The Reminders are All Around Us

As we approach Memorial Day 2009, one normally only has to look around his lodge room during a meeting to see living reminders of what the day is all about. If your lodge is anything like mine, you are surrounded by veterans of wars and conflicts ranging from World War II to the current Global War on Terrorism. During this past week alone, I have sat in various Masonic meetings with veterans that represented of all these wars and all of the branches of service.

These men are the living reminders of those for which Memorial Day exists – the ones who lost their lives in the defense of the United States of America. You can bet your bottom dollar that they remember those who died because they were their peers, friends, and loved ones. Many people today think of a military grave marker when they reflect on the reason for Memorial Day. The veterans have something more. They have the memories – which they carry with them everyday – of real faces, conversations, shared trials and tribulations, handshakes, and hugs.

The veterans are walking memorials to those that did not make it home. They are the reminders that are all around us. Please take time this Memorial Day to thank a veteran – inside and outside of Freemasonry. That veteran will surely pass on your feelings to the memories – his friends – that he carries within him.

Invitational Bodies

Sprinkled throughout the multitude of appendant – or side – bodies of Freemasonry, there are those that require invitations in order for Masons to be accepted into them. An example of these invitational bodies can be found in the Allied Masonic Degrees, or AMD, where each Council is limited to a membership of twenty-seven.

Some Masons have commented that having invitational bodies associated with Freemasonry is an affront to a fraternal system that is predicated upon the ideas of equality and meeting on the level. Individual feelings about this issue may well depend upon the point of view of the observer – including his personal experiences as relates to invitational bodies.

Assuming that a Mason has not used some sort of campaign to gain entry into an invitational body, the extension of an invitation can be quite an honor. The invitation indicates that his Masonic peers, who happen to already belong to the invitational body, have recognized something extraordinary in the Mason and that they desire to add his knowledge, experiences, or attributes to the group. A look to the example of the invitation-only Allied Masonic Degrees offers a glimpse of this process. The Allied Masonic Degrees in North America tends to be a research minded organization and, therefore, it not uncommon for Masons with a demonstrated propensity for Masonic research and writing to be the types invited to join.

Problems – or negative perceptions – can occur with invitational bodies because of two types of Masons. One is the Mason who wants to be a part of the body, but is not extended an invitation, and becomes bitter and resentful. The other is the Mason who is invited but then uses his membership in the body to – in his own mind – elevate himself above Masons who are not members of his invitational body. Both of these types of Masons forget the following important fact. The invitational body is not Freemasonry. It is a side order that does not trump the greatest of titles to be found in Freemasonry itself – Master Mason, Worshipful Master, and Grand Master among the few. All of the possible honorifics from side bodies – invitational or otherwise – can not change the fact that the Third Degree is the highest step in Freemasonry and that there only certain current and former leaders of Freemasonry that are entitled to a certain level of extra respect.

As long as Masons remember that the invitational bodies actually exist outside of Freemasonry proper, equality will still be the rule and all will still be meeting on the level within the Freemasonic Lodge.

Grand Lodge of SC Concludes 272nd Communication

The Grand Lodge of Ancient Free Masons of South Carolina concluded its 272nd Communication today in The Holy City - Charleston, South Carolina. I was only able to attend today's sessions - which included the elections, appointments, and public installations of Grand Lodge officers. See the article in The Post and Courier concerning this event.

District Deputy Grand Master – Origin of the Position

Most well-read Masons are familiar with the position of Provincial Grand Master, as used by the Grand Lodge of England and – later – the United Grand Lodge of England, and that the man in such a position presided over a Provincial Grand Lodge that was subordinate to the Grand Lodge in London and that the Provincial Grand Master answered directly to the Grand Master in London. Almost all Masons are familiar with a somewhat similar position called District Deputy Grand Master. Though District Deputy Grand Masters do not preside over any sort of Grand Lodge, they do answer to the Grand Master of their Grand Lodge. Like Provincial Grand Masters, District Deputy Grand Masters exist because it is practically impossible for a Grand Master to personally provide for the government of his Grand Lodge due to distances and/or the shear numbers of lodges within his Grand Jurisdiction.

But when did the idea of District Deputy Grand Masters first come about? Which Grand Lodge first instituted the position? The first mention of a position titled District Deputy Grand Master in the Grand Lodge of South Carolina can be found in the proceedings of a Quarterly Communication of that body on 3 December 1844.

At this Communication an amendment to the Constitution was adopted, dividing the State into five Districts, and placing over each a District Deputy Grand Master, who was to be either a member of the Grand Lodge, or a representative of one of the Lodges, and whose duty it was to visit the Lodges in his district, and to decide all appeals until the decision of the Grand Lodge could be obtained.[i]

When Albert G. Mackey published The History of Freemasonry in South Carolina in 1861, this was his only mention of a position called District Deputy Grand Master. Though he does not explain why, Mackey went on to state that the District Deputies were never appointed and that the amendment was omitted in later revisions of the Constitution.[ii] Therefore, as late as 1861, the position did not exist within the Grand Lodge of South Carolina and this author does not currently know when the position was formally adopted.

Additional information from the readers concerning this subject will be welcomed.

[i] Mackey, Albert G., M.D., The History of Freemasonry in South Carolina. Columbia, S.C.: South Carolina Steam Power Press, 1861, p. 333.
[ii] Ibid, p. 334.

Masonic Relief: An Eyewitness Account

Last year’s Junior Warden of my Lodge made less than half of the regular communications during his term in office due to his poor health. He was diagnosed with cancer and it was and is doing its best to destroy his body. This former Junior Warden truly loves the Craft and his Lodge. He was also very active in several other bodies such as the York and the Scottish Rites.

We all knew about his declining health but what we didn’t know about – he being a proud man – were his financial troubles that were byproducts of his health issues. It was actually by accident that we discovered the depth of the financial problems when I made a phone call to him one evening a few months ago to check on him. During the course of the conversation I learned that his electricity was close to being turned off. Other than for his home, almost everything had been repossessed from this hardworking man – truck, boat, etc.

Following that conversation and after taking a few moments to say a prayer in my backyard, I put the phone to good use and spread the word to the “movers and shakers” of my Lodge. The District Deputy Grand Master was also alerted and we fired up the Lodge’s Masonic Relief Committee. The paperwork involved with requesting relief funds from the Grand Lodge Masonic Relief Committee was expedited and the Grand Lodge issued emergency funds even before the paperwork was completed. Within a few weeks, not less than one thousand dollars rolled in from “passing the hat” efforts in my Lodge and in our sister Lodges in the District. The local York Rite Bodies joined in the effort and collected more donations. Our past Junior Warden’s lights are still on and they will not be darkened.

He is not out of the woods and his health is steadily deteriorating, but we will make sure that his basic necessities are taken care of. If and when he succumbs to the cancer, I am confident that his widow will be looked after in the same manner.

This is the way we do it here. We do not engage in institutionalized charity for the masses or throw money at things like the child ID programs. We concentrate our efforts on our Brethren, their widows, and their orphans.

Tolerance and Freemasonry

tol·er·ance (tŏl'ər-əns) n. The capacity for or the practice of recognizing and respecting the beliefs or practices of others.[1]

Tolerance is a word that is thrown about frequently in our modern day society and its use has taken on a connotation that goes beyond its basic definition. To be referred to as being intolerant of others is akin to being labeled a racist and is like a scarlet letter upon the forehead of anyone accused of not practicing tolerance when it comes to the beliefs and practices of others.

This modern view of tolerance as a supreme virtue has began to seep into the thoughts of many Freemasons as they mimic general society and its trends. But is the practice of tolerance really a teaching of Freemasonry? It may possibly be so, but is full tolerance a goal of Freemasonry? I submit that it is not and should not be.

For one to achieve the full definition of being tolerant he must not only recognize the beliefs and practices of others but he must also respect those beliefs and practices. To fully achieve a tolerant society, therefore, all beliefs and practices would have to be deserving of respect and some are – undoubtedly – not deserving of such.

Most reasonable men would agree that those that sacrifice babies in the name of a religion are not deserving of respect. The same can safely be said about fascists, communists, or sweatshop owners. Can anyone reasonably claim that the beliefs and practices of the members of the Ku Klux Klan are deserving of respect? Anyone that says “no” is intolerant of others and should go ahead and proudly put that scarlet letter upon their own forehead. In these cases, intolerance should be considered as an honorable virtue.

There are those that, of course, would say that the previous examples are ridiculous since they pertain to groups that do not represent the common good of society. The sticky point, however, is contained within the possible answers to the following questions. Who gets to choose what should be tolerated or not? Who gets to choose which beliefs and practices are deserving of respect? Here is my answer to both of those questions. Each individual gets to make that choice.

Freemasons should already know that and they should not be following the whims of general society. Remember – general society should be copying Freemasonry and not the other way around. Freemasons should also know that there is a happy medium between tolerance and intolerance, and they should not be ashamed to take either path as the situation calls for it. It is often a noble thing to be intolerant and one should not be ashamed to wear the scarlet letter.

[1] The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition, Copyright © 2006 by Houghton Mifflin Company.

The Lodges Solomon

Solomon’s Lodge No. 1, F. & A. M. of Georgia, recently celebrated the 275th anniversary of its founding in the city of Savannah. This lodge provides two possible dates of organization – 21 February 1733 or 21 February 1734 – and claims the title of the Oldest Continuously Operating English Constituted Lodge in the Western Hemisphere.

Whenever the topic of this old lodge in Savannah enters a conversation on the northern side of the Savannah River in South Carolina, Palmetto State Freemasons cannot but help to think of another old lodge in another historic Southeastern city. Located just a couple of driving hours north of Savannah, one can find Solomon’s Lodge No. 1, A.F.M. of South Carolina, located in Charleston. This lodge was warranted in 1735 by the Grand Lodge of England. Albert G. Mackey, in the course of his research published in 1861, had this to say.

In a roll of Lodges under the jurisdiction of England, appended to Hutchinson’s “Spirit of Freemasonry,” with the following title: “List of Lodges, (with their numbers,) as altered by the Grand Lodge, April 18, 1792,” I find the number 45 is marked as having been warranted in 1735, under the name of Solomon’s Lodge, Charleston, South Carolina, which is followed by number 46, in the same year, designated as Solomon’s Lodge, No. 1, Savannah, Georgia.[i]

The reader that paid attention to the previous quote will undoubtedly raise an eyebrow or two and ask the obvious question. How can Solomon’s Lodge in Savannah claim to be “oldest” when there is documentation of a slightly older Solomon’s Lodge in Charleston, which also continues to operate? The arrival to the answer of that question requires some interesting further investigation.

Before proceeding further, it should be pointed out that there are other old lodges worthy of mentioning. At least two of the following lodges claim an “oldest” designation.[ii]

* Saint John’s Lodge No. 1 in Boston, Massachusetts, was organized on 30 July 1733.
* Norfolk Lodge No. 1 in Norfolk, Virginia, was constituted on 22 December 1733.
* St. John’s Lodge No. 1 in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, was organized on 24 June 1736.

In the case of the Lodges Solomon in Charleston and Savannah, the friendly debate between Masons on both sides of the Savannah River revolve around two terms – organized and warranted – and which of the terms establishes a lodge’s true birth date. It has been established that Solomon’s No. 1 in Charleston was warranted prior to Solomon’s No. 1 in Savannah – though it may have been only by mere moments and by the accident of which warrant was chosen to be issued first. If one uses the warrants to establish birthdays, then the Charleston lodge is the eldest of the two.

The dates of organization provide different dates of birth, however. Solomon’s Lodge No. 1 in Charleston did not officially meet for the first time – on 29 October 1736 – until, presumably, after its warrant had arrived from England.[iii] Solomon’s No 1 in Savannah, however, was meeting as a Time Immemorial lodge prior to the issuance of a warrant.[iv] Though some questions remain as to whether or not Time Immemorial lodges were still considered as proper in the 1730s, the Grand Lodge of London may have been unaware of the activities of the lodge in Savannah or “looked the other way” when it issued a warrant in 1735. Regardless, if one uses the dates of organization then Solomon’s No. 1 in Savannah predates its counterpart in Charleston by approximately two years and eight months.

The friendly debate continues.

[i] Mackey, Albert G., M.D., The History of Freemasonry in South Carolina. Columbia, S.C.: South Carolina Steam Power Press, 1861, p. 3.
[ii] Porter, Robert S. II. Historian’s Apse, http://www.solomonslodge.com/historiansapse.html (Accessed March 7, 2009).
[iii] Mackey, pp. 2 and 4.
[iv] Porter (accessed March 7, 2009).