Why We Open Meetings
on the Master Mason Degree
by By Jeffrey D. Naylor, Grand Lecturer
Grand Lodge of Indiana, F. & A. M
For the past two years, resolutions have been introduced at
Grand Lodge to permit local Lodges to open and conduct their stated business
meetings on the Entered Apprentice degree (or not, as the language of the
resolutions have allowed each Lodge to decide this for themselves). Both years,
this resolution has gone down to defeat. Well-meaning brethren have stood on the
floor of Grand Lodge and alleged that it would be “innovation” for this
Grand Lodge to permit Lodges to open on the Entered Apprentice degree. Students
of American Masonic history and of the Craft outside of the United States and
our singular approach to certain Masonic practices know otherwise, however.
In fact, until the late 1840s and early 1850s, it was the practice of nearly
every Grand Lodge in the United States to open their meetings on the Entered
Apprentice degree, as it still is in most other jurisdictions in the world
today. This article tells the story of why Grand Lodges turned away from
centuries-old customs and committed real acts of innovation.
Our story begins in March of 1822 when a number of Masons who were also members
of Congress called for the establishment of a General Grand Lodge for the United
States of America. A “General Grand Lodge” is one that would govern the
Craft in the whole country, not simply in a single state. These brethren called
for a Conference to be held in February of 1823 in Washington, D.C. to organize
this General Grand Lodge. Strong opposition by the Grand Lodges of Pennsylvania,
New York and Kentucky, who were opposed to losing their sovereignty, put a quick
end to the whole notion of a National Grand Lodge, but there remained calls for
a convention to “standardize” certain aspects of American Freemasonry.
In 1826, William Morgan, a disgruntled Mason from New York, announced his
pending publication of a book that purported to reveal the “secrets” of
Freemasonry. Without getting into the details of the Morgan Affair (which can be
read on-line at http://www.masonicinfo.com/morgan.htm), Morgan disappeared, and
local Freemasons were accused of his murder. Although no evidence was ever
produced to prove that Masons were behind Morgan’s disappearance, or that he
was ever harmed in any way, the allegations were devastating to Freemasonry. So
damaging was this incident to the reputation of the Craft that a political party
dedicated to the elimination of Freemasonry – the Anti-Masonic Party –
formed, and nominated William Wirt (a Fellow Craft, who had previously spoken
highly of Freemasonry) as its candidate for President of the United States in
1832. (Wirt won only Vermont in the general election, and the Anti-Masonic Party
was largely absorbed into the Whig Party. Interestingly, Indiana’s William
Henry Harrison was identified with the Anti-Masonic movement, and was elected as
the Whig candidate in 1840.)
Although short-lived, this anti-Masonic fervor nearly destroyed the Craft.
Kentucky, for example, lost over half their membership and 29 of their 66
lodges. Most American Grand Lodges were similarly affected. The anti-Masons had
made available to the profane public a number of “exposures” of Freemasonry
containing rituals, due guards and signs, grips and words, and it became
increasingly difficult to know who actually was a Mason. Lodges turned away
visitors who could not prove themselves Masons by the work as done by that
particular lodge. In many instances the ritual (which was not printed in those
days) had been forgotten, and new Masons received poor instruction.
In 1839, the Grand Lodge of Alabama revived the calls for a national convention
to “standardize” American Freemasonry, and at their 1839 Communication they
voted to request that all Grand Lodges send a delegate to Washington, D.C. on
the first Monday in March of 1842, “for the purpose of determining a uniform
mode of work throughout the United States and to make other lawful regulations
for the interest and security of the Craft.” Ten Grand Lodges met on March 7,
1842, and requested that each Grand Lodge appoint a well-educated Mason to serve
as Grand Lecturer, and that he act as a delegate to a convention to be held in
Baltimore the following year. Indiana was not represented. The Grand Secretary,
Austin W. Morris, introduced a resolution to the effect that it would be
“impolitic” to send a representative to Washington because of “the
jealousy entertained against Masonry,” and the fear that “the object,
however laudable, might be misunderstood by the world.”
It was recommended by the convention organizers that each delegate carry a
certificate of good standing from their Grand Lodge in order to prove themselves
Masons. It was also decided that business should be conducted on the Master
Mason degree, as “Entered Apprentices and Fellowcrafts (sic) were not members
of the Lodge and not entitled to the franchises of members.” Some Grand Lodges
began making permanent changes to their own constitutions based on the
requirements of the convention, even before it had announced its findings.
Maryland quickly began issuing certificates of good standing (dues cards) to all
of its members, and Virginia was, in 1842, the first Grand Lodge to require that
lodges conduct their business on the Master Mason degree. (It was 1851 before
the Grand Lodge of Maine made this requirement of its lodges.)
The Baltimore Convention began on May 8, 1843 and met through May 17. Indiana,
once again, was not represented. A resolution was drafted by Grand Secretary
William H. Martin, declining the invitation because, “this Grand Lodge does
not feel itself pecuniarily prepared to adopt the spirit and meaning of the
Convention.” Sixteen of twenty-three American Grand Lodges were, however,
represented at the Convention. An agenda was adopted declaring the objectives of
the convention to be “1) To produce uniformity of Masonic work, and; 2) To
recommend such measures as shall tend to the elevation of the Order to its due
degree of respect throughout the world at large.”
To accomplish these stated objectives, the Convention formed four committees:
1) On the work and lectures in conferring Degrees;
2) On the Funeral Service;
3) On the ceremonies of Consecration and Installation, and;
4) On Masonic Jurisprudence
The Committee on Work and Lectures began meeting on the morning
of May 10 and crafted opening and closing ceremonies for the First Degree, as
well as the lectures. By Friday of that week, the three Degrees of Freemasonry
had been completely standardized and adopted by the Convention. The fundamental
changes involved alterations to the due guard and sign of the Fellow Craft and
Master Mason degrees to bring them into conformance with the explanations of the
same in the Entered Apprentice degree. Additionally, the immovable jewels were
changed from the Rough Ashlar, Perfect Ashlar and Trestleboard to the Square,
Level and Plumb, reversed from the English standards.
The Committee on Consecrations and Installations reported that “the forms in
the ‘Monitor’, under the authorship of M.W. Thomas S. Webb, republished in
1812, possesses the least faults of any which have been before them, and has a
high claim to antiquity, and having been in general use as a standard of work
for nearly half a century, and possess no errors of material as to require
alteration…” The Committee then proceeded to alter it in six separate
instances.
The Committee on Jurisprudence reported that it considered whether or not “the
evils from which this Convention has met to rectify and remove, have arisen from
any defect or fault in the present system of organizations as adopted by the
Fraternity of the United States.” It went on to state, “because of the
actions of individual Grand Lodges and the lack of unity between them, the
purity and unity of the work prevalent in Europe was therefore missing.”
According to the Committee’s report, “UNITY throughout the whole Masonic
family is essential. Any system of polity tending to throw obstacles in its way
must be wrong. The simple truth is that we are all Brethren of one family, and
look up to one common Father, the Lord our God, is the basis of all the ancient
constitutions.” This is an interesting statement, considering that the
Convention passed a measure completely contrary to the principles of European
Masonry, from which American Masonry sprang, namely the near total
disenfranchisement of Entered Apprentices and Fellow Crafts.
In order to correct what it perceived as the “evils” pervading American
Freemasonry, the Committee reported that it had considered two potential plans:
1) A General Grand Lodge of the United States, and;
2) A triennial convention of representatives of the several Grand Lodges of the
United States.
The Committee went on to recommend the second course of action.
The Baltimore Convention, contrary to popular belief, did not recommend the
establishment of a General Grand Lodge, but it was certainly considered. The
Convention resolved that the next triennial convention would be held in
Winchester, Virginia, on the second Monday in May, in the year 1846. In that
year, only eight delegates attended. The next convention was scheduled for
September 23, 1847 in Baltimore. Seven delegates attended that meeting. It was
at the 1847 convention that the delegates wrote a proposed constitution for a
“Supreme Grand Lodge” of the United States… and this constitution was
ratified by the Grand Lodge of Indiana, upon the recommendation of the Grand
Master, Elizur Deming, and a committee of five Worshipful Masters formed to
study the question. However, the requisite sixteen Grand Lodges did not concur,
and the Supreme Grand Lodge was never formed. There were calls for conventions
again in 1855 and 1859, but they were never held. The Supreme Grand Lodge was
never created, but very real innovations occurred nevertheless.
To summarize this very long story, European Masonry opens business meetings on
the Entered Apprentice degree, and there is little ritual standardization.
Lodges are at liberty to make reasonable modifications to the ritual, as long as
it remains regular. In London alone six separate Ritual Associations (Aldersgate,
Domatic, Emulation, Logic, Taylors and Universal) work variations of the ritual,
and many individual lodges work variations of those. Indiana Masons, however,
are deprived of the same opportunities to educate and enjoy the fellowship of
our Entered Apprentices and Fellow Crafts at our meetings, or to enjoy the
diversity of practicing the Webb/Preston, Emulation or Scottish Rite rituals (or
variations thereof) as do our European brethren. This because of a convention in
which Indiana did not participate, called 159 years ago in reaction to events in
New York.
Would it be “innovation” to put things back as they were before this
aberration in international Masonic practice and allow Entered Apprentices to
attend our deliberations? I do not believe so, and sixteen Grand Lodges,
Connecticut, Missouri, Washington, Idaho, Colorado, Kansas, Arizona, Nevada,
Alabama, Minnesota, Oregon, Montana, Maryland, New Mexico, Utah and the District
of Columbia, agree with me. Those Grand Lodges have voted to permit their lodges
to open on the Entered Apprentice degree and allow their EAs and FCs
opportunities for Masonic fellowship and education.
In this day of one-day classes, a practice decried by so many of our members,
does it make sense to prohibit a man who has elected to receive the degrees in
the traditional manner from attending our meetings? It’s not even correct to
say, “We’ve always done it that way,” because I have shown you how that is
not so.
Brethren, the difference between a one-day and a three-day Mason is two days –
not any measure of understanding of Freemasonry. Let us resolve ourselves to the
idea that more important than the length a time a man has been a Mason, or the
number of degrees he has witnessed, is what we do with him once we begin to call
him “Brother.” Do we treat him as if he were a brother, teaching him the
gentle Craft of Freemasonry, getting to know and to care for him and his family,
and he us? Or do we begin to establish the precedent of pushing him to the next
thing as quickly as possible – ready or not – into his Fellow Craft degree,
then on to the Master Mason degree (so he can pay dues and take a chair). Then,
of course, he’s eligible for membership in the Rites and the Shrine, and he
and his wife can join the OES.
Let us not worry about whether our members are “members enough.” Let it be
sufficient that they are our brothers, and allow those lodges that want them to
attend our meetings to do so.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
“Goodly Heritage,” Dwight L. Smith, 1968
Short Talk Bulletin, “Baltimore Convention of 1843,” Henry C. Chiles,
January 1936
Short Talk Bulletin, “The Convention that Changed the Face of Freemasonry,”
Allen E. Roberts, October 1986
“The Baltimore Convention of 1843,” The Philalethes, 1994, Bob J. Jensen
“U.S. Grand Lodges that Permit Business on the 1st Degree,” Bessel.org, Paul
M. Bessel, Executive Secy., Masonic Leadership Center
“U.S. Lodges Conducting Business on the 1st Degree, History and Current Status
of this Issue,” Pythagoras Lodge of Research, F.A.A.M., District of Columbia,
Feb. 2000, Paul M. Bessel
back to top
|
