I’m in Durham, NC. Haven’t started looking around lodges here (need to decide on a church first), but I am certainly looking forward to it..

Comments

• January 5, 2009, Anonymous Coward wrote: Robert, I've long been interested in the Freemasons, and admire much of what they (you) stand for and do. Unfortunately I do not believe in a Supreme Being. Are you aware of any similar organizations which do not require such belief?
• January 5, 2009, Shane Stevens wrote: I must say that I am envious of the fact that you had older members to help feed your desire for more light. In my small country lodge, most members do not take learning too seriously, and have never really demonstrated the want to share. As I moved through the degrees, somewhat in the same manner as yourself, I felt overwhelmed by the shear amount of potential knowledge. Since my raising I have looked many places for assistance in my quest. There are many excellent sites to be found and read on the internet, but as you know it is a never ending search. Ironically, I am now not only my lodges treasurer but also its Lodge Education Officer! Saints help me. Good luck finding a church and new lodge.
• January 6, 2009, Robert Fischer wrote: @Anonymous Coward I don't know of any particular organization along the lines of Freemasonry which accepts atheists. I also haven't really looked, though, since I'm not an atheist. @Shane Stevens I've got another posting coming up about some of the encouragements and disappointments I've had as I moved through Masonry, and what lessons I've learned from that. That was requested on Twitter (by you?), but it deserves its own focused post. @Everyone Just to be clear -- I am a Christian. I did not mean to imply that I had in any way turned away from Jesus when I spoke of my difficulties in applying the Christian message. A few people interpreted it that way, and I wanted to clarify.
• February 12, 2009, Marc Stock wrote: AC, you might want to take a look at Secular Humanism. There are organizations throughout the country. Needless to say, secular humanist organizations are nothing like freemasonry lodges which are highly ceremonial. However, you would have plenty of opportunity to learn more about life as an atheist, evolutionary theory, etc. The only ceremonial organizations that I know of that would allow atheists are hermetic orders like the Golden Dawn or the A.'.A.'.. Those organizations would definitely be more in line with the "feeding of the soul" that you may be looking for. Of course, if you are an atheist who doesn't believe in a soul (or the need to feed it), then secular humanism is definitely the way to go. :)
• February 13, 2009, Robert Fischer wrote: Secular humanism might be okay. I've got a philosophical issue with them: without something external validating the value of a human being, I don't see a philosophical basis of secular humanist ethics. Without an external validation, I end up at Nietzschean narcissism pretty fast, which means people end up having value only insofar as they can limit my ability to impose my will on my environment. (Notably, this is why I appreciate Freemasonry's requirement to believe in a Supreme Being.)
• February 14, 2009, Brian wrote: I've been trying not to comment here, because it's likely to end in a flame war. But Robert, you've crossed a line. I'd argue that Religion is an impediment to morality. WTF, you say? Well consider: 1) Religion gives you a cheap way out of guilt. Morality comes, first and foremost, from an ownership of the consequences of your actions- guilt, in other words. Everyone one of the ten commandments can be broken- even by moral people!- in the right circumstances. Thou shalt not kill? Not even in self defense? In a just war? The Quakers may take that commandment seriously, everyone else is crossing their fingers behind their backs. Every religion I know off offers cheap and easy forgiveness for your sins. Just send a bunch of money to P.O. Box... The more staid and institutional religions aren't quite so blatant about it, but the end result is the same- accept Jesus into your heart (aka support the religion- maybe not monetarily, but socially), perform this not too onerous of a absolution rite, and you're off scot-free. To which I say bullshit. Jesus may have forgiven you- I don't know, he's not returning my phone calls- but the crime still exists. The harm created still exists. I've hurt people in my life- nothing serious, I'm glad to say, but I have sinned. And it doesn't matter what sort of performance art I do, they're still hurt. Some sins I've made up for, others I just get to carry around as regrets. But this makes me much more cautious about making irrevocable decisions I might regret later. This makes me more moral- makes me more aware of the fact that I own the consequences of my actions. No easy way out for me. 2) Received morality is unquestionable. Think about it. Supposedly, your morality as a Christian comes directly from God. And who are you to question God? Any assumption that morality comes from a divine being (via this particular book and/or person) leads pretty directly to biblical literalism and fundamentalism. The second you start ignoring something in the Bible you are no longer following God's morality, but your own. Those words in that book, they're just suggestions. The difference between you and I is that I'm just being honest about it. 3) Is it a sin when God commands it? I'm not even just talking about modern (post-Jesus) religious wars and crime- although there are more than a few of those- the old testament (literal word of God, remember) is full of crap that's horrific when you stop to think about it. Murder and rape and robbery and war, all at the behest of a loving and benevolent god. This is the ultimate "get out jail free " card- you're not committing a sin because you're performing God's will. 4) Religion demeans the human condition, because it promises rewards in the next life- excusing crimes committed in this life. You know where the term "secular humanist" comes from? It's older than you might think- it actually came from the early Renaissance, and it meant that the secular human- this life, here on earth- had value and deserved respect. This stood in stark contrast with the dominate philosophy and teachings of the church, which said (paraphrasing) it doesn't matter if you get pissed on this life, your reward is in the next life. Which has a lot of support in the bible. The secular humanist position was that it did matter if you got pissed on in this life. The whole point of secular humanism is that there is a value to a human being, the actual human being in front of you right now. Any point where you're talking about the value of a human being, you are adopting the secular humanist position. By the way, this is a very comforting philosophy for the ruling elite. I'm a lord and you're a serf because God made us this way, and rebelling against that is rebelling against God, and puts your immortal soul in danger. Since you're only going to be alive for a short period of time, but in heaven or hell for all eternity, it makes sense to put up with the deprivations and crimes in the here and now in return for an eternal reward. Now stop thrashing so, before you splash some piss back on me. Of course, my attitude may be formed by the fact that my ancestors were, by and large, peasants and not nobles. 5) Fear of punishment is not the only motivator. Religion treats people like children. In addition to assuming they can't figure anything out for themselves or take responsibility for their own actions, it also assumes that the only reason they will do good is fear of punishment. Not everyone needs a Super Daddy, or Almighty Father, to spank us when we step out of line. Simple empathy goes a surprisingly long way. I don't hurt other people because I empathize with them. Hurting them hurts me. Do you really feel no empathy what so ever to your fellow man? Can you not imagine that I might, also? We have a word for people who truly feel no empathy- we call them psychotics. Is you contention that all human beings are really psychotics, or just secular humanists? Psychotics scare us for damned good reasons, and it scares me that you can't think of why someone would value another human being without fear of punishment. This is especially ironic, given how central avoiding punishment for your sins is to most religions (especially western religions). If there is no morality without threat of punishment, then doesn't anything that removes the threat of punishment for transgressions undermine morality? The point here is not to piss people off. although I have no doubt doubt I've done exactly that. The point here is that religion has no monopoly on morality. Never has, never will.
• February 15, 2009, Robert Fischer wrote:

  1) Religion gives you a cheap way out of guilt. Morality comes, first and foremost, from an ownership of the consequences of your actions- guilt, in other words. Everyone one of the ten commandments can be broken- even by moral people!- in the right circumstances. Thou shalt not kill? Not even in self defense? In a just war? The Quakers may take that commandment seriously, everyone else is crossing their fingers behind their backs.

  Heh. Somewhat funny comment, since I've been considering becoming a Quaker as a consequence of theological explorations combined with my active support for nonviolence. My biggest issue with them is that they have wandered too far afield from their Christian roots: although the organization was based on undeniably Christian organizers and principles, at least the Durham meeting seems to be fairly explicitly non-Christian at this point. Which is hard for me, because while I appreciate the place where they're coming from, there's some baby-with-the-bath-water stuff I would wish they'd keep around. Anyway -- back to the primary point. Human beings can and will game any moral system, and will flock to those who will enable it. While the social structures around Christianity have fallen into that temptation time and time again, at its core Christianity does not give you a free pass -- anyone who tries to tell you that you can do whatever you'd like because you've accepted Jesus into your heart needs to double back to Romans and Galatians. To repent in Christianity requires an admission of guilt, acknowledgment of what's wrong with the sin, and an effort to remedy it: that's what we're called to and expected to do. Now, God expects the best out of you, but there's also a safety net provision -- God's not going to judge you simply because you failed to dot all the "i"s and cross all the "t"s. Maybe you consider that the "get out of jail free" card, but to do so is conflating God not expecting perfection and God not expecting the best. And it really is the best -- in reality, if you look at what the Bible teaches, life is actually harder on the Christian than non the non-Christian: Matt 10:37-39 and 16:21-25 echo the same sentiment: "If anyone desires to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow Me."

  2) Received morality is unquestionable. Think about it. Supposedly, your morality as a Christian comes directly from God. And who are you to question God? Any assumption that morality comes from a divine being (via this particular book and/or person) leads pretty directly to biblical literalism and fundamentalism. The second you start ignoring something in the Bible you are no longer following God’s morality, but your own. Those words in that book, they’re just suggestions. The difference between you and I is that I’m just being honest about it.

  While it's true that at the end of the day I'm drawing my own conclusions, by taking my faith into account I also have a larger set of axioms from which to build. The existence of consciousness in other people, while scientifically and objectively unknowable, is a leap of faith backed up by my religious reading. The fact that the consciousness of others has infinite innate value is another untenable philosophical axiom that I take as a principle of faith. These are things taught by Christianity which seem to be reflected in the nature of the world. Although I believe in the scriptures as the greatest reference book on moral issues and the vessel of a sacred tradition of divine interaction, I also believe that the Bible was written by people, and so its assertions need to be checked against the Creator's work. The Christian way of thinking about morality, sin, self-sacrifice, and repentance strongly echoes our own (re-)discoveries in economics (Keynesian economics is inherently kenotic), politics (servant-leadership), psychotherapy (personal accountability and growth), and sociology (interconnectedness/self-sacrifice), and so I take that as evidence of Christianity's accuracy that the key messages laid out -- the ones that validate those theories -- have some kind of innate and profound accuracy.

  3) Is it a sin when God commands it? I’m not even just talking about modern (post-Jesus) religious wars and crime- although there are more than a few of those- the old testament (literal word of God, remember) is full of crap that’s horrific when you stop to think about it. Murder and rape and robbery and war, all at the behest of a loving and benevolent god. This is the ultimate “get out jail free ” card- you’re not committing a sin because you’re performing God’s will.

  This is actually the hardest issue in Christianity, and one that is painfully difficult to struggle with. Kierkegaard explored the Abraham and Isaac story in particular -- even if God finally intervened and stopped Abraham, the reality is that Abraham was ready to sacrifice Isaac, and that can't be confused as anything more than really a deep and profound sin. Yet God both asked for it and rewarded it. Which implies something significant about the non-literal nature of God's Word, but also about the crisis that Christians have to struggle through. Jesus, after all, was also regularly being identified as a sinner and a heretic, and by the best thinkers at the time in His tradition, He was. This issue is the core of Kierkegaard's Fear and Trembling, and the general Christian existentialist thinking.

  4) Religion demeans the human condition, because it promises rewards in the next life- excusing crimes committed in this life. You know where the term “secular humanist” comes from? It’s older than you might think- it actually came from the early Renaissance, and it meant that the secular human- this life, here on earth- had value and deserved respect. This stood in stark contrast with the dominate philosophy and teachings of the church, which said (paraphrasing) it doesn’t matter if you get pissed on this life, your reward is in the next life. Which has a lot of support in the bible. The secular humanist position was that it did matter if you got pissed on in this life. The whole point of secular humanism is that there is a value to a human being, the actual human being in front of you right now. Any point where you’re talking about the value of a human being, you are adopting the secular humanist position.

  Our Father, who art in Heaven, Hallowed by thy name, Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done, On Earth as it is in Heaven To portray Christianity as being about the next life is to do a profound disservice to the religion. Most certainly, it's a disservice the ruling elite of the social structures around Christianity -- for the exact reasons you lay out -- often propagated. But the emphasis on the afterlife is a Greco-Egyptian idea, foreign to the prophets of the Old Testament or to those traditions around Jesus and the earliest epistles. The idea leaks in to some of the latest books and (via Gnosticism and the Roman church) back into the mainstream traditions of Christianity.

  5) Fear of punishment is not the only motivator. Religion treats people like children. In addition to assuming they can’t figure anything out for themselves or take responsibility for their own actions, it also assumes that the only reason they will do good is fear of punishment. Not everyone needs a Super Daddy, or Almighty Father, to spank us when we step out of line. Simple empathy goes a surprisingly long way. I don’t hurt other people because I empathize with them. Hurting them hurts me.

  Ignoring the last four sentences (I'll get to them later), I deeply agree with the statement about organized religion often infantilize people. Insofar as it does that, it's doing more harm than good. I can intellectually understand the justification to a certain extent -- people aren't going to put the study and thought they should into morality, so it's best just to give them the Cliff's Notes -- but the solution seems to cause more problems than it solves.

  Do you really feel no empathy what so ever to your fellow man? Can you not imagine that I might, also? We have a word for people who truly feel no empathy- we call them psychotics. Is you contention that all human beings are really psychotics, or just secular humanists? Psychotics scare us for damned good reasons, and it scares me that you can’t think of why someone would value another human being without fear of punishment.

  Sure. So I can decide not to hurt other people because it upsets me. But that equally means that if it doesn't upset me, I shouldn't care about someone being hurt. And if I don't like someone, so hurting them makes me feel better (and I won't get punished for it or somehow have that "feel better" reduced), I should go for it. At the end of the day, the "I like people, so I don't hurt them" argument is just Nietzschean narcissism in much gentler, more palatable packaging. That's a just fine philosophical stance: in fact, I think it's the only defensible atheistic philosophical stance. Unfortunately (from a Christian standpoint), the prescriptive aspect of it is that philosophical stance is that caring about people is self-limiting and self-destructive, and therefore to be minimized insofar as it can be without causing additional harm to yourself. At the end of the day, the question boils down to this: if you're in a situation where hurting someone else gains you in real ways more than it loses you -- meaning that whatever reward you get outweighs the punishment -- should you go ahead and hurt the person? A Christian (insofar as I understand Christianity) has to say "No". A Nietzschean says "Sure". This is basic idea behind "just war", punishment-based prison systems (as opposed to "restorative justice"), etc.

  This is especially ironic, given how central avoiding punishment for your sins is to most religions (especially western religions). If there is no morality without threat of punishment, then doesn’t anything that removes the threat of punishment for transgressions undermine morality?

  Christianity teaches that avoiding sin is living in accord with the nature of the world and of God -- and that we want to be in accord with God and His creation because we love Him. That's not motivation via fear of punishment, although it's certainly true that it's not very comfortable for a Christian to live out of accord with God and His creation.
• June 15, 2009, AV wrote: A beautiful and inspiring look at your journey in Freemasonry. Life is funny--you have no idea how badly I needed this right now.
• June 15, 2009, Robert Fischer wrote: @AV Glad to be of service. Let me know if there's anything else you're curious about: I was planning on writing more about my involvement in Freemasonry, but didn't really know what to write on. I've also considered navel-gazing posts on the problem of Jephthah, my growing fondness for the Quakers, and how I came to land at seminary. Over at my garden blog, I just did a self-indulgent post on why I'm doing an organic garden, called This is a Victory Garden. It kicks off with a Voltaire quote, so it's got to be good, right?
• December 12, 2009, Enfranchised Mind » The Sin of Intellectualism wrote: [...] navel gazing in the vein of Experience of a Freemason: Thoughts a Few Years In, this time about the nature of my faith and my path to Duke [...]

(Digital Fingerprint: bcecb67d74ab248f06f068724220e340 (38.107.191.80) )

It was awesome. Not just “a good lodge exprience”, or “a lodge with a lot of brotherhood”, but awesome. Literally awe-inspiring. And it was the first lodge I’ve ever attended which made sense of the ritual: the solemnity and the dignity and the calls to self-reflection and the focus on education were exalted in the ritual, but I had found them achingly lacking in practicalities. That was not the case at Saint Paul #3, and the genuine sense of brotherhood and strength were great.

If you are thinking about joining the freemasons, or if you are a freemason yourself, I suggest you seek out your local TO lodge. Next time you are in a city with an MRF lodge, you owe it to yourself to attend their meeting. Just don’t forget your tux!

(Digital Fingerprint: bcecb67d74ab248f06f068724220e340 (38.107.191.80) )

I have and will continue to treat the topic of Freemasonry with fairness by allowing rebuttals to my claims, but I wont pretend that the organization is benevolent in any way.

Holy crap, I can’t believe they said that! Beyond these links, there are numerous quiet — often anonymous — acts of community support which will never get publicity or a web page. The Valley of the Scottish Rite that I belong to has a volunteer position — Almoner — devoted especially to giving aid in just such a manner.

That quote is so incredibly bigoted that it blows my mind. Sure, you can argue that Freemasonry has negative traits which outweigh the incredible amount of work that it does. You can argue that the role of a fraternal organization in recapturing the mature masculine is moot. You can even argue that Masonry is incompatible with the Christian faith. I happen to think you’re wrong on all of these points, but you’re welcome to argue them.

But to say that Freemasonry is not beneficial in any way is just flat out wrong. It’s not truthful, nor is it loving, nor is it tolerant. It’s just wrong.

Comments

• September 6, 2007, Karl wrote: Freemasonry has been around for over two hundred years, what philanthropic works were they doing back in the 1700-1800's?
• September 6, 2007, Robert Fischer wrote: You mean, aside from providing the guiding principles and morality for the United States? Our concepts of religious tolerance, personal empowerment, and State's rights, and public education can be traced back to the ideals expressed in Freemasonry. Benjamin Franklin and George Washington were both Freemasons, and were probably the two figures most key to providing our modern American concept. Thomas Jefferson, the third member of the founding fathers trinity, was certainly guided by principles born from Enlightenment-era leaders, many of them Freemasons, although probably not a Freemason himself. Well, aside from that, we don't have a lot of documentation about the beneficent acts being done. There were certainly public universities funded by masonic institutions (cite), and there was no doubt widow and orphan work being done, as well as Almoner work (like I described in my post). But beyond that, the acts of freemasons have been largely lost to time, at least partially because persistent record-keeping, publicity seeking (or even allowing), and public Masonic-associated organizations (like the Shriner's Hospitals) are relatively recent advents to Freemasonry. At least you're not arguing the point that "...I won't pretend that the organization is benevolent in any way." is anything other than a bigoted statement, and is false to fact.
• September 6, 2007, Karl wrote: Well, you already expressed your opinion of my "bigotry" twice. Your opinion but let me continue. So there is no record of freemasonry doing philanthropic works in the past but you can imagine they may have. You also stated that Freemasonry is "providing the guiding principles and morality for the United States" and "Our concepts of religious tolerance, personal empowerment, and State’s rights, and public education". Ok, here is my response to those. Freemasonry cannot claim that it had any profound effect on guiding principles and morality of our citizens any more than the churches of the day. Unless you know something I don't, Freemasonry has no record of activity beyond merely existing as to spread morality. I agree that freemasonry confesses religious tolerance but as we discussed in the podcast, it rarely exhibits it once you get to know one past a surface conversation. The behavior of many masons is elitist and disrespectful to other religions so I really don't care what is confessed. Personal empowerment is not philanthropic, it is personal. I don't see any place Freemasonry provides that for non-members (or members alike) so I wouldn't consider that a benevolent activity for any non-mason. Using States rights confuses me a bit, because Freemasonry does not and never has had any interest in politics. Well, at least that is what I hear all the time from Freemasons. I would like to hear how exactly you gather that notion. Finally, you used public education. Another interesting one that I am curious to hear what makes you think that is true. My comment was based upon my opinion that Freemasonry has made much effort to seem like an organization that is primarily for charitable works but that is not their history. The institutions PURPOSE is something other than all the great things you hear masons espouse regarding the institution. To pretend that is all there is and that the "positives outweigh the negatives" is foolish and is besides the point of my podcast. I can show many instances of questionably with Freemasonic activity and it is up to the individual to decide rather it is good or bad. That is why I will treat it fairly but it seems that there are a few of you that cannot handle the criticism. Too bad for you. The bug I got up my shorts is that there are Freemasons that use that term "anti-mason" for anybody who has criticisms of the institution. If I criticize it does it mean that I am against it? Are you implying that there is nothing wrong with Freemasonry? At least Greg was honest enough to admit there were problems. Maybe you should refer to me as Pro-truth because there I was saying truthful things about freemasonry. But the use of 'anti-mason' is pretty ridiculous and I think that those who use it are silly. I will continue in my bigotry and I am sure you will continue in your irrational support of the institution.
• September 6, 2007, Robert Fischer wrote: Let's get back to the core, because we're wandering afar: Are you supporting the assertion that there is no benevolent aspect to Freemasonry? How do you answer the various links to benevolent organizations that I cited? If you don't support that assertion, it'd be nice to see a retraction, if even just a restatement. I assume your "pro-truth" stance includes personal integrity. I'll get to the rest of the post in another comment.
• September 6, 2007, Widow's Son wrote: The philanthropic side of Freemasonry basically began in the 1830's, as a result of the Christianization of Masonry, led by Dr. Robert Crucefix, George Oliver and Richard Carlisle. From my synopsis of Dr. Andrew Prescott's work 1834-1855/6 Relations between the Grand Lodge and other fraternal organizations continued to deteriorate. In 1834, the group called the Tolpuddle Martyrs were arrested and tried under the Unlawful Societies Act. The Grand Lodge gloated over this, noting that Freemasonry was exempt. Members of the Grand Lodge had different ideas on the direction Freemasonry should take in society. Sussex wanted to create his new religion that superseded Christianity. Dr. Robert Crucefix, a devout Christian, wanted Freemasonry to take more direct social action, and promoted a plan to create a home for elderly, poor Freemasons. Along with clergyman George Oliver and Richard Carlisle, Crucefix wrote numerous articles for the Freemason's Quarterly Review, developing a Christian theology of Freemasonry. Their campaign was successful, and this Christianized Freemasonry was influential until the end of the 19th century. The idea of Masonic charity had entered the picture. Crucefix wanted to create a Masonry for the respectable middle class. While he promoted the charitable aspects of Masonry, he also purposely created among the brethren a fear that low-lifes were using their Masonic membership to live off the goodheartedness of their brothers. While Crucefix was successful in infusing Christianity into Freemasonry, he wasn't very successful at attracting the respectable middle classes, and Masonry remained divided between the elite and the lower-class. Widow's Son BurningTaper.com
• September 6, 2007, Karl wrote: hmm. Ok, Well let me say first that I apologize if my statement was offensive because that was not my intent. It is obvious that such a statement is a matter of opinion because I have no right to say that one cannot truly feel benefited from freemasonry nor its works. My intention was to say that the essence of purpose for the institution was not based on merely philanthropic activities. It would have been best put like this. "I wont pretend that Freemasonries only purpose is charity". So, I do say sorry for the intensity of the remark. It was careless of me to make such a vast exaggeration and it might have been fueled by what I felt was an attack on my character being labeled "anti-mason". I did not feel upset at the moment but I was throwing down the gauntlet so to speak. I see that what I meant and what it actually said were two different things. Sorry again.
• September 6, 2007, Robert Fischer wrote: I really appreciate the apology. That's very impressive, particularly in the largely anonymous world of the Internet. To your point -- that Freemasonry has purposes other than charity -- you're certainly right. From my understanding, the charity is actually a side effect of the primary goals of Masonry, which are developing moral character and building communities. Because of that understanding, it was extremely aggravating to deny all the benevolence of Freemasons: basically, that's saying that the organization fails completely at its goals. And it seemed so under-informed that I immediately assumed it was deliberate disinformation -- to put it less carefully, I assumed it was slander. I still owe you a response to the other stuff. I'll get it done, but it's not happening tonight. And it looks like we've made it onto the Burning Taper with this conversation! We're famous!
• September 6, 2007, Karl wrote: I honestly have no desire to slander the institution nor the members. I have defended claims against Freemasonry as much as I have criticized it, however, the roll Freemasonry plays in molding my world view is very significant so I must share it. Well, that is the stated purpose of my site, simply as an outlet to share my world view. So, as you may hear criticisms about Freemasonry know that I have openly welcomed rebuttals to my claims because I do believe in being fair. It is my opinion that it is also fair that I share my view without being labeled an "anti-mason", as absurd as my beliefs might be. It is not fair to me for Freemasons to criticize me for being wrong without at least hearing me out and then sharing their views or showing my errors of what I say and if I am in error, I will apologize and adjust my beliefs.
• September 7, 2007, Robert Fischer wrote: You're right. Just criticizing the institution doesn't make you an anti-Mason. In fact, I wouldn't label you an anti-Mason given this conversation: you're not the kind of rabid bigot that label belongs to. It was just my knee-jerk reaction to that particular blurb which got me.
• September 7, 2007, Karl wrote: Thanks. I really don't like many of the people who go after freemasonry without any understanding of what it is. The last thing I want is to be put into a group with them. hehe
• September 7, 2007, Widow's Son wrote: I doubt being mentioned on The Burning Taper will make either of you famous, but it does expose both your blogs to an additional 12-14,000 unique readers a month. Karl, there are pretty much just two categories, pro-Mason or anti-Mason, but perhaps we can take a cue from the term used for heterosexual women who wonder what it would be like to be with another woman but will probably never actually do so: "bi-curious." So should we call you "Masonically-curious"? Widow's Son BurningTaper.com
• September 7, 2007, Karl wrote: haha, that is hilarious. Um, I can honestly say that I am more anti-masonic than I am curious, because I have studied Freemasonry for a long time and I am beyond curiosity. I think a fair title would be that I am a "critic of Freemasonry" because I am. I am opposed to certain areas in Freemasonry but not the institution as a whole. Does that seem fair?
• September 7, 2007, Robert Fischer wrote: Hey, everyone needs critics. From the Servant's Prayer: "God, we thank you for our enemies, because our enemies keep us on our knees." Dang it...why aren't people getting e-mail notices of their updates anymore?
• September 7, 2007, D. W. Brown wrote: It's great when cooler heads can prevail, like in this instance. Now, hopefully the conversation can be constructive in nature. One thing you have to understand by now, if you do any reading today on Freemasonry, is the schism that is happening again, as it did 200 years ago, within the Masonic ranks. A large portion of the Masons you see on the internet today are the younger generation and quite honestly, they are tired of the current system and it’s complete failure to live up to their expectations. Since I have not read all of your opinions on Freemasonry, I will apologize now, incase I say something that is inaccurate. I feel strongly that over the next 10 – 20 years you will see a drastic shift in Freemasonry. I think this shift will be to a smaller leaner fraternity, as it was in Europe before reaching the U.S. shores. You will see more members, active members, who are younger and better educated than what you see today. I know I’m going to take some crap for that statement, but I’m tired of being PC, if the kettle is black then call it black and be done with it. I think the “anti-masonic” (religious in nature) movement will grow, because as the fraternity changes and becomes more esoteric in nature again and the Judeo-Christian overtones are minimized or better yet removed completely, the religious right will have some new targets to aim for. Personally, I welcome the change in the fraternity, because correcting the mistake the Modern Masons* made 250 years ago, is long overdue. *To read about the Schisim between the Moderns and Antient Masons, see the essays at http://www.thebluelodge.org D. W. Brown, 32°
• September 7, 2007, Karl wrote: If your referring to the email you get when someone posts a comment, I got mine.
• September 7, 2007, Robert Fischer wrote: Uh, I apparently messed up my e-mail address when I updated my profile a few weeks ago. Problem between keyboard and chair.
• September 9, 2007, Brian wrote: I think there is another category of organizations besides just the binary "good" (helps society at large) and "bad" (hurts society at large) categorizations. There are also "neutral" organizations- organizations with no real effect on the society at large. If you want to belong to a performance art troupe with a common parking problem, that really doesn't affect me. I don't know of any wars Masonics started, or were blamed on Masonics, nor any crimes. You can float conspiracy theorys all you like- but the truth of the matter is that controlling a small group of influential people isn't sufficient to get a real war going. A side note here- the exception which proves the rule is Iraq. Here we have a small number of influential people (the neocons) getting the US into a war. But notice the implicit deal they had with the American people- they could have their war so long as it didn't cost us (the people) anything. A quick, cheap, victorious war? Sure, no problem. Knock yourself out. Once it started turning into a long, drawn out, expensive war, that's when you started seeing the real war opposition come out. And note that the apparent cost of the Iraq war hasn't been that large so far (unless you have family/friends in the military). Also note that we know who the neocons are. So, if you're going to commit a big crime (the sort of crime that still matters 150 years later), you have to be public and, to a certain extent, above board about it. The only war I'm aware of that has any Masonic connection at all is the American Revolutionary War, with the Masons on the side of the founding fathers. Which I have a hard time painting as a bad thing.
• December 16, 2007, Enfranchised Mind » Another Mason for Ron Paul wrote: [...] may remember the Burning Taper Blog from my “A Brief Defense of Masonry” post, or from just being one of the best Masonic blogs on the [...]
• August 12, 2008, Upped The Recent Post/Popular Post Widget Count | Enfranchised Mind wrote: [...] A Brief Defense of Masonry [...]

(Digital Fingerprint: bcecb67d74ab248f06f068724220e340 (38.107.191.80) )

(Digital Fingerprint: bcecb67d74ab248f06f068724220e340 (38.107.191.80) )

Near my computer is my lambskin apron, and on my hand is the Ring of the Lodge of Perfection. It’s amazing how deeply and quickly Freemasonry has touched me. I wanted to feel this way about ΘΧ, but I never really did: I admired the ideals of the Helping Hand, and I still appreciate the sentiment and feel close to many of my Brothers from there, but there was something missing from it, and I don’t know what. I’m sure everyone who knew me then could tell me what they thought was missing — I could tell you some possibilities, too — but Freemasonry has gotten to me in ways that ΘΧ never did. Freemasonry seems to be an excellent match for me, though: it’s an omnipresent organization dedicated to philanthropy, with high ideals and impressive rituals, based in a belief in God and a constitutional government but not particularly worrying about the details of those beliefs. It’s exactly the kind of thing I had been looking for, and I’m glad I discovered it while I was so young.

This weekend I’m going to Princeton to check it out. I’m still trying to decide between Columbia and Princeton — Princeton is really the foremost Presbyterian seminary, but Columbia has an exceedingly strong Old Testament history and (as far as I can tell) a lot of forward momentum. I’ve gotten onto the Presbytery Committe for Preparation for Ministry, and I’m going to talk to some of the seminarians about their experiences. I don’t know where the current candidates are from, but I’m looking forward to talking with them about their experiences. And I’m really looking forward to seeing what the process is and what the thoughts are for potential ministers — it’s such a unique life calling that it’s interesting to talk about people who want to do it.

In any case, I’m heading out to Princeton. I’m looking forward to it: I’ve not been on an Ivy League campus before. I went to Vanderbilt for a ΘΧ conference, which was as close as I’ve ever gotten. Vanderbilt was great — it’s a beautiful campus, and I liked Nashville quite a bit. I’m considering doing Vanderbilt for my Ph.D.: it’s got a lot of diversity of thought, and while Princeton is well known for its scholars, it is not well known for its diversity. That’s a decision that is a long, long time in the future.

There are lots of things going on right now — this year has had some astounding transitions. I’ve recently gotten in touch with my favorite high school teacher, and things have really been changing with him, too: it was weird getting coffee with him and being on a first name basis after walking that weird line between teacher/student and friend. I have also been trying to get in touch with a lot of the other people who helped shape me into who I am: I’ve got this sense that I’ve gotten a bit lost, so I want to back up and take another start at this.

I also want to get a Diplomacy game going soon. :D

Comments

• October 5, 2005, alw wrote: You are amazing. One day I'm going to stop being surprised by your awesomeness and just accept it as a given, I promise. Well, then again maybe not. : ) But not because of you, because so many other people are quite the opposite, I don't know how you manage. This might come out the wrong way but I'm always astounded by your ability to make the right/good decisions. How to treat people, what kind of job/pay you deserve, whether or not you should drop OX like a bad habit, what kind of education you should continue with, and I could go on and on...and I know that you ask your family, your real friends and myself for advice on many of these things, but in the end the decision is yours and you rarely make a bad one. Your genuine mistakes are minor and far between, and I don't tell you that enough, but I should because I know you struggle with decisions. There are some basic right ways of living (i.e. work hard, take care of yourself, don't hurt other people, try not to be selfish, prioritize correctly) that just seem impossible for other people to achieve, EVER! So, it's really sad that I'm so impressed with your ability to do so, but I am. And I admire how little you struggle to make these choices and I'm inspired by the excitment you approach them with. (The reason I think this all sounds bad is because I'm telling you that I know what the right decisions are, and well, I do and I don't care if that sounds bad right now. It's just that as a non-moron I realize that by not proving the things I claim to be true there is no reason for anyone to accept anything I say as truth, but since I'm talking to you, also a non-moron, and one who knows me possibly better than anyone else, I'm going to just let that go!) So many people pretend to agree with/admire their significant others to save face. They don't want to admit how much the other person sucks, or, they don't see it because they suck too. But I'm different, when I'm in a relationship I go looking for flaws because I don't want to wake up one day wondering how I could have fooled myself for so long. I've been with you for almost two years and have spent most of the time waiting for the other shoe to drop. When you do something where your reasons/intentions are unclear I assume the worst because I don't want to be surprised with it. But in all my extreme efforts I haven't been able to find one significant flaw and every time I've assumed you've forgotten something or had unfavorable intentions for doing something you've surprised me in some way or other. Every single time. And this pleases me because I've stopped looking for flaws, I'm finally beginning to stop expecting the worst when things are unclear. I'm still withholding some judgment for a bit longer, but I feel much more relaxed with you now. So, rest assured that you are one of the few people who is in a genuinly good relationship because I'm *not* telling you all these things because I'm with you, I'm with you because they're true.
• October 14, 2005, alw wrote: BTW, how do you do those smily faces on here? They're cute. And if I ever post here I might need to use them!
• July 14, 2008, The Cheap Sitcom Clip Scene Blog Post | Enfranchised Mind wrote: [...] “Near my computer is my lambskin apron, and on my hand is the Ring of the Lodge of Perfection. It’s amazing how deeply and quickly Freemasonry has touched me.” (Thoughts) [...]

(Digital Fingerprint: bcecb67d74ab248f06f068724220e340 (38.107.191.80) )