Difficult
Questions About Freemasonry
by Brother Roger
Firestone @
http://web.mit.edu/dryfoo/Masonry/Questions/difficult.html
Is Freemasonry a religion?
No, Freemasonry is not a
religion. Masons who treat it as such are mistaken.
Freemasonry strongly encourages its members to belong to
an established religion, although that is not a
requirement for membership (only that a candidate
profess a belief in a Supreme Being). Masonry is a
fraternal organization that encourages morality and
charity and studies philosophy. It has no clergy, no
sacraments, and does not promise salvation to its
members.
But what about terms like
"Temple," "Worshipful," and so on?
Labor unions meet in a
Labor Temple. A museum may be called the Temple of Fine
Arts. This does not mean that they are religious
institutions. The same is true of Freemasonry. (Masonic
buildings are also called Lodge Halls and Masonic
Centers as well as Masonic Temples. Some Scottish Rite
buildings are called "Cathedrals," but that is from a
Greek word meaning "chair," and referring to the seat of
authority of any sort.)
The term "worshipful" stems
from 18th century English usage, when Freemasonry in its
present form was being organized. The term has nothing
to do with religious worship but is an old synonym for
"honorable" or "respected." Check any good dictionary!
Similarly, Freemasons
engage in group prayer and have a chaplain, just as do
the armed services and the houses of Congress. That does
not make Masonry into a religion.
Is there a conflict
between Freemasonry and established religion?
There is nothing in
Freemasonry that conflicts with most religions. However,
Freemasonry does insist on religious tolerance. To the
extent that certain religious groups would wish to
suppress other religions or persecute their followers,
Freemasons would be in opposition to such activities,
and adherents of such groups would be both uncomfortable
and unwelcome in Masonry. It is also the case that
certain religious groups are misinformed about
Freemasonry and believe things about the Fraternity that
are not true; basing their opinions on this false
information, they then formulate opinions that create
conflict.
Is Freemasonry a cult?
That depends on what is
meant by "cult." By some definitions, Christianity,
Islam, and Judaism are cults. By another definition,
golfing, bowling, and surfing the Internet are cults.
But in the usual use of the term, referring to a group
that separates itself from society and its members from
their non-member friends, demands slavish obedience from
its adherents, engages in brainwashing techniques,
confiscates their resources, and sees itself in
opposition to established society, absolutely not!
Quite the opposite, in
fact: Masonry does not recruit members, does not compel
attendance at any of its meetings, charges modest dues
and fees (some little changed from sixty years ago, when
the dollar was worth a lot more), encourages community
service and participation in civic and religious
organizations, and allows any member to quit (demit) at
any time (providing he has no outstanding financial
obligations; otherwise, he is liable to be suspended,
but in either case, he would no longer be a member). It
is easier to get out of Masonry than it is to get into
it!
Why do certain
fundamentalist groups oppose Freemasonry?
Mostly out of ignorance and
misinformation, although possibly out of fear of
competition for time and attention with the church
(churches have been suffering the same loss of active
membership over the past few decades as has
Freemasonry). Ignorance of Masonry allows misinformation
to spread. For example, it is claimed that Freemasonry
has a "plan of salvation" that is in opposition to that
of the Christian Church. Simply not true; nothing in any
of the Masonic degrees refers to salvation.
Is there no Masonic
theology, then?
An examination of the the
degrees will reveal that there is a basic theology of
Masonry, as follows:
There is a Supreme Being
Who created the Universe,
Who has established and revealed a moral law,
And to Whom we must give account
in a life after this.
These five points are
supported by material in the lectures and related
contents of the degrees, such as the discourses on the
Working Tools. But there is nothing in these points that
is in conflict with any major religion of the Western
world. (To be sure, there are branches of Buddhism that
are non-theistic, and there are those who do not believe
in an afterlife, but they need not become Freemasons,
nor does Masonry seek to dissuade them from their
beliefs.)
What about allegations
that Freemasonry is Satanic or pagan?
Most of these are complete
fabrications; the rest are misunderstandings of the
institution and its rituals. A number of forgeries and
alleged exposes of Masonry were created during the last
century. Most of the claims of "Satanism" in Masonry can
be traced to one or two of these fraudulent sources.
Other such allegations are simply made-up claims about
what various Masonic emblems and symbols stand for.
For example, it is
sometimes claimed that the letter "G" found in the
Master Mason's jewel, along with the Square and
Compasses, is a substitute for a phallic symbol. But
there is nothing in Masonry to support such a statement;
it is complete fiction. The letter "G" stands for God
(it is used by Masons who speak other languages due to
the modern origins of Masonry in English-speaking
countries); in the Scottish Rite, the Hebrew letter yodh,
which is the first letter of the Tetragrammaton, or
Ineffable Name, plays the same role.
Another example that came
up recently was a discussion of the Blazing Star. This
is one of the "ornaments" of a Lodge, introduced in the
Entered Apprentice degree. A non-Mason insisted that
- Masons "worship" the
Blazing Star
- the Blazing Star is
somehow to be identified with Lucifer (based on the
verse Isaiah 14:12)
- the Blazing Star is
the "false dawn" that can then be identified with a
false light (in competition with the true Light of
Jesus)
- and that therefore
Masons engage in devil worship.
Here are the facts:
- Isaiah 14 is a chapter
with a prophecy against the kings of Babylon,
specifically Nebuchadnezzar. The quoted verse is
rendered, in my Bible, "Day-star, son of the
morning, how hast thou fallen?" In this passage, the
prophet alleges that the arrogant king of Babylon
has thought himself as glorious as a celestial body,
but that the destruction of the kingdom of Babylon
shall surely bring him back to earth. The word here
translated as "day-star" is, in Hebrew, "heyleyl,"
and refers to the planet Venus. The ancient Greeks
and Romans both used different words for this planet
when it appeared in the morning sky from its
appearance in the evening sky. The Greeks called it
Hesperus in the evening and Phosphorus in the
morning; the Romans called it Venus in the evening
and Lucifer in the morning. Hence, the translation
of the Hebrew, via Greek, into Latin (i.e, from the
Hebrew to the Septuagint to the Vulgate), naturally
would introduce the word "Lucifer" as the correct
Latin translation of the Hebrew.
- The term "Lucifer" as
a name for the Devil or Satan, cannot be traced any
farther back than the Middle Ages, and was only
widely popularized by Milton's epic poem, "Paradise
Lost."
- The Minnesota Masonic
Manual (as one source on the lectures of Masonry)
clearly identifies the Blazing Star as emblematic of
the Star of Bethlehem, hardly a "Satanic" reference.
It has nothing to do with the planet Venus.
- The Blazing Star is
mentioned for about 30 seconds in a lecture some
20-30 minutes in length (it depends on jurisdiction)
in the first degree of Masonry only, an amount of
attention that could scarcely be described as
"worship."
- The "false dawn" is
not heralded by Venus, but is a phenomenon produced
by the Zodiacal Light, a band of dust lying in the
plane of the Earth's orbit, which most prominently
appears as a skyglow before sunrise in the fall (the
false dawn) and after sunset in the spring, but can
only be observed under ideally dark conditions.
In other words, the
allegation about Masonry in this case combines many
errors: Taking a portion of a single verse of the Bible
out of context, misinterpreting its translation,
misunderstanding an astronomical term, misidentifying a
Masonic emblem with an astronomical object, and
mischaracterizing the importance of a symbol in the
ritual. Perhaps all of this can be attributed to
ignorance, but since the facts are easy to obtain, one
is forced to wonder about how such allegations come to
be and to persist.
Assertions about "pagan"
material in Masonry may stem from the study of material
from the ancient world in some of the degrees. But this
is not paganism (the worship of idols, natural objects,
or polytheistic human-like deities). In fact, many of
the early teachings of the Church depended heavily on
the works of such "pagan" philosophers as Plato and
Aristotle; Christianity has absorbed such pagan elements
as the Christmas tree, the name Easter (from a pagan
fertility goddess), and the actual date of Christmas
(pre-empting the Roman's pagan winter solstice festival
of the Saturnalia). Indeed, the mythos about the fall of
Lucifer from heaven to the underworld is of pagan
origin, derived from the Graeco-Roman legend of
Hephaestus (Vulcan) who fell from Mt. Olympus to the
nether regions, where his forges were located, and in
ancient art is depicted as lame from the fall. There
have been many thinkers and learned men in cultures
other than that of the West in the Judaeo-Christian era,
and it is not "paganism" to study them.
If Masonry is so
aboveboard, why is it "secret?"
There are fewer secrets to
Freemasonry than most non-members imagine; even many
Masons are not entirely clear on what is and is not
secret in Masonry. The moral principles of Masonry are
the same as those taught you in Sunday school or at your
mother's knee (sometimes over it!); it is only the exact
procedures and words by which those principles are
taught in Masonry that are secret, for it is the
knowledge of those that distinguishes a Mason from those
who are not members. To be entitled to the fellowship
peculiar to the Lodge, a Mason must be able to identify
himself, and these secrets provide the means for doing
so.
A better term than
"secrecy" would be privacy. Masonry is not a public
organization like a school board or a city council. It
is an association of private citizens, just like a
country club or a church. No one who is not a member has
a right to know about the internal workings of any of
these things. They are private to the group, not
"secret."
What about "blood oaths"
and hideous penalties of the degrees?
It is true that Masons must
take solemn obligations to be faithful to the principles
of Masonry, and their very nature and seriousness
implies that there should be penalties. However, the
language of these obligations makes it clear that the
penalties are not actually inflicted by the Lodge or any
body of Masonry but are expressions of how disgraced and
contemptible one should feel for violating such an
obligation. In some jurisdictions, the candidate is told
that the penalties are of "ancient origin and symbolic
only." Later degrees make this even more apparent, even
if the actual information is not specifically addressed
to the candidate. But the true penalties for violation
of the laws of Masonry are three only: Admonition (or
reprimand), suspension, or expulsion. Stories about
Masons being maimed or murdered for violation of their
oaths are just that: fiction. Not one single instance
can be documented, despite the many attempts by the
enemies of Masonry to promote this slander.
Masons say one thing,
anti-Masons say another -- whom should I believe?
The history of Freemasonry
is well documented, and its major players include a vast
number of contributors to society--men such as
Washington, Truman, and Churchill in politics, Goethe,
Schiller, and Conan Doyle in literature, Burl Ives,
Ernest Borgnine, Gene Autry in the performing arts,
Mozart, Haydn, and Irving Berlin in music, and on and
on. Freemasons played essential roles in the
civilization of the New World, taming the west (Kit
Carson was a Freemason), freeing Latin America (Bolivar
was a Mason, as was Bernardo O'Higgins), and so on.
Freemasons have established a vast array of charitable
activities, primarily focusing on the health field, such
as the famous Shriners' Children's Hospitals for
treatment of orthopedic problems and burns, the Scottish
Rite speech disorder clinics, the Masonic cancer
centers, the Tall Cedars' activities for muscular
dystrophy, and many others. Not to mention homes for the
aged and even dormitory accommodations at the University
of Texas.
Among the anti-Masons, one
can count a single president of the US, John Quincy
Adams (thirteen presidents were Masons), two literary
figures (Edgar Allan Poe and Charles Dickens--and it is
not clear whether Dickens was really an anti-Mason, or
one who simply felt that the Masons of his time were not
living up to their standards and were therefore
hypocrites), and almost no one else of any consequence
in history or who has made a significant contribution to
the humanities. The anti-Masons operate no charitable
groups but engage in fund-raising only to support
themselves: They sell books for profit, seek donations
to keep their "ministries" operating on television, and
contribute nothing to society at large.
All of this is a matter of
public record; these facts do not depend on one's
ability to determine who is telling the truth. Further,
we have the experience of history to teach us what to
believe of a group of "anti-" somethings, whether they
are anti-Semites, anti-Catholics, or anti-Masons. That
historical experience has shown that those who single
out a group, especially one different from the majority
in society, for opprobrium and hatred are generally not
telling the truth about that group, but are seeking to
benefit themselves from stirring up the passions of the
mob.
In other words, if we knew
nothing of the Masons nor of the anti-Masons, it would
be difficult to know whom to believe. But we are not so
ignorant as that. There are plenty of epistemological
reasons to choose to believe that Masons are telling the
truth in the present context, as opposed to accepting
the word of the anti-Masons. (E.g., one epistemological
principle is known as Occam's Razor--it tells us to
accept the simplest hypothesis that explains the known
facts. The anti-Masons, when confronted with their own
contradictions, pile on ever more assumptions. Prove
that "Lucifer" is not mentioned in the Symbolic Rite of
the first three degrees and they will assert that it is
the Scottish Rite that teaches "devil worship." Prove
that there is no such thing in the 32 degrees, and they
will claim it is taught in the 33rd degree. A denial by
a 33rd degree Mason will lead to the attribution of
Satanism to the Knights Templar. And so on. The simpler
hypothesis is that there is no such Satanic nonsense in
Freemasonry--given the conflict of assertions, Occam's
Razor directs us to this choice.) The anti-Masons also
engage in circular reasoning: They claim that there is a
great "Masonic conspiracy" to control the world. Absent
any evidence of that, they claim that the very lack of
evidence is "proof" of the power of the conspiracy. (Too
many Oliver Stone movies? Of course, even Congressmen
have engaged in such reasoning, as in the case of the
"October surprise" investigation, when Tom Foley
suggested that the very lack of evidence was what
justified a Congressional hearing. An inability to
reason against one's own prejudices is not unique to the
anti-Masons.)
Anti-Masons, in discussing
some of the more inflammatory allegations about Masonry,
such as the worship of satanic or pagan gods, also
assert that the vast majority of Masons are totally
ignorant of the "real" nature of Masonry, which is
revealed only to a few "high" Masons. Yet these
anti-Masons insist that they themselves know these
hidden secrets better than most of the millions of
active members of the Masonic fraternity. Is this a
credible state of affairs?
In other words, there are
very good reasons to believe that Masons, rather than
anti-Masons are telling the truth about the Fraternity,
based on the history of Freemasonry, the known character
of those who have been Freemasons, and the principles of
epistemology. Of course, if one is ignorant of the
history and background of a witness, as well as ignorant
of the theory of knowledge, one is at the mercy of every
smooth-talking mountebank and charlatan to come along.
(Why do you think that criminal defense lawyers seek the
most uninformed jurors possible?)
A recent (Mon Aug 9 1999)
update: In addition to spreading false stories about the
nature and intentions of Freemasonry in print media,
television and radio programs, and Internet venues, the
past few months have seen an escalation of anti-Masonic
activity of an active nature on the Internet.
Anti-Masons have engaged in several forms of Net abuse,
including multiple repeated postings to Usenet of the
same material (a dozen or more times), postings to large
numbers of Usenet newsgroups, and combinations of these.
Within the past week or so, one anti-Mason in Australia
with administrator privileges has begun issuing *CANCEL*
requests for postings by Freemasons to alt.freemasonry
and replacing those messages with forgeries of the
originals containing obscenities, incoherencies, and so
on. Examination of the full message headers reveals
these posts to have originated at telstra.net, near
Canberra, and not with the ISPs of the reputed senders.
Since anti-Masons uniformly use anonymous posting
methods and never appear under their own names or
identities, closing down their accounts takes time.
The evidence of those
actions can be found at what used to be known as Deja
News. Anti-Masons frequently allege that Masons are part
of some worldwide criminal conspiracy; when they are
caught doing the same, what does it mean for the
credibility of their accusations? And why would anyone
take the word of a source or group of sources that
choose to be anonymous.
No, the matter of whom to
believe is not one which requires hard thought to
resolve.
Why Can't Christians Pray
in Lodge?
Of course Christians can
pray in Lodge! What they may not do is offer a
specifically Christian prayer as Lodge prayer, any more
than a Jew or Muslim may offer a prayer specific to his
religion.
The reason for this is that
it is the custom of Masonry to require all to
participate in and assent to Lodge prayer. How can it be
proper for a Christian to require non-Christians to
assent to a prayer peculiar to his own religious belief?
No Christian would assent to a prayer offered by a Jew
or Muslim which essentially denied the doctrine of the
Trinity. Because a Lodge acts in unison, prayers offered
in Lodge must be of a nature that will be agreed to by
all present.
To be sure, some Christians
believe that only prayers given in a particularly
Christian form are truly prayers. These people cannot
become Freemasons because they do not subscribe to the
principles of religious toleration required of Masons.
But most Christians do not hold these exclusive beliefs
and have no objections to the form of prayer offered in
the Masonic Lodge.
Is Freemasonry
anti-Catholic?
No. Masonry has no
objection to the admission of a Catholic to the Masonic
fraternity. Whether the Roman Catholic Church objects to
a Catholic becoming a Freemason is their business, not
ours. Masonry would not counsel anyone to do something
opposed by his religion. The present position of the
Church regarding Freemasonry is not altogether clear;
some sources indicate that the Vatican remains opposed
to any form of Freemasonry, others say that only those
organizations which "plot against the Church" (which
Masonry does not) are proscribed, and others see no
problem. This is a matter for any individual Catholic
who might be interested in joining the Masons and his
spiritual advisor.
There is material in some
of the degrees of the appendant bodies of Freemasonry
which might be interpreted as anti-Catholic,
particularly with reference to the history of the
Knights Templar and the death of Jacques DeMolay. But
those events occurred nearly 700 years ago! The Church
of today is not the Church of the 14th century. The
Church itself has recognized that leaders of those times
made errors of various sorts; one need only look to the
20th century canonization of Joan of Arc, burned in the
15th century as a heretic, or the rehabilitation of
Galileo, forced in the 17th century to recant his
scientific studies, to recognize this. The degrees of
Masonry make no mention of the Church in any other than
remote historical context.
Freemasonry is the enemy of
tyranny and despotism, not of any particular religion or
nationality. If the Church were to fall into the hands
of the heartless and rapacious, as it did in earlier
times (the days of the Borgias and the Medicis, not to
mention Torquemada), it would be as much the duty of
every Catholic to denounce such behavior as it would be
for Freemasons--and modern-day Martin Luthers.
What is the role of
various doctrinal books, like Pike's Morals and Dogma?
Actually, there are no
"doctrinal" books in Freemasonry. Freemasonry is a
society dedicated to free thinking and freedom of all
kinds. No Mason has the right to dictate to another what
he shall or shall not believe regarding his religion,
his politics, or even his interpretation of the Masonic
symbols. There are a number of conventional
interpretations of the symbols of Freemasonry, some of
which are given in the lectures of the degrees, but no
Mason is required to accept any or all of them; he is
free to explore the world of thought and make up his own
mind.
Anti-Masons are fond of
combing through Albert Pike's Morals and Dogma to find
various passages that somehow "expose" the "secrets" of
Freemasonry's dangerous beliefs. They conveniently
ignore a number of facts:
- The preface of Morals
and Dogma makes it clear that Pike's work is an
unannotated anthology, containing a portion of his
own writing and also the works of many philosophers
and theologians dating back to antiquity. Much of
the book is derived from sources far removed from
Freemasonry in time.
- The preface also makes
clear that no one is required to believe or accept
any of the contents as truth. No "doctrinal" book
would announce that every reader is "free to
dissent" from any of its contents.
- Morals and Dogma was
first of all written for those who have received the
degrees of Scottish Rite Freemasonry in the form
developed and edited by Albert Pike (the "Pike
recension"). For someone to attempt to interpret the
contents without the knowledge of the degrees is
like trying to understand a book on quantum physics
without having mastered the basics of dynamics and
statics.
- Morals and Dogma was
written under the authority of the Supreme Council,
33rd Degree, for the Southern Jurisdiction of the
Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite of Freemasonry in
the USA. The SJ of the USA, AASR, encompasses only a
minority of Masons in the US and an even smaller
proportion worldwide. Outside of the SJ of the US,
Albert Pike is of much less influence than many
non-Masons (and certainly anti-Masons) suppose. (The
same is true of later works which also elucidate the
degrees of the SJ of the US, such as Clausen's
Commentaries and Hutchens' A Bridge to Light.)
Similarly, anti-Masons like
to quote (out of context, quite often) Manly Hall (who
wrote many of his books before becoming a Freemason),
Coil's Masonic Encyclopedia, Albert Mackey, and others.
Many of these men did their writing a century or more
ago and use an idiom not well understood by those living
today who are not familiar with such writing styles.
These books are useful reference sources for those who
seek to improve their knowledge of Masonry and who wish
to sharpen their wits against the whetstone of great
thinkers, but they are not doctrine.
I've read the ritual in an
exposé; what is all this strange stuff?
Remember that Masons
solemnly pledge to keep the ritual secret. An "exposé"
is the product of someone who has broken a promise to
his friends and neighbors and to God. Can you really
trust that such a person is telling you the truth?
Masonry must be experienced
to be understood; reading the ritual does not truly
confer the lessons of the degrees, even for those of us
who have the real ritual (and not some "exposé").
Masonry is a way of life that involves much more than
the ceremonies of the degrees. Knowing a password or
secret handshake is not what makes a man a Mason. The
essence of Masonry is not something that can be written
down.
Is Masonry some kind of
global conspiracy?
The simplest answer is
"no." But that is not a very satisfying answer for those
who have heard many preposterous rumors about Masonry,
the "New World Order," the Bavarian Illuminati, and so
on. Let's look at some of the issues that have been
raised:
Global Organization
There is no single
governing body of Freemasonry in the world. The United
Grand Lodge of England (UGLE) is the descendant of the
first Grand Lodge formed in 1717, but that gives it no
authority over other Grand Lodges, all of which are
equal. The UGLE does not even have total authority in
Great Britain, for Scotland has its own Grand Lodge.
The Supreme Council of the
Ancient And Accepted Scottish Rite for the Southern
Jurisdiction of the USA, sometimes is called the Mother
Supreme Council of the World, for it was the first to be
formed, but again, all Supreme Councils are equal, and
chronological primacy confers no special authority. The
Southern Jurisdiction of the AASR does not even have
complete authority in the USA, for there is also a
Supreme Council for the Northern Jurisdiction,
comprising the states east of the Mississippi and north
of the Ohio River and Mason-Dixon Line.
There are the General Grand
Chapter of Royal Arch Masons International and the
General Grand Council of Cryptic Masons International.
But these bodies have mostly ceremonial impact; no Grand
Chapter or Grand Council is required to belong to its
General Grand counterpart, and many Grand
Chapters/Councils do not.
Finally, the top authority
in Masonry is always the Grand Master of Masons, not
some Grand Commander or other personage associated with
the "higher" degrees. The Grand Master of Masons can
suspend the General Grand High Priest from all the
privileges of Masonry; the GGHP has no such power.
Obviously, there is no global organization in Masonry.
Conspiracy
The most bizarre thing
about conspiracy theories in general is that there is
never a clear explanation of what the conspiracy is
about, nor how it is carrying out its aims. The alleged
Masonic conspiracy stories conform to this. None of the
conspiracy theorists ever explains what it is that the
Masons want to do with their supposed power.
Since Masonry's tenets are
brotherly love, relief, and truth, if the Masons did run
the world, it might be a better place. Many of the
Founding Fathers who wrote the Constitution of the
United States were Freemasons; the principles in that
document have stood the test of over two centuries.
Would a Masonic government be so bad? Look at the
governments founded by anti-Masonic groups: Nazi
Germany, the Soviet Union, Iran under totalitarian
religious rule. Where is the real problem in the world?
Bavarian Illuminati
This group died out in the
18th century. An organization that does not exist is a
convenient scapegoat! To the conspiracy loony, that
there is no evidence of a group's existence is "proof"
that it is fiendishly clever in concealing itself. One
does not have to be a professor of philosophy to see
that this kind of logic makes no sense in a search for
truth.
Masonic symbols on the
dollar bill
Some commentators have
claimed that there are Masonic symbols on the US $1
bill, and that they were put there by the Masonic
president, Franklin Delano Roosevelt to show that the
country had been taken over by Masons.
Well, perhaps the symbols
are Masonic, but the material on the dollar bill dates
from the late 1700s, not Roosevelt's term. The two
circled objects on the back of the bill are the two
sides of the Great Seal of the United States. It is said
that Ben Franklin, a Mason, had some influence in the
design.
What are these Masonic
symbols? The representation of an eye and an unfinished
pyramid. The All-Seeing Eye of Deity is certainly
mentioned in Freemasonry, but that concept dates back to
the Bible, at least. An unfinished pyramid symbolizes
that the work of nation building is not completed, but
the pyramid is not a particularly Masonic symbol; any
unfinished building would have done. (Some say that
there is an owl in the engravings in one corner of the
bill, but that is a product of an overactive
imagination. The owl is also not a Masonic symbol; the
only birds that come to mind in any of the degrees are
the pelican in the 18th degree [a symbol of Jesus,
incidentally], the mythical phoenix, and the eagle. And
those are found only in the Scottish Rite, so they are
not characteristic of Masonry as a whole.
[Web-master's note: In an
MSA Short Talk Bulletin, we learn that
the "Eye in the Pyramid" is not a
Masonic emblem.]
New World Order
Ever since George Bush (not
a Freemason) publicized this term, it has been an
obsession of certain groups. They point to the wording
on the dollar bill (see above), which reads "novus ordo
seclorum." Unfortunately, as someone once said, "Th[eir]
Latin waxeth rusty." The phrase on the bill means "a new
order of the ages," and refers to the completely novel
(and still unique) form of American government, a
republic of separated powers, composed of a federal
union of states, in which the central government is
granted powers by the people, whose rights are supreme
over the institutions of government. If the term were to
mean "new world order," the third word would have to be
"sæculorum" instead.
The Kennedy Assassination
(and others)
Much has been made of the
facts that many members of the Warren Commission were
Freemasons. Supposedly, this allowed them to "cover up"
the "evidence" that the Freemasons had Kennedy
assassinated. Of course, there is no explanation of how
the Freemasons might have benefited from Kennedy's death
or what other motivation they might have had for such a
plot. For most of the history of the American Republic,
about one-third of American officeholders--presidents,
senators, judges, congressmen, local officials--have
been Freemasons. It is hardly surprising that a group
such as the Warren Commission would have been about 1/3
Freemasons.
As for other sensational
assassinations, there is the same question to be asked:
How could the Freemasons have benefited from this act?
As there is never a sensible answer, the allegations are
clearly laughable.
Since the Freemasons have
been around for nearly 300 years and have held many
responsible positions in the American government, as
well as in other countries around the world,
particularly the English-speaking ones, if there were
any such conspiracy, it would have long since succeeded
in its aims. As the concept is the product of
overwrought imaginations, the total lack of evidence or
purpose for any such conspiracy must lead us to dismiss
it as nonsense.
You said that Masonry was
not a religion and had no priests, but you just
mentioned a Grand High Priest--what gives?
At the time of the return
from the Babylonian exile, some of the legendary events
of which are commemorated by the Royal Arch Degree,
Jeshua, Zerubbabel, and Haggai were the High Priest,
King, and Scribe among the Israelites. The important
roles played by these individuals led to their positions
being used to designate the three principal officers of
the Royal Arch Chapter. The title "High Priest" is used
by the presiding officer of a Royal Arch Chapter in the
United States of America. In other countries, the title
King is assigned to the presiding officer, and the High
Priest is a subordinate officer; anti-monarchist
sentiment in the US at the time the Royal Arch degrees
were becoming established in America (late 1700s) led to
the primary role being assigned to the High Priest,
which was also consonant with the American notion of the
state being subordinate to the Deity. In some foreign
jurisdictions, the designations of the first three
officers are simply First, Second, and Third Principal,
with no reference to the historical roles of the
individuals commemorated in the degree ceremonies.
The High Priest of a Royal
Arch Chapter (and likewise the Grand High Priest of a
Grand Chapter and the General Grand High Priest of the
General Grand Chapter) performs no sacerdotal functions;
his office is the equivalent of those of Worshipful
Master of a Lodge, Illustrious Master of a Council,
Eminent Commander of a Commandery, and so on. Like all
Masonic bodies, a Royal Arch Chapter has a Chaplain (in
Scottish Rite Masonry, the office is termed "Prelate")
who is responsible for offering prayer at the opening of
a meeting. The Excellent High Priest is responsible for
administration of his Chapter's business and conduct of
its ritual.
Though it has Commanders,
Masonry has no army; though it has officers titled "High
Priest," Masonry is not a religion. The High Priest is
not a priest, paradoxical as that may sound; he is a
chairman or president in fact, if not in name.
Why do Masons want to
hoodwink people?
This is a misunderstanding
arising from the use of archaic language in Masonry when
modern meanings are different from what they were a
couple of centuries ago. (E.g., "let" used to mean
"hinder"--which it still does in tennis, but for most
usages, it means the exact opposite: to allow or
permit.)
"Hoodwink" comes from two
words, "hood" (meaning to cover, when used as a verb)
and "wink" (an archaic term for the eye). Thus, "to
hoodwink" means to cover the eyes, originally. At the
time when this word was adopted by Freemasonry (the
early 18th century or before), this was its primary
meaning.
Since that time, it has
come to be synonymous with the phrase "pull the wool
over the eyes," which is to say "to deceive." The word,
however, is just as often used as a noun in Masonry as a
verb, and when used as a verb is accompanied by the
action of using a blindfold (the modern term for a
hoodwink), making its meaning clear at the time.
The word "hoodwink" has
only one meaning in a Masonic context, and that is
"blindfold." It is only anti-Masons who hope to deceive
others (should I have said "hoodwink others?") who
claim, dishonestly, that Masons use the term "hoodwink"
with the meaning of "deception."
Why do Masons insult
non-Masons as being profane?
Again, this is a
misunderstanding over the use of archaic language. The
word "profane" comes from two Latin words, "pro,"
meaning "before," and "fanum," meaning "temple." In
earlier usage, "profane" had a more literal meaning of
"outside the temple." It was simply an antonym for the
term "sacred," just as "secular" still is. (Classical
music lovers will note, for example, the Debussy work, "Danses
sacrees et profanes," as a use of the same word in
French with this meaning.)
In more recent usage,
dating from well after the language of Masonry became
fixed, the term "profane" was most often coupled with
the term "language," to denote speech which would not
have been uttered inside a temple or other sacred
precincts. Gradually, this became the most common
application of "profane" and, in the popular mind,
became its only meaning. "Profane" became a synonym for
swearing, cursing, and blasphemy, all of which are now
called "profanity."
But when a Mason refers to
"profanes" or the "profane" world, he means only those
who are not initiated into Masonry and thus must remain
"outside the temple." Nothing more; no insult is
intended.
by Brother Roger
Firestone @
http://web.mit.edu/dryfoo/Masonry/Questions/difficult.html
|