PHL-JU98.HTM

This file is copyright (c) 1998 The Philalethes Society and all rights including any redistribution rights are reserved by the copyright holder. Permission to quote from, redistribute or to otherwise use these materials must be obtained from the copyright holder directly by contacting The Philalethes, Nelson King, FPS, Editor, 2 Knockbolt Crescent, Agincourt Ontario Canada, M1S 2P6. Tel: 416-293-8071 Fax: 416-293-8634 or nking@freemasonry.org or nking@onramp.ca

Philalethes Magazine June 1998

Contents

51 From the Editor's Desk

by Nelson King, FPS

Semi-Annual Meeting Announced

52 Three Finger Brown

A Lamb Without Blemish

by Joseph E. Bennett, FPS

57 A Pelican Brief

by William K. Bissey MPS

58 Where Are Our Tribal Storytellers?

by Phil Elam. MRS

59 Those Men Who Wear Those

Masonic Rings

by Michael R. Strampe

60 A Pragmatic Masonic History

by Leo Zanelli, MRS

65 With Freemasonry In Mind

by S. Frank Paul

68 A Presentation to Samuel

Clemens Chapter

by Dennis M. Zahn, MPS

69 Thoughts on Declining Membership

by Richard Wamica, MRS

72 Through Masonic Windows

by Kenneth D. Roberts, FPS

ON THE COVER

Brother Joe Bennett, EPS has produced another article and painting for the cover of this issue. The story of "Three Finger Brown" begins on page 4. Brother Brown began his career in the early igloos. Baseball was just coming of age.

Our thanks to Brother Bennett for his contribution of this article and his efforts to promote our beloved fraternity through his many books.

FROM THE EDITOR'S DESK

Some have asked why the cost of membership is now $30.00 a year. Which in reality works out to be $5.00 an issue, which when you look at other mainstream magazines [Masonic and non-Masonic] is expensive. The $5.00 per issue is just below our breakeven point. Why? Because of the following. The cost of the high quality type of paper we use. We could use a lower quality, but in our opinion this would cheapen our magazine.

We have never accepted any type of paid advertising. The only ads that appear in our magazine are our own. We have no corporation or Masonic body underwriting our efforts. The cost of postage is constantly in- creasing.

OOoOO

Elsewhere in this issue you will find the details for our 1998 Semiannual meeting which will be held in Bangor, Maine from September 17, 1998 to September 19, 1998. I do so hope that many of you plan to attend. For the last number of years our Semiannual meetings have been huge successes and this Semiannual will also be a great meeting.

OOoOO

The Brethren of the John Ross Robinson Chapter in Toronto Canada are already planning the Semiannual meeting for the year 2000. Plans are underway to hold the meeting from September 12, 2000 to September 24, 2000 at the Royal York Hotel in downtown Toronto. So mark your calendars now.

OOoOO

There seems to be more and more "Masonic Charities" appearing on the Internet. Some are being run by well meaning individuals, but have no Masonic connection other than that of having Masons run them. One Grand Lodge has already issued a warning about a "Masonic Charity" being run by an individual in their jurisdiction. Stating they would recommend that anyone contemplating involvement with the named charity do so with caution. It would be advisable to check out any Masonic Charity you wish to donate to, to make sure that the charity has some legitimate Masonic connection.

OOoOO

The book "Symbols of Freemasonry" by Daniel Beresniak is a richly illustrated coffee table book which would be a fine addition to any Masonic household. Symbols of freemasonry, the fifth volume in the Symbols series provides informative chapters which examine individually the Masonic calendar, Solomon's Temple, the stonemason's tools, as well as special clothing, customs and rituals of Freemasonry and are replete with full-page illustrations. ISEN 2 84323 033 0 and is distributed by Rizzoli Publications.

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

P52

THREE FINGER BROWN

A Lamb Without Blemish

by Joseph F Bennett, FPS

As the shadows of my own life lengthen, I often find myself musing over events of years long past. Parting those dusty curtains of history, I can return vicariously to a time when our country was younger, and we marched to a different drummer than we do today. On those sentimental sojourns, the deeds of derringdo and the values of those forgotten generations offer a momentary respite from the daily litany of crime, corruption, and moral decadence which has unraveled the fabric of our society.

Focusing on the year of 1876, one recalls the demise of General George A. Custer at the Little Big Horn, [courtesy of Crazy Horse and his Sioux constituents]. In addition, the year marked the 100th anniversary of the United States of America, and many celebrations took note of the centennial milestone. In the event you are a baseball enthusiast, it may be of interest to know that was the year the National League of Professional Baseball was founded by William A. Hulbert with an assist by Albert Goodwill Spalding.

In the bleak little coal-mining town of Nyesville, Indiana, another birth was barely noticed outside of the immediate circle of the Brown family on October 19, 1876. It meant little more than another mouth to feed, and life was already incredibly hard, without another addition to the family. One had to know life in a coal town up close and personal to appreciate the bitterness of day-to-day living. There were no welfare or social agencies to ease the burden of existence. Notwithstanding, the newest Nyesville arrival was christened Mordecai Peter Centennial Brown in a forlorn gesture of deference to the country's glorious past. The future did not appear so promising in Nyesville. In fact, it was pretty much a foregone conclusion that the newest citizen would follow the rest of them into the dank mine shafts of the bituminous coal fields. That unhappy beginning would not commence for Mordecai until 1889.

Life must have been uneventful for young Brown during his first six years, because little information survived relating to his earliest days. The seventh year brought a break in his childhood routine during a visit to the small farm worked by his uncle, David Beasley. The curious youngster stuck his right hand under a corn chopper and he was rewarded with some badly-mangled fingers. In fact, the right forefinger was amputated, and the adjacent middle finger was shortened to the first knuckle. That painful misfortune was compounded by another accident two weeks later. Mordecai was chasing a hog around the barnyard, when he fell upon, and re-injured, the same hand. At the time, the crippled hand was considered a handicap, but it did not preclude entering the coal fields when Mordecai's thirteenth birthday rolled around. How could anyone imagine that the deformed hand would be young Brown's ticket to baseball immortality in future years? Going to work for the first time must have been an adventure for Mordecai Brown. The mine shaft was barely more than three feet high, only large enough for a narrow gauge track to thread into the bowels of the earth to transport coal on miniature cars. The miners rode on their stomachs to the assigned location for their dairy shift. The mine worker was obliged to lie on his side to work, inasmuch as he could not stand to swing his pick. Illumination to work was provided by a carbide lamp attached to his cap; otherwise, the miner spent his work day in almost total darkness, with the omnipresent threat of a cave in or methane gas. It was a precarious life, fraught with danger, filth, and apprehension. The conditions would have provided a field day for one of our present-day bean counters from OSHA.

The only break in the daily cycle of work and sleep for Mordecai was the opportunity to play a little baseball in the summer. He became quite proficient as an infielder. By 1898, Brown was playing third base for a semi-pro team in Corville, Indiana. The team was comprised entirely of miners. Brown was a good switch-hitter, and a reliable man with the glove. Each player received a few dollars per game, with no other amenities -provided nor expected. One Sunday, Mordecai was pressed into action as the pitcher during a game against a team from Brazil, Indiana. Coxville's pitcher failed to show up for the game. Mordecai im- pressed the locals with his peculiar breaking ball, defeating the Brazil nine by a score of 9-3. He was immediately offered a pitching role with Brazil for more money, which he accepted. At 22 years of age, the young miner from Nyesville launched a long and distinguished baseball career which would carry him to a major league organization not yet in existence.

Mordecai's stock in trade was a pitch which broke in a most peculiar and unpredictable manner; caused by an unorthodox grip on the ball, the result of his deformed hand. Not gifted with overwhelming speed, Brown resorted to a variety of breaking pitches which were more than enough to baffle most hitters. His best pitch was a natural sinker, which acted much like a knuckle ball. It also hopped unexpectedly, as well as breaking down abruptly. Brown's "Sunday" pitch was soon recognized by professional baseball as the working-tool of a potential winner. He was signed for $65 a month by the Terre Haute team of the Three I League (Iowa, Illinois, and Indiana). The year was 1901, and Mordecai was 25 years of age. That season at Terre Haute, Indiana, the Nyesville hurler won 23 victories and was christened "Three Finger" by his team mates, a sobriquet he carried to the grave.

Three Finger was signed by Omaha in the Western League for the 1902 sea- son, and responded by delivering a sterling record of 27 wins against 15 losses. Most notable of all, the young hurler completed every game he started. By the end of the season, Brown had caught the attention of the St. Louis Cardinals. The St. Louis club purchased his contract from Omaha and notified Brown to report for the 1903 season.

Most historians regard 1903 as the beginning of the "modern" era of base ball. The year marked the marriage of the National and American Leagues into a single major League organization. They adopted a uniform set of standards, with eight teams in each league which would meet at the end of the season in a "world series" to determine the championship. The St. Louis Cardinals were one of the teams in the National League in 1903. They were not a participant in the first World Series. In fact, they had an abysmal record that year, winning only 45 games, to finish in last place. Toiling for such an impotent club, the rookie pitcher from Indiana managed a predictable record of 9 wins against 13 losses. At the end of the season, Cardinal Manager Pat Donovan decided that Three Finger's crippled hand would never permit him to develop into a winning pitcher. He was sold, along with catcher John O'Neill, to the Chicago Cubs in exchange for pitcher John W. Taylor.

The Cubs were a team in contention in 1904. They were locked in a struggle against the high-flying New York Giants, both striving for the National League pennant. With a healthy offense behind him, Three Finger immediately emerged as a winner. Although Chicago finished second behind John McGraw's Giants in 1904, Brown posted a healthy 15-10 record for the season, and gave impressive proof of an ability to work hard and often. Behind Three Finger in the Cubs' lineup were the brilliant infield trio of Frank Chance at first base, John Evers at second, and Joe Tinker at shortstop. They were the immortal Tinkers-to- Evers-to-Chance combination who were the toast of the league at the turn of the century.

The 1905 season marked the beginning of baseball's most celebrated pitching rivalry. Three Finger Brown and the legendary Christy Mathewson met the first time that year in an ongoing confrontation which would endure to the end of their careers. Brown was destined to be the only living pitcher to hold a winning edge over McGraw's great hurler. However, in 1905, Three Finger was the loser in the first meeting on June 13th, when he lost 14-0. At their second meeting, Brown would begin a winning skein of nine consecutive games, starting on July 12, 1905 and extending through October 8, 1908. Altogether, the two pitching giants battled to 24 decisions, 13 of which were won by Mordecai Brown.

Quality pitching was not enough for the Cubs in 1905, though. They slipped to third place by season's end, and their manager, Frank Selee, was fired by owner William Wrigley. Selee was succeeded by Frank Chance, the first-base star and premier hitter of the club. The 1906 season was a resounding triumph for the new manager, as the Cubs surged to a National League pennant, 20 games ahead of the second-place Giants. Three Finger was sensational in winning 26 games, while losing only 6. Most impressive of all was his glittering 1.04 earned-run average.

The famous Chicago "Streetcar Series" was played out in 1906, when the White Sox won the American League pennant and faced the Cubs in the World Classic. The Cubs were an odds-on favorite to sweep the series. The White Sox were known as the "hitless wonders" expected to be hapless victims of the Cubs combination of heavy hitting and fine pitching. Three Finger Brown, ace of the Cubs' staff, was the darling of the Chicago fans; and was regarded as the natural choice to pitch the opener.

The 1906 World Series spawned the upset of the century. The White Sox, boasting a team batting average of.198, swarmed all over the powerful Cub machine. Three Finger Brown was feated in the opener, losing 2-1. The Cubs were even more impotent than the Pale Hose, achieving a team batting mark of .196 for the series. They lost the series in six games, and the most bewildering failure on the Cubs' team was Mordecai Brown. After losing the opener, he squeaked to a 1-0 win in the fourth game; only to lose the sixth under a barrage of 16 White Sox hits. It was a stunning disappointment for both Three Finger and Manager Frank Chance.

The 1906 World Series debacle was an anomaly for Three Finger Brown and the Chicago Cubs. Nobody has ever explained the sudden loss of the Cubs' offensive power and the disappearance of Brown's pitching mastery. It temporarily destroyed Chance's confidence in his erstwhile pitching star, and Three Finger found that he must reestablish himself with the club. Nevertheless, the Cubs were up to the challenge of repeating their pennant-winning performance of 1906. They emerged the winner again in 1907, finishing far ahead of the Pittsburgh Pirates. The Cubs were slated to face the Detroit Tigers and their fearsome batting champion, Ty Cobb, in the World Series. Although Mordecai finished the season with a record of 2O wins and 6 losses, Chance refused to allow him to open the series.

The first game of the 1907 series ended in a 12-inning tie, called on account of darkness. With the score locked at 3-3, Cub pitcher Orval Overall, a 26-game winner in the regular season, had a long workout with no decision. The Cubs won the second game 3-1 behind the steady pitching of John Pfiesten Pitcher John Reuhlbach donated another win in the third game with a 6-hit, 5-1 victory over the Tigers. The vaunted Cobb bat was mysteriously silent during the series, relieving the Cubs of that offensive threat. Ignoring the entreaties of Three Finger to be allowed to start the fourth game, Chance selected Overall to pitch. He fashioned a 5-hit gem to take the game 6-1. The Cubs' batting hero during the series in 1907 was third-baseman Harry Steinfeld, with a mark of .470. His performance was matched by the flawless double play performance of the Tinkem to-Evers-to-Chance combination on the field.

With the Cubs on the verge of sweeping the Pall Classic, everything was developing like clockwork for the Chicago team, except Three Finger Brown had not been in the lineup during the series. He implored Frank Chance to be allowed to start the fifth game. Finally, just before game time on October 14th, Chance handed Three Finger the ball. It was vindication time for Brown, and he responded to the challenge. He crafted an outstanding 2-0 shutout to wrap up the 1907 World Series. The Nyesville hurler had completed four outstanding years with the Cubs, but his high-water mark was still ahead. Three Finger's banner year in the big leagues would be in 1908.

The Cubs and the New York Giants battled to a league tie in 1908, during a turbulent and bruising season. It ended with the first "playoff' game in the league's history. Mordecai Brown was awesome that year during the regular season. He won 29 games and lost only 9, in 44 mound appearances. He also proved to be the fifth infielder, handling 108 fielding chances successfully. Most impressive of all, Three Finger hurled five consecutive shutout games over the course of the season. The final game, the one which would determine the pennant winner, was scheduled at the Polo Grounds in New York on September 23, 1908. The starting pitchers were Christy Mathewson for the Giants and John Pfiester for the Cubs. The Giants held a half game edge in the standings.

Going into the last of the ninth inning in that crucial contest, the score was deadlocked at 1-1. The Giants launched a late rally in their half of the ninth which threatened to give New York a win. With two outs, Harry McCormick singled, and went to third base when 19-year old rookie, Fred Merkle, hit safely. Giant shortstop Al Bridwell, the next man to bat, singled sharply to center field, and McCormick scampered home with what should have been the winning run. At that point, Fred Merkle pulled what has been called ever since the "bonehead" move of the century, by failing to run from first and touch second base. Observing McCormick cross home plate, Merkle simply stopped short of reaching second and trotted toward the Giants' club house. Alert Johnny Evers called for the ball while the jubilant Giant fans spilled over the playing field. Evers stepped on second base, holding the ball, and loudly proclaiming that Merkle was out, and McCormick's run was nulli- fied. The umpires agreed; but with spectators overrunning the field, it was impossible to continue the game. It was ruled a tie with a score of 1-1. Fred Merkle had a long, distinguished career as a Giant first baseman, but fans remembered him primarily for his "boneheaded" mistake in 1908.

The first playoff game in the record book was scheduled for October 8, 1908 in New York. Sentiment was running at a fever pitch in New York and Chicago. So high, in fact, that Three Finger Brown received a number of death threats if he started the playoff game. One threat was rumored to have emanated from the "Black Hand", fore runner of the Italian Mafia. The Giant fans need not have worried. Brown had worked in six of the Cubs final games, and Chance had no plan to start him. His choice was John Pfiester to start against Christy Mathewson, who was just coming off a tremendous season, with 37 wins and 11 losses. Mathewson was razor-sharp that day, but Pfiester found himself in trouble in the first inning. One run had scored and two men were on base when Frank Chance summoned Three Finger from the dugout to relieve Pflester.

The Giant fans hooted and hurled threats as the Nyesville coal miner made the long walk from the bull pen to the pitcher's mound. As usual, Brown was unflappable. With two out, and two men on base, he struck out Art Devim, the Giant shortstop, on four pitches. Brown remained in the game, beating Mathewson again, with a final score of 4-2, to bring the pennant to Wrigley's Chicago Cubs. It was a fitting climax to a memorable season.

Few fans realized that Three Finger Brown was 32 years old in 1908, and had been pitching continuously for a decade. Many scientists contend there is an ergonomic factor in pitching, that the average performer has a predetermined number of throws in his arm. After thousands of games, it might have been a matter of concern. whether or not Brown had exhausted his available pitches. Not to worry, though; as it worked out, he still had another decade of baseball in his trusty right arm.

Of course, the pennant-winning streak had to end for the Cubs. In 1909, they failed to take a fourth consecutive flag. They finished second, with Three Finger Brown posting a fine record of 27-9, with 50 appearances. That was the fourth of six consecutive 20-game years for the Chicago ace. The next season, Mordecai turned in another outstanding performance with a mark of 25 wins and 14 losing efforts in 46 mound appearances. The Cubs won their fourth pennant in five years in 1910, but lost the World Series to Connie Mack's Philadelphia Athletics. Three Finger won only a single game, while losing two, in a lopsided series. Jack Coombs, the A's great pitching star, totally dominated the pitching mound, winning three games; while the batting offensive was led by Eddie Collins. The Athletics, as a team, batted .317 in the series, while Collins chalked up a personal mark of .429.

The pennant-winning era for the Cubs, and Manager Frank Chance, ended with 1910. In 1911, the team finished second in the standings, and began a slow decline into the second division during the next few years.

Brown continued his winning ways in 1911, with 21 wins and 11 losses. He worked hard and frequently, making 53 trips to the hill that year. It was the last of six back-to-back seasons with 20 or more wins. At 35, Three Finger was at the top of his game. William Wrigley recognized his contribution to the club by awarding Brown a $7,000 contract for the 1912 season, the highest salary he was destined to receive as a professional baseball player.

The 1912 season was just well started when Mordecai suffered a painful knee injury, which restricted his appearances to only 16 games. His record for the year was far below normal, with 5 wins and 6 losses. With limited activity, due to his injury, Three Finger was able to accept an offer from John D. Rockefeller to tutor his grandson, Fowler McCormick. Young McCormick was an aspiring pitcher on the Princeton University team, and it was Brown's task to teach him the fine points of the position. However, by the end of the season, the Cub management concluded that Mordecai Brown had reached the end of the road. He was informed the team planned to send him down to the minor leagues. Three Finger objected strenuously, and asked to be traded. In response to his request, Brown was traded to the Cincinnati Reds for pitcher Grover Lowdermile. At 37 years of age, everyone in baseball wondered if the great Three Finger Brown had reached the end of the trail.

In Cincinnati, during the course of the 1913 season, Brown regained a degree of his previous form. He was able to work in 39 games that year and achieve a record of 11 wins and 12 losses with the seventh-place club. Even though it appeared his career was faltering, a

serendipitous event extended his professional life a while longer. A consortium of investors led by Harry Sinclair and James Gilmore formed a rival baseball association they christened the Federal League. Without the restriction of any formal contract with existing baseball organizations, they were free to approach active players from both the American and National Leagues. Their offers of liberal salaries and a glowing picture they painted about the league's future, made a tempting story.

The Federal League recruiting tactics attracted a number of major league players. One of them was Mordecai Brown. He signed as player-manager for the St. Louis club of the league, abrogating his contract with Cincinnati. However, the Federal League was beset with problems from the beginning. They were able to field a total of seven teams in major northern cities in eastern United States for the 1914 season. Their St. Louis team immediately fell to last place in the 7-team league. The dismal showing cost Three Finger his managerial post in July. A month later, he was pitching for the Brooklyn, New York team in the Federal League. His pitching record for that 1914 season was 14 wins and 11 defeats. When the 1915 season opened, Three Finger was pitching for the Chicago team of the Federal League. The manager was Joe Tinker, the former Chicago Cubs star. The 1915 season for the Federal League was an abbreviated one, mandated by massive indebtedness incurred by the ownership. The league's life span was less than two years, but the effects of their foray into professional baseball had caused substantial upheaval. In that brief 1915 season, Brown worked in 35 games, posting a record of 17 wins and losing 8. The Chicago club of the Federal League finished in first place, but it was of little importance. The league was bankrupt, and ended operations well before the end of the year. Although a dozen or more established big-league players had signed with the Federal League, most teams were staffed with marginal players and those approaching the end of their careers. The competition from the Federal League had little permanent impact on baseball, and both the American and National Leagues offered amnesty to all players who had "jumped" contracts. Those still able to play major league quality baseball rejoined their former clubs. One of those was Mordecai Brown. He signed with the Chicago Cubs for the 1916 season.

The calendar finally caught up with Three Finger Brown in 1916. He was 40 years old, and his baffling sinker pitch no longer had the magical hop which handcuffed hitters for so many years. He worked in 12 games that season, his final one in the major leagues. His record of two wins and three lost outings constituted his final major-league hurrah. Fittingly, his last big-league pitching duel was against his old adversary, Christy Mathewson. It was a losing effort for Mordecai, and the final game for Christy as an active player. In 1916, Mathewson was a player-manager with the Cincinnati Reds. At the end of the 1916 season, Brown was sent to the minor leagues. That time, he had no objection. The Cubs assigned him to Columbus, Ohio of the American Association for the 1917 season. The advent of World War I provided another respite for Brown when a player shortage developed. Younger men were entering military service, a situation which enhanced the value of aging veterans. Three Finger had two seasons of Triple A ball at Columbus, closing 1917 with a record of 10-12, and the 1918 year with a mark of 3-2. In 1919, he signed to manage and pitch for the Terre Haute, Indiana club of the Three I League back where he started in professional baseball in 1901.

Old Three Finger still had enough pitching skill to baffle the hitters in the Three I League in 1919. He accrued a record of 16-6 over the season. His name still had considerable crowd appeal, too. Many fans came out to see the famous old campaigner and his renowned pitching hand. He was never self-conscious over the disfigurement. In fact, he displayed his hand readily when asked to do so. Years earlier, Mordecai had acquired the corn chopper which caused the injury and put it on display in his own garage. It was always an object of curiosity to fans who came to visit.

In 1920, with his 44th birthday approaching, Three Finger's tired arm was totally worked out. His record at Terre Haute, his final active season as a player, was 4-6. Life did not hold many promises for Mordecai Brown.

He had no financial reserves, in spite of a 15-year career in the major leagues (two of them in the Federal League). As mentioned earlier, his salary high had been $7,000, merely enough to pay living expenses.

Mordecai's retirement years were passed in the area not far from his birth place. He lived a peripatetic existence for several years, first locating in Terre Haute, Indiana; then in neighboring Rosedale. Finally he settled in Lawrenceville, Illinois, just over the border, a little south of Terre Haute. Three Finger was employed several years by the Indian Refining Company, eventually owned by Texaco. They sponsored a semi-pro team in Lawrenceville, and Brown served as manager. He also held the position as chief of the refinery's fire department. Brown became a Mason in 1925. He petitioned Edward Dobbins Lodge No. 164 in Lawrenceville, and received the degrees as follows: EA on March 24, 1925, the PC on June 19th, and he was raised on July 7, 1925. Brother Brown was active and in good standing at the time of his death.

There is a statement in William Denslow's "10,000" Famous Freemasons" regarding an incident which occurred during the investigation of his petition to receive the degrees. Brother Denslow reported an objection to accepting Mordecai's petition because of his mutilated right hand. It was deemed in violation of the mandate in the Ancient Charges to accept only "A lamb without blemish." A search of the archives of the Grand Lodge of Illinois failed to yield a record of any objection, even though Denslow mentioned the name of the lodge's assigned District Deputy Grand Master, Byron R. Lewis.

In 1946, Mordecai and his wife, Sallie, opened a gasoline service station in Terre Haute, Indiana. They operated their little business until his death on February 14, 1948, at age 71. The famous old ball player was buried without fanfare in Roselawn Cemetery at Terre Haute. In 1949, the great old pitcher was voted into Baseball's Hall of Fame. Like most of the good things in Mordecai's life, the honor was slow in coming.

Summing up the career of Mordecai Peter Centennial Brown is little more than a collection of statistics, which are usually not overly interesting. They demand recitation, however. Over the span of his major-league career, which covered 13 seasons, Brown pitched in 411 games, with a total of 2,697 innings. He won 208 games and lost 111. Factoring in the two seasons in the Federal League, his total swells to 481 games, with 238 wins and 126 losses. His infield expertise made him one of the game's best defensive pitchers, and his hitting was far above average for a pitcher. Most notable, however, was always his extraordinary "breaking ball." It mystified batters for two decades and Three Finger owed it all to the lowly corn chopper.

In a reprise of Brown's life and career, one cannot miss the irony of a career in professional sports today and one during the first decades of the 20th century. Mordecai was a boy born into poverty and privation; predestined to a life of dangerous drudgery in the Indiana coal mines, until an accident gave him the break he needed to develop into a great major-league pitcher. Even though he enjoyed the highest status of recognition as a famous sports figure, he enjoyed little more than the bare essentials of life for his efforts. Uneducated, modest, and unprepossessing, he was never known to have a brush with the law, strike his wife, or display the effects of alcohol or drugs. Mordecai Brown was just an average, law-abiding citizen and one of the finest pitchers the game has ever known. One cannot fail to make a mental comparison when he sees one of todays "spot-pitching specialists." He works a couple of in- nings every four or five days to pick up several million dollars for a season; while a Three Finger Brown worked 50 games a year, the majority of which were nine-inning outings, for a grand sum of $7,000. Brown never drove a BMW nor lived in a mansion after a lifetime in baseball. He pumped gas in a service station until he died.

Regardless of the absence of worldly wealth, fame, and recognition for accomplishments in his lifetime, we as members of the Fraternity honor Three Finger Brown as one of our own. In the service of the "great American sport" during its seamy, formative years, he was one Mason who certainly "bore the heat and burden of the day." Indeed, Brother, he was morally speaking a lamb without blemish. P 56

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

P57

A PELICAN BRIEF

By William K. Bissey, MPS

According to Coil's Masonic Encyclopedia "The pelican feeding her young with her own blood is a symbol of the Rose Croix Degree and is said to be the symbol of Christ. This has a remote origin in curious myths to the effect that the male pelican kills the young in the nest, whereupon, the mother returns after three days, opens her side with her bill and pours her blood over her young, reviving them to life. Supposedly, this was an allusion to the Resurrection."1 This myth probably had its origins from "The fact that adult pelicans dipped their beaks into their pouches to extract fish with which to feed their young led to the misconception that the parents were ripping open their breasts to offer their blood to their young."2

Desiring more information about the symbolism of the pelican, I discovered a very interesting book entitled The Bestiary of Christ by Louis Charbonneau-Lassay.3 As noted by the translator both the author and the book have a curious history. M. Charbonneau (1871-1946) was born and lived all of his life in France. He became a Novice in the Order of St. Gabriel that was dissolved in 1903. Charbonneau had never taken permanent vows and remained a devoted and convinced Catholic until his death. Le Bestiare du Christ was originally a book of a thou- sand pages and contained over a thousand of the author's woodcuts. The book was published in a limited edition of five hundred copies in Brussels just after the start of World War II. A bomb destroyed a warehouse and destroyed almost of the copies. Two thousand copies were printed in Milan from the surviving copies of the first printing.

Charbonneau's book has a small chapter dedicated to the pelican which details most of the background of the mythology and symbolism of the pelican and contains several illustrations. The author states "In the ancient art of the Church, the mystic pelican is shown more often from the side than facing to the front; but in both cases, it strikes itself with its beak on the right side, or infrequently, in the center, but never on the left. If this latter does occur in very rare instances, it is because of an error on the pan of the engraver.

"From the close of the sixteenth century, a lack of understanding of the authentic Catholic symbolism caused waverings in the strict rule prevalent until then that the pelican was always shown striking its breast from the right or center, never from the left. Later, during the eighteenth century, Freemasonry adopted and revived a number of ancient symbols. The pelican was one of these (symbols). Since then Masons have firmly attached to it the iconographic characteristic of wounding itself always on the left side of the breast, and of having its neck bent always to this side, opposite to the traditional pelican in Catholic iconography; and this representation began to become generally accepted, even in the Churches." The author cites Receil precieux de La Maconnerie Adhonhiramite, by a chevalier of all the Masonic orders, 5.807, p.31 as his source. Charbonneau continues with a very brief discussion of the Compagnonnage theory of the origin of speculative Freemasonry.

I was astounded to discover that there is supposedly a Catholic pelican and a Masonic pelican. To satisfy my curiosity, I went to the Scottish Rite Cathedral of the Valley of Indianapolis. The banner of the Indianapolis Chapter of Rose Croix features the pelican with its beak wounding itself on its right side. Next, I checked the 1955 Constitution of the A.A.S.R., NMJ to ascertain if there was a specific Masonic pelican. Art. 1215-1. describes the Jewel of the Most Wise Master. In the description of the jewel is the following "at the foot of the cross, covering the lower pan of it and with wings extended between the legs of the compasses is a Pelican piercing her breast with her bill to feed with her own blood, her young, seven in number in a nest under it."4 There is no mention as to which breast should be shown as being pierced.

There is an illustration of the Jewel of the Chapter of Rose Croix in a booklet entitled What is the Scottish Rite? which is published by the A. A. S. R., NMJ.5 The illustration shows a pelican piercing the right side of its breast.

I next consulted Rose Croix by Brig. A. C. F. Jackson.6 In his chapter on the 180 he does discuss the symbolism of the pelican, but there is no mention as to the exact portrayal of the pelican. The book does have photographs of early Rose Croix jewels that show pelicans wounding themselves on either the right or the left side. Jackson does note "The earliest description of an 18jewel is given in a French ritual dated about 1756 i.e. about the date that the Rose-Croix degree was first developed." There is a description of the pelican but there is no mention as to which side of the breast that the beak should strike. I am now interested to find out if there is a purely Masonic pelican and if the exact portrayal of which breast is being struck by the beak is specified in any Scottish Rite jurisdiction or any other Masonic order. You may write to me at 8305 Sobax Drive, Indianapolis, Indiana, 46268, U.S. A.

References

1. Coil, Henry Wilson. Coils' Masonic Encyclopedia. Revised by Allen F. Roberts, Richmond, Virginia: Macoy Publishing & Masonic Supply Co., Inc., 1995.

2. Biedennarn, Hans, Dictionary of Symbolism. Hertfordshire, England: Wordsworth Editions, Ltd., 1996.

3. Charbonnean-Lassey, Louis. The Bestiary of Christ Translated and abridged by D. M. Dooling. New York: Parabola Books, 1991.

4.1955 Constitutions and Regulations of the Supreme Council of Sovereign Grand Inspectors General of the Thirty Third and last degree of the Ancient & Accepted Scottish Rite of Freemasonry for the Northern Masonic Jurisdiction of the United States of America as revised September 28, 1955. Boston: Supreme Council, 33 Ancient Accepted Scottish Rite Northern Masonic Jurisdiction U.S.A., 1955.

5. what is the Scottish Rite? Lexington, Mass Supreme Council, 33 Ancient Accepted Scottish Rite Northern Masonic Jurisdiction U.S.A., 1989.

6. Jackson, Brig. A. C. F Rose Croix: A History of the Ancient and Accepted Rite for England and Wales. Revised ed. Surrey, England: Lewis Masonic, 1987.

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

Where Are Our Tribal Storytellers?

by Phil Elam, MPS

There is a true story of about a scientist that was working in a remote village in Nigeria in the early sixties. Electricity had just been brought into the village by the government. Each family got a single light in its hut. This was a real step toward twentieth century progress for the citizens of this tiny village. The trouble was that at night, although they had nothing to read and, in fact, most of the villagers could not read, families would sit in their huts in total awe of this wonderful new symbol of modern technology.

In a short time, light bulb watching" began to replace the customary nighttime gatherings by the tribal fire where the tribal storytellers, the elders of the tribe would pass along the history of the tribe. They also related the customs, traditions, morals, ethics and religion of the tribe that had evolved over hundreds of years.

By tradition, the tribe's storytellers were held in high esteem within both family and tribe. These tribal elders were important in teaching parents how to care for children, passing on traditions and culture, acting as religious and political advisors, and promoting and encouraging cultural pride and identity among the young and instructing the young. The tribes traditions had been passed from one generation to the next for hundreds of years as young people sought out elders to learn from them. These relationships were absolutely critical for the survival of the tribe and its culture. The elders, the old tribal storytellers, warned the villagers of what was happening, but people refused to listen or acknowledge the impact of the change that was taking place. This Nigerian tribe was quickly losing its history and identity in the light of less that fifty electric light bulbs.

Some thirty years later, the same scientist revisited the village to renew old acquaintances. He was totally shocked by what he saw. A once proud people had completely surrendered to progress. Respect for each other had been replaced by 'Boom boxes." Friendship and neighbors had been replaced by color TVs. Customs had been replaced by dubbed in reruns of Gilligan's Island. Religion had been replaced by Nike tennis shoes and video games. Common civility had become an unknown entity. Even the family structure had deteriorated. Children no longer listened to or respected their elders. And their elders viewed the children as an imposition to their "golden years" and new found leisure activities. The old tribal storytellers were long since dead. Young people had no idea of their tribe's customs, traditions or history. Even the older people could only vaguely remember what the "old ones" had told them when they were children. Yes, that remote tribe had indeed stepped into the twentieth century.

This true story helps illustrate the difference between so called "progress" and "tribal leadership" Every family, every college, every corporation, and every social and religious institution, including Freemasonry, needs its tribal storytellers.

The penalty for failing to listen is to lose one's identity, one's point of reference and one's binding values. Like the Nigerian tribe, without the continuity brought about by tradition and custom, any group of people will begin to forget who and what they are.

Many of us too easily forget that the teaching of these binding values is one of the most important roles of Freemasonry. The sharing of our ancient traditions, origins, duties and obligations, and morality can be communicated only through Masonic Education by our own tribal storytellers.

Sadly, the number of Brethren who can talk knowledgeably and intelligently about Freemasonry's history, traditions, customs and dogma are getting older and dying out. They, too, are being replaced by "progress" as today's members struggle to find solutions to difficult problems. Propositions and proposals that are "fashionable," but that have not stood the test of time, seem to sprout forth every day from some new quarter.

Will we one day find ourselves in exactly the same situation as those Nigerian villagers? Will we forget who we are and where we came from? Will we forget the sacrifices made by our Ancient Brethren, and even the hardships and relentless persecution that many suffered to ensure that Freemasonry survived and could be passed down to us?

If we are willing to take the time, we can clearly see the legacy our departed tribal storytellers left for us. What are we leaving of our Beloved Ancient Craft for the Brethren that will follow us in future generations?

All of us, but especially those who carry the heavy mantel and responsibility of leadership, must work to maintain our inherited values. Any system of beliefs is continually threatened by change, and change is something no one can avoid. Tribal storytellers, the tribe's true elders, must insistently work at the process of tribal renewal. They must preserve, protect and revitalize the values of the tribe just as they strive to protect the tribe's collective knowledge and wisdom. They nourish and communicate the set of values that sustain us both as an institution and as individuals. This constant renewal also readies each of us to face the inevitable crises that life will eventually throw at us.

Our ancient Masonic tribal storytellers knew that renewal enables each of us to reach our true potential as individuals and as a viable, vibrant organization. They knew and taught that renewal comes through genuine service to others. It cannot come about through a process of mere self-perpetuation. Renewal is the outward orientation toward our fellow man.

Tribal renewal is the concern and responsibility of everyone in our Beloved Fraternity, but it is the special province of our Masonic tribal storyteller. Their precious and valuable experience provides needed guidance for our current and future tribal leadership.

Where are our Masonic tribal storytellers today? We need you now more than ever.

58

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

Those Men Who Wear Those Mason Rings

by Michael R. Strampe

The Men Who Help My Dad Each day,

They Wear Those Mason Rings,

A Square and Compass Set in Gold,

The Praise of Which I Sing.

My Dad, He Hurt His Back, You Know,

One Cold and Wintery Day.

He Slipped and Fell Upon the Ice,

The Insurance Would Not Pay.

And Since That Time Those Rings I See

On Hands That Help Us Much,

With Mowing lawns and Hauling Trash,

Each Day My Heart They Touch.

They Even Built a House for Me

Amid Our Backyard Tree,

Where All the Neighbor Kids Would

Play with Laughter Pull of Glee.

My Mom She Cried from Happiness

Fact Time the Masons Came,

To Aid Our Family in Distress

Without a Thought of Gain.

And When I'm Big, Just like My Dad

Of This It Must Be Told,

I Want to Wear a Ring Like His -

A Square and Compass Gold.

Long Years Have Pasted Since When

My Dad Was in That Plaster Cast,

And Since I Swore That Solemn Oath

Which Unites Us to the Last.

But More than That I'm Proud to Say

I Wear His Mason Ring,

The One Dad Wore for Many Years,

Until His Death this Spring.

And One Last Time His Comrades Came

To Aid My Weeping Mother,

They Praised and Bid a Fond Farewell

To Our Fallen Brother.

And After Which My Son Did Ask

About Their Aprons White,

And of the Rings Upon Their Hands

Of Gold So Shiny Bright.

With Tearful Eyes I Said with Pride

They're Men of Spirit Pure,

Those Men Who Wear Those Mason Rings

Of That You Can Be Sure.

And Before He Went to Bed that Night

The Family He Foretold,

Someday I'll Wear A Ring Like Dad's -

A Square and Compass Gold.

The Philalethes, June 1998 59

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

A Pragmatic Masonic History

by Leo Zanelli, MPS

A Lodge Elder introduces a new piece of ritual into his lodge workings. How long does it take to become "time immemorial" in the eyes of the members of that lodge? It could be two years or less. It's this ability to pull the wool over our own eyes that bedevils masonic history. The study of masonic history in particular, requires an approach which includes Applied logic and Social Psychology two disciplines usually missing in masonic histories, but which I have attempted here. Someone once wrote: "...nothing vexes people so much, and hardens them in their unbelief and in their dogged resistance to reforms, as undeniable facts and unanswerable arguments." This, I feel, applies in particular to much attempted masonic historical writing.

This paper is an attempt to outline (no more) a very brief history of Freemasonry, from an obscure starting point, through 1717 A.D. at the formation of the premier Grand Ledge by four London lodges, at the Goose and Gridiron tavern in the shadow of St Paul's to the present. It applies particularly to the English Constitution although the basic history is of interest to all constitutions.

As we are trying to avoid "fairy tales" here, it must be pointed out that the insistence by the United Grand Lodge of England that "pure, antient" Freemasonry consists of three degrees only.. including the Royal Arch is almost certainly historically inaccurate. Grand Ledges are of course entitled to decide for themselves exactly what their ritual consists of. Thus if the UGLE says it consists of three degrees including the Royal Arch, then they have that right but I think it is confusing to suggest that their (modern) version is "pure, antient cause this tends to distort the facts.

A Question of Definition

First, let me define what I think "pure, antient" Freemasonry ritual is: It is quite simply the ritual that existed in 1717, when the premier Grand Ledge was formed. Surprisingly, we do have a pretty good idea what that ritual was ifs just that many masonic historians stick their head in the sand and concentrate on an undefined period a few years later, when another degree came into existence. This is an illogical approach. If we accept the date of 1717 as being the start of organized Freemasonry as we know it, then the original ritual must be that which was practiced in 1717. Anything else has to be an addition or innovation.

Do we have any idea of what this ritual was composed of? Almost certainly yes. The most valuable material here is Knoop, Jones and Hamer's book The Early Masonic Catechisms (1975, edited by Harry Carr). This book is essential reading for anyone interested in the evolution of Craft ritual. Unlike the Old Charges, which seem to have originated as operative "trade union" charters, and which lodges seemed keen to keep as an indication of history, Early Masonic Catechisms concentrates on what are virtually scraps of paper (one is a mere 20cm by 15cm sheet of paper) upon which are written a form of ritual of a catechism (question and answer) nature. These include the Edinburgh Register House MS (1696), the Chetwode Crawley MS (1700) and the Kevan MS (circa 1715). All, you will note, immediately before 1717.

Having studied the above three manuscripts in detail, the authors state: "These three texts are so much alike in minute detail that it is quite certain that they all purport to describe the same procedure."

In fact, these catechisms have far more in common with our ritual than the Old Charges, which lodges seemed to possess to give themselves a patina of age. Now the point about the Old Charges, is that one could make a case for them being a saleable item; if every lodge were supposed to have one, there would have been steady jobs for scribes producing them. Not so the manuscripts mentioned above; they are loose leaves of paper, usually showing many folds and signs of great use, and which were not designed to appeal to anyone. Just like the scribbled bits of ritual masons have made up for centuries to this day. In other words, there was no need to produce them except for use which to me makes them pretty genuine.

What do they teach?

Now the amazing thing about these manuscripts, is that the average mason will find much to relate to: the method of placing the feet; mention of a "prentice" and "fellow-Craft"; the Five Points of Fellowship; the mention of the square, compasses and the Bible in the same context; the porch of Solomon's Temple; the basic penal sign; and of having a part of your body cut out and buried on the beach or thereabouts there is much to recognize here. This really is beyond coincidence. There's sufficient evidence for it to stand up in a court of law! But only two degrees are mentioned. The two degree theory has been accepted for many years. For example take Lionel Vibert's Prestonian Lecture for 1925, titled "The development of the Trigradal System". Early in the lecture, Vibert writes: "By the days of Grand Lodge (1717) this had come to be a system of two degrees only, the Acceptance and the Master's Part." Later he says: "...and by 1730 the trigradal system was definitely established."

More up to date, in his article "Masters Ledges" in the September 1997 issue of the masonic magazine The Square, Yasha Beresiner writes: "Al- though we have no evidence of the degree work undertaken in Craft lodges before 1730, we know, beyond doubt, that there were only two degrees: that of the Entered Apprentice and Fellow of the Craft (or Master) as the second." So we have two top masonic historians, with papers separated by over 70 years, agreeing that in 1717 the Craft ritual consisted of only two degrees; most serious historians agree with them.

So, at this point all the evidence points to the existence of only two degrees in 1717. Also, the early masonic catechisms mentioned, describe significant portions of the ritual as we know it today. Thus it is logical to assume that in 1717, speculative masons worked a two degree system, along the lines of the masonic catechisms de scribed by Knoop, Jones and Hamer.

It is of course interesting to speculate where these original two degrees came from. The Edinburgh House MS (1696) was, we know, an old document from the Court of Session, Edinburgh, found in 1808; the Chetwode Crawley (c. 1700) was discovered around 1900 in Ireland; while the Kevan MS (c. 1714) was discovered in 1954, in Scotland.

Looking through The Early Masonic Exposures, it seems likely that the earliest catechisms derive from Scotland, and slowly filtered through the rest of Britain.

There is a school of thought which suggests that there is a shortage of early English catechisms because they were committed to memory. This is totally illogical; such a system would have meant a great deal of change over the years because of the vagaries of human memory whereas the amazing thing about the early catechisms mentioned above, is that so much still fits into our current ritual. This could only be achieved by writing the ritual down.

Enter a Third

Serious historians also agree that the third degree was devised or introduced around 1725. It was certainly established by 1730, because it was published in Pritchard's Masonry Dissected on that date, and became the unofficial ritual book of freemasons for decades. This is also virtually the first mention we have of the Hiramic legend. How- ever the storyline itself is mirrored in non-masonic legends down the ages. It's hardly original. But who developed this third degree, how, and why?

The noted Scottish masonic historian Murray Lyon (died 1903), described Desaguliers as the "co-fabricator and pioneer of the system of symbolical masonry." He had a point. Certainly Desaguliers was just about the most influential mason of the period, being Grand Master in 1719, and Deputy Grand Master in 1722 and 1726. This was the period in which the third degree was introduced into the ceremony of the premier Grand Lodge and logic tells us that Desaguliers, and his masonic friends in the Royal Society, just had to be responsible. Certainly, nothing could have been introduced without their approval.

In fact the Craft changed dramatically while Desaguliers was on the scene. The original Grand Lodge, so far as we can tell, was little more than an annual get-together for a feast or festival. They didn't even keep minutes. The Desaguliers era saw the introduction of the keeping of minutes, an improvement in administration and the introduction of the third degree.

In fact, a curious set of minutes of Grand Lodge (24 June 1723) tell us that the Duke of Wharton, Grand Master, declined to name his successor, and referred the nomination to the Grand Lodge. Most unusual. This resulted in the nomination of the Rt Hon the Earl of Dalkeith. Dalkeith then stated that in the event of his election, he would nominate Desaguliers as his deputy. Wharton then immediately asked for the Grand lodge to approve Desaguliers (contrary to regulations). The minutes state: "A division of the (Grand) Lodge was called.. there were 43 Ayes in favor of Desaguliers and 42 Noes. Dalkeith was then elected Grand Master whereupon Wharton declared he had some doubt as to whether the tellers had reported the Desaguliers vote accurately. . ." (Manchester AMR Transactions LXXXIII).

There seems little doubt that almost 50 per cent of those present not just Wharton were not in favor of Desaguliers; an indication of distention without doubt. Could this have been because he was "plugging" for a change of direction? People trying to change things are never popular. How was the third introduced? After all, the slightest alteration in ritual is liable to create hysteria among masons. But remember that these were early days, when the brethren had few lines of communication and were thus ill-informed. I suggest it was introduced as the "revival of the third degree". I say this because almost every degree or order in Masonry is, at the point of origin, declared a "revival". This automatically imparts on the degree/order an artificial veneer of age. Even with the premier Grand Lodge, within a few years 'historians" were writing that it was really a revival of an older system. I maintain it would have been easy to introduce a third degree, if it were described as something more ancient that masons had used in the past.

Why? That's more difficult. This was around the time the premier Grand Lodge ceremony and outlook started to become de-christianised. The number three is more evocative than two; it may have been no more than that. What is interesting, is that there is a link-King Solomon's Temple is mentioned in the original two degree system, and of course in the Hiramic legend; although this does not prove a connection.

If the above assumptions are correct, then it means that three degree Masonry as we know it, derived from two sources. We know that much of our heritage comes from the material mentioned in the two degree system outlined in The early Masonic Catechisms because most of it is still in our ritual. But at some point, a group introduced additional material (the third degree) that is unlikely to have had any real historical connection to the early ritual. It seems probable that Desaguliers and his companions introduced this additional material for a specific reason. Why? I suggest that a closer look at Desaguliers and the Royal Society) in this period, might shed some light on the subject.

The Degree Explosion

The point is that it happened and I contend that it set in motion a chain of events that reverberate to this day. Because from this point, degrees and orders proliferated until, around 1800, there were literally hundreds possibly a thousand degrees. It became a sort of fashion. Indeed, many of the other orders that sprung up in the 1700s, such as the Buffaloes, Druids and Oddfellows, still exist to this day. Social psychologists could have a field day here, for if one traces these degrees/orders downwards from their peak, you arrive back at the period in which the premier Grand Lodge introduced the third degree causing a virtual tidal wave of fashion for such societies.

In fact Sandbach in his Talks for lodge and Chapter writes: "We have to bear in mind the revolution which the coming of the Hiramic (third) degree must have achieved.. What it did was turn Freemasonry into a new path." It did indeed. What it did not do is make it "pure, antient."

And Then There Were Four

Some time around 1730, the ceremony we now know as the Royal Arch was developed. We know little about its origin, except that it was a great favorite with a group of mostly Irish masons who became known as the Antients. Anyone wishing to research the Antients, should read Sadler's Masonic Facts and Fictions. We must hear in mind, again, that the introduction of degrees and orders at this time was starting to become a phenomenon. Most of the degrees that have been passed down to us, or of which we have evidence of the ritual, seem to slot somewhere into a biblical chronology of sorts. They are basically similar in construction.

To my mind the introduction of the Royal Arch could have been something extremely simple: if we accept that the premier Grand Lodge introduced the third degree, in which the word was lost then the next logical progression would be to find it again: the vault and the Royal Arch.

In fact the storyline was already circulating. In one of his lectures, titled "The Mark and the Royal Arch", the noted historian Wallace Mcleod writes, regarding the RA. "Actually the story.. comes from the ancient Greek historian Philostorgius of Cappadocia (circa 400 AD) who wrote a History of the Church. Philostorgius tells the following story: The Roman Emperor Julian ordered the Temple at Jerusalem to be rebuilt....... when the foundations were being readied, one stone, that had been layed in the bottom if the coarse was dislodged and revealed a cavern built into the rock.... thy could not see inside... The overseers wanted to know the truth, so they fastened one if their workmen to a long rope and let him down...feeling around, in the centre he discovered a block of rock projecting. . . when he put his hand on it he found a scroll. He picked it up and gave a signal to be pulled up... the scroll astonished both Gentiles and Jews, for when it war opened it displayed the words. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God...

Mcleod goes on: "...it (the story) was picked up by the French journalist and writer Louis Travenol. He published it in 1747 in a revelation of the so called Masonic secrets...

Then McLeod adds, in a masterpiece of understatement "This is certainly a tale calculated to raise our eyebrows". Indeed, I can see no other alternative but to assume that the Antients, desperate to keep a Christian influence in Masonry, came upon the Greek story and immediately adopted it to fill in the loss" described in the new third degree.

An Antient Heritage

As mentioned, "degree fever" eventually become a social phenomenon of the 17OOs. But not with the premier Grand Lodge (called the "Moderns') because they insisted, for over 70 years, that Masonry consisted of three degrees only and that most certainly did not include the Royal Arch. To take just one example among many, in 1767 Samuel Spencer, Grand Secretary of the premier Grand lodge, replying to a query about the Royal Arch, wrote: "The Royal Arch is a society which we do not recognize and which we hold to be an invention to introduce innovation and to seduce the brethren."

It's almost certain that Spencer himself didn't know the truth when decrying the Royal Arch as an innovation, because the premier Grand lodge called the Antients "innovators" when in fact they had lit the fuse themselves with the introduction if the third degree. On the other hand, the Antients and others embraced the degree ethic with enthusiasm.

The Antients used to open in a "fourth degree" and in this mode worked many other degrees until, around 1800, they had a degree structure of around 26 and many more optional. We know this from the works of the likes of John Knight, who detailed the degrees and rituals in many hand-written books. It is also recorded that quite a few Moderns lodges used to work many, if not all of the Antient degrees it is a fact that Knight himself was technically a "Modern" (he was a friend of Dunkerley) even though he worked the Antient structure and even Druid ceremonies.

As mentioned, the plethora of degrees and orders that sprung up show an amazing similarity in structure. Many masonic writers have commented that our antient brethren had fertile imaginations; whereas in truth they were virtually devoid of imagination. The format of obligations etc all show signs of emanating from the same source, with the same monotonous regularity. There is rarely any attempt at originality. Even as these other degrees developed, they retained a "traditional" structure. To this day, most of these "outside" degrees are similar in form and are recognizable; even repetitive. Even the orders outside the Craft suffer the same fate. The Gardeners (originated in the 1700s) for example possessed three degrees: the first featured Adam, the second Noah and the third King Solomon. In the Improved Order of Red Men (American), the opening shows the same structure as tat of Freemasonry and this is repeated through all the Red Man degrees. The fact that most degrees or orders within and without Freemasonry are so similar in structure, is farther evidence that they were created in a wave of "fashion". They all intimate that there are great secrets to unfold to the dedicated follower; yet none of them have fulfilled their promise and that includes the "Blue" degrees. An examination of the Antient structure seems to show that it was decidedly chivalric, with a preponderance of "Knight of degrees. In my opinion it still exists in a reasonably recognizable form in the American York Rite, which seems to contain many of the Antient degrees and orders, with the main exception of the Rose Croix or Rosy Crucian, which now languishes for some reason in the Ancient and Accepted or Scottish Rite. In England many of the remaining degrees are scattered around several other orders, such as the Holy Royal Arch Knight Termplar Priests. But this is an avenue we shall go into at some future date. Such was the success of the Antient structure, that many Moderns lodges performed them, totally disregarding what the premier Grand Lodge said. So much so that in 1766 a group within the Moderns forced through a "Charter of Compact" or separate Royal Arch Grand Chapter. This enabled Moderns lodges to carry out Antient degrees without having to compromise their "three degrees and no more" philosophy.

A Time for Compromise

This Antient structure from the fourth or Royal Arch onwards was the main stumbling block towards the union of the Moderns and Antients in England in 1813.

The Moderns the premier Grand Lodge had for 70 years insisted that Freemasonry consisted "of three de grees only" and of course it would have been a loss of face for them to have accepted any other. The Antients, on the other hand, insisted that the Royal Arch was the very essence of Freemasonry and of course the key to the highly prized chivalric orders. In the end a "nonsense" compromise was created in Article II of the Act of Union, which said that Freemasonry consists of three degrees and no more, viz., those of the Entered Apprentice, the Fellow Craft, and the Master Mason, including the Supreme Order of the Holy Royal Arch. I quite honestly believe that such a ridiculous compromise could only have survived in Freemasonry in any other organization it would have been laughed out of court". But this, it must be emphasized, applies only within the English Constitution so far as I know; and there is no doubt that this bizarre compromise was the only one which could have saved the Union.

However, this was not the end of the story, because the political machinations within the premier Grand Lodge were still active. They had literally been forced to accept the Royal Arch, but were determined to go no farther. As Sandbach points out in his Talks for Lodge and Chapter "...if we look at the original statement in the Act of Union, we find that the quotation (...three degrees and no more, including the Royal Arch...) is incomplete, because Article II in fact goes on to say: "But this Article is not intended to prevent any Lodge or Chapter from holding a meeting in any of the Degrees of the Orders of Chivalry according to the constitutions of the said orders." Those words quite clearly gave permission to Lodges and Chapters to confer degrees additional to the three Craft degrees. Yet this has never been al- lowed by the United Grand Lodge of England despite the fact that I have seen no evidence to suggest that it was ever rescinded. Why?

It is patently obvious that, having fudged a compromise of sorts, the Moderns were determined to sweep aside all those "orders of chivalry" into oblivion. This they did with regard to the Craft; but luckily the Knights Templar and others had by this time developed administrative structures of their own, and mostly survived. But that is another story.

A Precis

Bearing all the above in mind, we are now able to construct a brief example history of Freemasonry. It certainly won't please everyone; but it is a pragmatic reasoning not one based on fairy stories.

A fairly simple, two degree masonic ceremony originated in Scotland, and gradually spread throughout England. This was the one in general use in 1717, when the premier Grand Lodge was formed in London.

Around 1725, Desaguliers and others within the premier Grand Lodge, decided that the ceremony needed to be dechristianised possibly to make it attractive to a wider membership and they added a third degree. Several years later another group termed the Antients added a fourth (Royal Arch) degree; and in this "mode" also carried out a wide variety of decidedly Christian and chivalric ceremonies. None of these were accepted by the premier Grand Lodge (Moderns).

However the Antient structure proved so popular with many Moderns lodges, that in 1766 the premier Grand Lodge formed a separate Royal Arch Grand Chapter, so that their members could conduct "Antient" degrees without infringing the Craft ceremonies. Indeed, so popular was this "Antient" practice of a multitude of degrees, that there were dozens, perhaps hundreds, created outside Freemasonry. In 1813 the two rival English Grand Lodges came together, and achieved the compromise of "fusing" the Antients' Royal Arch onto the Craft third degree then proceeded to ignore the rest of the Antient degrees.

Some Conclusions

It has to be emphasized again that the 1813 "compromise" applies only to the English Constitution. Everywhere else in the world, it is recognized that the Craft consists of only the three "blue" degrees, without the Royal Arch. However, the rest of the world has also got it wrong, because "pure, ancient" Free masonry consisted of two degrees only.

All the rest is innovation!

What are we to make of the above, on the assumption that it is reasonably correct? The main one is that there is no Grand Design. The first and second degrees almost certainly originated from a different source to that of the third; and the Royal Arch also came from somewhere else. It seems highly likely that the Royal Arch story originated in Greece around 400 AD and the third degree could well have been adapted from one of many biblical stories.

This is important, because there is a general acceptance among masons (even Grand Lodges) that our ceremonies have a fixed, if slightly esoteric, meaning taken as a whole. That our ceremonies have been passed down unaltered through the centuries and that there is a message, even a great secret, bound up in the complete "parcel." This, obviously, is not the case, because as we can see from the above, the overall picture is derived from several different sources, and the whole structure "just grew" it really wasn't planned.

What we originally had, has been expanded dramatically over the centuries. It is generally recognized that the three degrees as "exposed" in Pritchard's Masonry Dissected are a fair representation of the degrees at that time (1730). Just compare them with the three degrees we have now, and it's obvious that something which was originally fairly simple, became repetitive, convoluted, pompous and bloated in the period from 1717 to 1813. We have not-most definitely not "always done it that way". Bearing in mind the considerable decline in membership of the major masonic countries (USA, Britain, Australia etc) could it be time to get back to basics?

What is needed now, is to concentrate on the three distinct divisions of masonic ritual the first two degrees; the third; and the Royal Arch and work out the history of each as a separate entity. In that way we may start to unravel the complex structure that is Freemasonry. To attempt to imagine the first, second, third and Royal Arch as an integral whole historically, is inaccurate and will only tend to confuse unless you prefer fairy tales...

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

With Freemasonry In Mind

by S. Frank Paul

My name is Sidney Francis Paul and I was born as a village boy and brought up in a remote Somerset village throughout the 1920's and 1930's. I left the village in 1937 and I joined the Royal Air Force in early 1938. World War II started in late 1939 and I served overseas most of the war years in the Western desert, Greece and all over the Middle East from Baghdad to Benghazi. I spent much time in active theaters of war and I saw what village boys from Britain, Australia, South Africa and New Zealand, Germany and Italy were made to do to one another under the direction of their betters. I continued to serve another twenty years after the war ended and saw much of the Far East.

I suppose in my spare time I read pretty extensively, untutored, little bits of the then most famous of the philosophers of that time. Mainly those of the late nineteenth century. It is surprising how much literature was available on troop ships and in the tents, circulated among young men like me who wondered what it was all about.

I think it was during a fierce air raid on the island of Kythira, just south of Greece, that I first triggered a desire for a greater understanding. I remember a bomb splinter coming our way with a sickening, moaning sound; woom, woom, woom, and it hit the rock above our cave. I watched a man about forty years of age reach in his pocket for a post card which he drew there from. I looked to see what he sought his comfort in and I saw it to be a picture of the Virgin Mary and Child. He would have been a Christian Arab or a Coptic Christian or a Marianite of north Palestine or Syria. He was one of those whom we called Palestinian and he was serving as a Motor Transport Driver in the Royal Air Force. I wondered why he found comfort in his minute of prayer with his picture. I was twenty years old and by then I suppose I was a young cynic, or so I thought. I had seen how bombs and bullets kill people like us and as the war years went on I found myself forming my own religion. I found my own anchorage, as it were.

Little tiny bits of Nietzsche, Tolstoy, H. G. Wells, Kipling, mixed up with barracks room and tent philosophy, beer from bottles beneath the desert sky, began to open up many avenues of thought. There is nothing like a desert sky to make a person realize how small he is in this vast, awesome space. A desire to know the reason for one's existence takes hold. With some, it b& comes a misguided obsession. Scholars, professors, scientists, mathematicians, fakers, priests, sooth-sayers and know it-all's have all put forth their ideas so that people like me, with bare untutored minds could gobble it all up. I was at that time serving with two companions, Bill Brooks and Paddy Binns, who were both Freemasons. They would talk about religion, politics, geography, war, women, music, literature, theater, food, all manner of subjects and they included me in. My contributions must have meant something, or perhaps it was my questions. I remember the Jewish lady in Palestine who said to me that there must be a God somewhere, but he must be deaf or blind and, anyway, if God were a woman things would be a hell of a lot different down here!"

They, Bill and Paddy, never asked me to be a Freemason. They took me to the Lodge in Alexandria as a guest, but I didn't know they were waiting for me to ask. Thirty-four years passed by and I gave up. I seemed to always be meeting and knowing Freemasons. They always seemed to be men of mature thought, but none ever asked me to join. I'd been brought up to wait until I was asked, and "don't be pushy, boy." I've often wondered how many men, good and true, were lost to Freemasonry because of that policy. But I do now see why one must commit himself and he alone must decide to ask. I remember on several occasions being told, "if you want something you must ask for it." But the penny never dropped. Now I am a Freemason of the Grand Lodge of England, but only of lowly rank in that honorable association of men who have cemented their fellowship with the undertaking of the three, and then the final degree of Freemasonry. These four stages are not to be regarded lightly. Freemasons accept the duty of their own choice to try to better the lot of their fellow men and, equally important, the lot of all mankind who live under the canopy of heaven.

What a human being is equipped to see from where he stands, be it in open country or at sea, is what his Creator has meant him to see. And if he uses a telescope or a microscope, the more wonders he will see. These are all the works of the worlds Great Architect, but not all works. The works of the Great Architect are boundless. There will also be his own work to do in his own lodge and also in the Lodge that has no height, no length and no width, that is the wide, wide world. I say this in the year 1994 when the whole of mankind has gone through changes in living conditions which have effected the attitude of modern society. Youth has debunked and analyzed that which they were taught as children. Having been tutored by those who call themselves the learned and the enlightened, and those who believe themselves to be intellectuals, they are then left high and dry in an unfinished mental state, blank and unthinking in a bewilderment wherein most of the worlds de lights pass them by. They are the bewildered who wish and wish and wish that they could escape from the cage of frustration in which they live.

Into Freemasonry today come men from a brutal, godless, undisciplined society, hopefully seeking a betterment of their lives spiritual, which must improve their lives generally. Candidates know, or should know, that they will make no material gain from being a Freemason. No business or wealth will expand. They should seek and be shown how to find the fruits of enlightened thought, the better understanding of creation, and of the God that originated and still perpetuates everything that exists. This understanding should bring a betterment of his spiritual being, an awareness of his own existence and a better appreciation, whatever his religion may be, of his God which is his creator, and his anchor.

Freemasonry is not a religion. It is a peculiar system of morality. In the beginning of a man's life as a Freemason, the elementary requirements must be made plain. The new apprentice must proclaim his willingness to come freely and with a desire to serve his fellow man and all mankind in general, no matter how small his greatest effort may be. All Freemasons will be encouraged to be more aware of the Ten Commandments as laid down by Moses in the Pentatuech. These are the laws that have made civilization possible since men first started living as tribes and as nations. Freemasons must also be aware of the parables and lessons of Christian Teachings and do their alms not in public. Any Freemason, of any religion, will already know that in his own faith, whether he be Hindu, Muslim, Jew, Confuician, or Buddhist, all have commandments regarding charity, alms, sympathy, love and devotion to the God of all men. There is no secret exclusive between Masons alone. A Freemason seeks what is really in his own heart. Freemasonry is a private society and keeps its tenets and disciplines to apply to its brethren only. There is no bondage, if anything a greater freedom than in any other institution known to man. The new found brother amongst Masons will, in the first stage, be reminded of brotherly love, which will require little explanation. The proposer will be well aware of his apprentices outlook on life in the beginning of his candidature. Relief will also be a ready consideration of the new candidate. On the subject of charity the new apprentice must be warned by his proposers not to be too hasty. Charity is that demand which a new brother can well afford without prejudicing his dependents. It can always be increased as time goes on. Every Free mason will be one of charitable nature, but not in money alone.

Next will come the great subject of truth. What is TRUTH? The search for truth will be encouraged by the proposer and practiced by the new Mason. This search will never end and it will be of interest to the new Mason hence forth.

The second stage of Masonry will bring the new apprentice to realize that he has matured and is regarded as a man of integrity enabled in thought and deed. Now he will be encouraged to contemplate the hidden mysteries of nature and science. This will give his mind a boundless prairie to explore in search of knowledge of a million facets of life on earth and thoughts abstract This regard for the hidden mysteries of nature and science must become the lifelong interest of the Freemason. He will recognize beauty and goodness, but also he will become aware of the ugly facts and negative forces that he must fight against. The seven liberal arts will be made known to the new brother that he may consider all subjects to the best of his ability. The new Mason may be inspired to regard things, heretofore thought to be commonplace, a little more closely. The Craftsman will now, it is hoped, occupy his mind with subjects all mankind has studied in his search for truth and knowledge of all created things. Such stimuli might lead to adventurous thought in the areas where religion and science blend into a mysticism where the intelligence of the Great Creator remains supreme.

Humble man is forever outwitted in his wonderment, but is inspired by what he does discover. An awareness, if not a knowledge of, the liberal arts, will stimulate the Freemasons thoughts on such as music, the heavens, great structures of craftsman's art and buildings, mostly done to the glory of God. A broader appreciation of beauty will make the new craftsman better able to laugh, to love, and to weep in his understanding of mankind's woes and joy. He must then, be a kinder and better man.

The third stage of Masonry will bring the Craftsman to the stage of mastery of the craft. Now he will be taught how to die and be made aware of his inevitable, eventual demise. Whatever the Freemasons' religion may be, being aware of his own ending will not encroach or offend or interfere with his religion or his devout deep beliefs. To whatever persuasion he may belong, his death will be unavoidable and he will know his destiny is safe and secure. After contemplating his death, he will return to life in the knowledge that his companions will be with him and be of the same understanding. The stories and fables encountered during the progress through the various degrees must be accentuated and emphasized by the new brother's companions. He will now be a Master Mason and be thought able to explore the avenues of his own discovery. He should, as a Master Mason, be able to consider philosophy, the love of knowledge and discover it to be free to any living human being and not to Freemasons only.

As I speak my thoughts wander from the idealistic to the every day. Masons only meet in their Lodges, or at functions where subjects, other than protocol or ritual, are rarely discussed. This is right and proper, as subjects controversial are likely to strain brotherhood. Quick, short, sharp statements will not do when delicate or emotive issues are discussed. It is a pity that modern life does not make it easy for Masons to assemble or meet for conversation or exchange of ideas born out of Masonic doctrine. I do observe that many new brothers are brought into Masonry by a proposer who then rarely, or some times never, speaks to his apprentice on matters Masonic, that should be dis- cussed elsewhere than in the Lodge. The new brother, left alone, often enters into other degrees too hastily and before he has had the time to weigh out the consequences. I also notice that many senior Masons go through the chair and thereafter rarely come to the Craft Lodge. The senior Mason should have much talk with new Masons to guide and set examples. Old Masons should teach the new Masons how to use the tools, so to speak, and give them a feeling of belonging. Senior Masons should encourage new apprentices or Master Masons to read a little of Masonic history, world history, a little astronomy, a little anthropology and such subjects that inspire thought. Just a little is better than nothing. This lack of guidance has, I notice, caused some new Masons to regard the craft as a social event. I remember one Mason who left because the food was not good enough at the Festive Board after the ceremony in the temple. Often, more importance is given to social and dining activities than to the essence of Masonic meaning, that is philosophic thought and charity towards the needs of others. It is true, Freemasonry must be enjoyed and not be too somber. A happy medium should prevail.

Coming away from this line of thought, I must say a few things more personal. I was pleased to find, when I passed through the door of the Lodge, that therein I found assembled men of all ages, creeds, ideals, different religions and persuasions, trades and professions, and they all rubbed shoulders in a common, focal acknowledgment of a God, the Divine Creator. I was pleased to find later that Masonry offered a non-religions code of moral discipline which did not contradict or conflict my own ideals and conclusions, which I had by that time cultivated and consolidated in my own mind. I behold my creator with open eyes, unashamed, and with outstretched hands. I stand up to meet my maker and greet him well.

I live inside this body of mine and I look out at the world of mankind through these eyes that are a part of me. Other human beings return my stare. I see all that exists. I am, I observe, a part of creation and like all living things, plant or animal, I am a part of all creation. I must, therefore, have a reason for existing. I believe that all existing things, be it material or spiritual, is an oneness. The mind of God the Creator is an intelligence that masters all phenomena. If it is accepted. as it is by me, that the Great Divine Architect of the whole universe, and that beyond this universe, is the God that mankind searches for, then my search is ended. The designer of that which is called ME, is also the master of my living essence. In the instant of my conception, my creator was present to give me life. I was destined then to be born as a human being, to live this life unique to me only. Life, the intangible, indefinable and beyond the understanding of any sage or priest. Life is like an indiscernible magnetic field radiated from the master source. Energy of this magnetic field is existent within me, in this body, until the reason for my earthly existence has been fulfilled. My life will then retract back into the main source of all life. My body will decompose, but the magnetic field of life will still be radiated. I regard the main source of life to be that omniscient, omnifiant and omnipotent God of which I am a part. My life is no more or no less important than that of a frog or a fly. The hidden mystery of nature pulses like a broadcaster to a receiver. If the receiver is broken or exhausted the cause of the breakdown will also be a part of the great scheme of the programmer. The broadcast will continue to be received by all other living receivers of the program called life. Whether a man be a Hindu, Christian, Muslim, Jew, Confucianist or Zoroastrian, it matters not within the ranks of Free- masonry. Freemasonry can only enhance a religious man's belief within his own faith. Freemasonry will certainly bring those who have been lax to an awakening of their existence. The skerrrt will show that straight and undeviating line of conduct and thought that his God intends him to follow.

May I conclude by saying that a man is his own temple, which he will build himself. The work commenced with the gavel and chisel and the square and compasses will be finished with the trowel and approved by the beholder and will be his own work done with his own Gods help. The tiredness and peace he gains therefrom will bring good rest, in harmony with his fellow man, and safely moored to his anchorage within the realms of the Great Divine Architect of the Whole Universe who lives and reigns forever.

Editor's Note

Sidney Francis Paul is a member of Lansdowne Lodge of Unity No.626 in Chippenharn Wiltshire England working under the United Grand Lodge of England. This article was transcribed from a tape recording by Pete Martinez, MPS. We thank Bro. Martinez for bringing this article to our attention.

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

A Presentation to Samuel Clemens Chapter

by Dennis M. Zabert, MPS

This was to be a research paper about the relationship between Theodore S. Parvin, John Scott and James R. Hartsock, but I encountered a problem, that turned out to be almost insurmountable. Where does one stop looking? What questions does one ask? When does one know the answer has been found? Especially when one is looking for answers to events that occurred a hundred years ago, or better. In a discussion with Jerry Marsengill a few years ago, I asked him for some ideas on what I could research, and how to go about it. I was considerably younger, much more naive, and was interested in not only learning all I could about Masonry, but in telling others what I had learned. He was extremely blunt and to the point, as Jerry was sometimes. His answer was, "just look in your own backyard." He was right! The best Masonic research I have read was done by the person who did just that. "He looked in his own backyard".

It is not easy however. It is hard to be objective when looking at something about which one is familiar. So tonight l am going to suggest a few avenues of research, and ask you to pursue them with me. Theodore S. Parvin, James R. Hartsock, John Scott and Thomas Hart Benton. Joseph Smith, Masonry and Mormonism. Formation of Grand Lodge of Iowa. Grand Lodge of Illinois. Who killed Joseph Smith?

Theodore S. Parvin, John Scott, James R. Hartsock, and Thomas Hart Benton, all Past Grand Masters of Iowa. There was a lot of animosity between Parvin and Hartsock, Parvin and Scott. What started it, and how and by whom was it perpetuated?

James R Hansock, was a relatively new Mason at the formation of the Grand Lodge of Iowa? He was the first initiate of the first Iowa Lodge (Des Moines No.41) in 1840. He was young, eager, ambitious and sought personal recognition and approval. I think the animosity between the two men started in 1844, at the time of the formation of the Grand Lodge of Iowa, when Hansock opposed Parvin for the Office of Grand Secretary. T.S. Parvin was not one who forgot his enemies, and I believe he considered Hansock his enemy. After all, what business did a young whippersnapper whom had only been a Mason 4 years, have running against the great T.S. Parvin? James R. Hansock became Grand Master in 1858-59, and it is recorded that he visited 116 of the 147 lodges on the roll during his first year as Grand Master. No mean feat when you consider the kinds of transportation available in those days.

John Scott was Senior Grand Warden in 1859, when Hartsock was Grand Master. A resolution by John Scott set up a committee of three to obtain the ancient work and the Board of Custodians was born. The committee was composed of Scott, E.A. Guilbert and William Langridge. Guilbert and Langridge became prominent in the first Grand Council of Iowa, as were Hansock and Parvin. (Side note from Keith Arrington's excellent "Freemasonry in Iowa", "Determined to be in possession of the genuine article, E.A Guilbert visited Vergennes, Vermont, in May of 1863 to correct through personal conference, the slight errors which were thought to be in Iowa's ritual. In September of that year, W.B. Langridge also visited Vergennes and with the utmost care transcribed a copy of the "Willson Notes." In an even, legible hand, Langridge used black ink to write the ritual of three degrees in a large, sturdily bound ledger book. This book is today safeguarded in a locked compartment of a vault adjacent to the Grand Secretary's office in Cedar Rapids, where it is preserved as the all-time standard of reference for Iowa ritual and ritualists.") John Scott created the magazine, The Lodge; in 1892 at Nevada, Iowa, specifically to do battle with Parvin and his allies in the controversy over the so-called Cerneau Rite. The first volume, volume 1 was published October 1892, then monthly until the following April when it became a quarterly. It seems as if Scott was the Master of Nevada Lodge #99 that year, and had his jewel arrested, and was not allowed to sit in Grand lodge. John Scott was a friend of Rob Morris, the Poet Laureate of Masonry at that time. This incident between Scott and Parvin deserves much research and study by one who is not shackled by the restraints of love of the memory of a 'giant' of Iowa Masonry.

Thomas Hart Benton; how many men were there who were named Thomas Hart Benton, and what relationship did they have with the Mormons. One Thomas Hart Benton was a PGM of Iowa, 1860, 1861, and 1862. There was also a Thomas Hart Benton who was governor of Missouri, about the time the Mormons were in Missouri and got into some trouble that landed Joe Smith in jail and caused him to flee from Missouri, never to be able to return. The January 1994 edition of the Knight Templar Magazine contains an article about Brother Kit Carson. In this article was a curious paragraph that said "While Fremont was on this exploration, his father-in-law Senator Thomas Hart Benton of Missouri sent him a letter addressed merely to Lt. Colonel Fremont in California or New Mexico, in care of Mr. C. Carson." Which Thomas Hart Benton was this? The year was 1842 or 1843.

Why were the lodges up and down the river, many of them chartered by the Grand lodge of Illinois, not included in the formation of the Grand Lodge of Iowa? There was a lodge in Keokuk, Montrose, Davenport, Rising Sun, Augusta, to name a few. There was also a lodge in Burlington that was not allowed to sit in the formation convention, I believe. Were these lodges kept out of the convention because they were 'Mormon' lodges? Or was it because Parvin wanted only four lodges? Lodges over which he could exercise some control? I do not know, but it is a subject about which some research could be done, and maybe some conclusions could be reached.

Joseph Smith, Mormonism and Masonry, and the relationship between Mormonism at Nauvoo and the founding of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. May 1, 1839, Joe and friends bought land at Commerce, Illinois, actually they bought the whole town. In 1840 they bought more land and changed the name to Nauvoo. At this time the 'New Zion' of the Saints had a population around 8,000, and was the largest in Illinois.

Abraham Jonas, PGM of Kentucky, and GM of Illinois Grand Lodge since the 1840 reorganization, was contacted by Hyrum Smith and John C. Bennett about starting a Masonic lodge in Nauvoo. Jonas was a politician, and was elected to the Illinois legislature in 1842. He had ambitions of other things. March 15, 1842: Abraham Jonas, GM, visited Nauvoo, Instituted Nauvoo Lodge, and made Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon Masons at sight. Or did he? The minutes I have read say that the next day, he raised Smith and Rigdon to the Sublime Degree. What is the answer? Was Joseph Smith, the founder and Prophet of the Mormon religion made a mason at sight, or not? One set of minutes states that he had presented a petition in the usual way. Were these minutes 'doctored'? Six months after the dispensation, the Nauvoo Masons had initiated 286; of these, 256 had been raised. They had also set a record by electing 63 candidates, all by one ballot, and at one time. One other item of note is anti-masonry's friend and hero William Morgan. I got this from the Internet, and it is a new theory, one of which I was not aware. It seems that after Morgan was missing and presumed murdered, his wife ended up being one of the wives of Brigham Young and moving to Utah with him. One theory you don't hear much is that Young murdered Morgan because he was in love with his wife and that was the only way he could have her. Now, that is far-out, and may be reaching a bit. I have read some place that Lucinda Morgan became a wife of Joseph Smith, Jr. after the alleged death of her beloved husband William, but not Young.

Some fodder for the Illinois brethren to digest, and which we would like to hear about, is the '1840 reorganization'. What is that? Was there a Grand Lodge of Illinois prior to 1840, and if so, when did it start?

Also for the Illinois brethren, who killed Joseph Smith? Was it a group of Masons, and were they members of Bodley Lodge in Quincy? The Masons of Quincy refused to recommend the petition of the Mormons to the Grand Lodge for a dispensation. I have also read the theory that Brigham Young was somehow responsible for Smith's death. Is there anything to this? Young and Smith were known to have disagreed about the direction the church was headed. Or were they both after the lovely widow Morgan? P 71

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@

Thoughts on Declining MEMBERSHIP

by Richard Warwica, MPS

Recently I read an article in one of our Masonic publications on the declining membership in our fraternity. The gist of it was that drastic measures were needed to reverse this trend which has been gaining momentum for at least the last two decades. The author, while not suggesting we do, put up ideas which ran the gamut from admitting women to changing our philosophical reference points. In my case, I believe he accomplished what he set out to do get me thinking.

It struck me that all of this concern about declining membership. Every- one seems to be concerned, may well be barking up the wrong tree. Surely the strength of our membership is a sign of our inner health and, not in itself something of concern. In focusing on the membership issue we are dealing with the signs and symptoms of the problem rather than the causes, and in doing so, stitching up the wound without treating the infection. It may look good for a while but it will inevitably become septic and cause problems. Should we not; rather, be tackling the inner health problem, talking openly and critically about it, analyzing it, and dealing with it up front where it will make a difference, putting our own selfish interests and preconceived notions aside and opening our minds to meaningful suggestion? People will neither attend nor join a failing institution; therefore, I would think that once we have dealt effectively with this internal malady the membership issue will disappear.

What is this disease that we are faced with? For lack of a better appellation I'll call it consumption. We are wasting away. There are many facets of this affliction, one of the most insidious of which is apathy: by and large we're leaving the problem in the care of others, and in doing so we become the problem. Others, are myopia: we don't want to see the need for change, ignorance: we have such a poor understanding of our institution that we don't realize we can make a change, selfishness: many of us are very comfortable in the present atmosphere, fear: the unknown holds us in its spell and stifles any pro-activity, and indeed many many more, all of which run counter to the very essence of Masonry itself If this gentle institution is to survive, we all, each and every one of us, must make a commitment to deal head on with the components of this disease, to eradicate them, and purge them from our inner fabric. This will not be any easy task, for every minute of modern man's day is being competed for. The world is in high gear chasing after the nebulous and hedonistic gods of commerce and entertainment, and Masonry is in the process of being trampled in the stampede. That's not to say that modern man is happy with the current state of affairs, its stress, family breakdown, deteriorating moral standards, selfishness, greed, etc.. Indeed not, as is evident by the proliferation of stress coping sessions, alternative medicines, relaxation retreats, new religions, and indeed even fences and privacy systems. We are all trying in our own way to escape the world's madness and set ourselves up in some sort of simple, sane, meaningful, and productive lifestyle. Today quality time is more elusive and more valuable than ever before, if we are going to do something we have to do it right the first time, for likely as not we won't get a second chance. It is in this context, that is from the vantage point of modern man and all that that implies, that we must plan our attack on this insidious disease. Indeed, the dissatisfaction of modern man offers us a golden opportunity, for a great deal of what he seeks to give meaning and direction to his life is offered in true Masonry. No landmarks need changing, only ourselves. We need to live our Masonry in the purest sense of the word. We don't need to seek more members but; rather, more meaningful meetings, more genuine friendship, and more adherence to the principles of brotherly love, relief, and truth. If we can do this the membership will follow suit. We will be a magnet that attracts good men from all walks of life. We will make a positive difference in this weary world. This is a tall order to fill, but fill it we must. I don't know how to get this type of thinking back into our lodges, nor do I think that anyone individual does. However, in numbers is might?, and that is where our salvation lies. Our grand lodges should be appointing "think tanks" of young enthusiastic Masons who are in touch with the realities of today, and who truly believe that the fraternity has a contribution to make to the world. The mandate of these "think tanks" would be to look at the whole picture, and having done that, use that knowledge to work within the landmarks to make the craft more meaningful to each and every member. One of the suggestions that might come out of these "think tanks" is a meeting guideline. Meetings shouldn't always be degree work. Indeed how many times can a member be expected to sit on the sidelines and watch the same procedure month after month?

This is a recipe for boredom and poor turnouts. When a degree is put on it should be a special occasion, not a monthly occurrence. How often over the years I've heard a Master say he hoped they would get more candidates so that they would have something to do at each meeting. This seems to be an accepted attitude; whereas, in fact it should be considered almost blasphemous, we should be ashamed to make or accept such a statement. Candidates and putting on degrees isn't what it's all about. Understanding and living the teachings of the degrees is where it's at, enjoying the fellowship of your fellow Masons is where it's at and going home after the meeting with a lighter heart is where it's at. Don't misinterpret what I'm saying, candidates are vital to our future existence, but no more important than vibrant meaningful meetings, which in their own small way make a positive difference in our lives. It is the Master's job to put on a meeting which meets the needs and expectations of the brethren, and relying on a full slate of candidates isn't doing that. Candidates have expectations when they apply for membership in our craft, expectations which must be met if the new members are to become active and productive participants. Think back to when you joined Masonry. What were your expectations? Did you expect to sit on the sidelines and watch countless others go through the same routines month after month, year after year, or did you have visions of learning a better way to live life, of gaining a more complete understanding of the inner self, of developing lasting meaningful friendships with like minded men? Why then, do we expect to see a degree every month? Why do we judge the success of our lodges by the number of members and candidates? This is akin to judging the value of a man by the thickness of his wallet. Remember that the man with lots of money in his wallet is going to sit lopsided and sooner or later he'll end up with a sore back. Only when he gets his wealth out of hiding and working for him will it be of any use, only then will the sore back disappear. Masonry is much like that, if we don't make use of our member's skills we'll lose them.

Candidates should be put through at special meetings, designed just for them. It's not too great a stretch of the mind to imagine several days a year when degrees are put on and several candidates go through together. Make these special events, with a dinner and some entertainment. Invite guests, even the families of the candidates can take part in the social aspects. Have these special days written up in the local press with maybe a picture or two, what better way to get the families' support and present a positive image to the community. Smaller lodges could com- bine their efforts to ensure enough turnout to make these truly memorable events.

Other fruit of the Grand lodge "think tanks" might be ideas for meet- ings. If we, and I hope we will, get away from the idea that we must always put on a degree, then there will be a void which must be constructively filled. Initially this will be quite a task for Masters who have relied upon candidates to fill their agendas. Grand lodges could address this by developing monthly topics and ideas for lodge meetings. New topics could be assigned by the Grand lodge every year. The Master's job would be to oversee the implementation of these topics. Not; however, to deliver them himself but; rather, to have individual members or groups get involved and take an active part in the presentation. Another option would be to have each lodge in a district develop a team who were experts in a certain aspect of the craft, whether it be the history, a degree, grand lodge, benevolence, landmarks, whatever suits as determined by Grand Lodge, and have them visit other district lodges to present their topics and lead discussions. Competitions could be held within each district to see which lodge had the best presentation. If a district has nine or ten lodges which each get up to speed on only one topic a year there is more than enough material right there to carry every meeting in the district for the year. As a matter of fact the danger is that Masters would simply use these traveling groups to replace the candidates for their meeting agendas and, of course, this isn't the intent.

There are other areas in which we can make our evenings more rewarding. One which comes readily to mind is the social hour. If anything, this should be the longest part of the meeting, a time when new friends are made and old friendships renewed. For this to happen it must be an integral part of the planning of the whole meeting, not just a time for a sandwich and a coffee before the long drive home. Part of the social hour starts before the lodge ever opens. Everyone who enters the anti- room should be greeted, welcomed, known by name, and introduced around. Several members should be assigned to this duty to ensure that no one feels outside of the circle of friendship. By genuinely showing an interest in people they will feel and be more at home, and in turn make a palpable contribution to the atmosphere of the evening.

The social hour shouldn't be too formal. Indeed formality is both a blessing and a curse within our organization, for while we shouldn't abandon the formality of established protocol and ceremony, we must be careful that we don't hide behind it, for there is nothing so impersonal as formality, with its lack of warmth and humanity. By the same token the observance of the proper etiquette with an eye for decorum lends an air of importance to our ceremonies which must be adhered to. This is, in fact, a topic for an educational meeting. The knowledge of why things are done in certain ways makes the observance of those customs, etc. more meaningful and colorful to those taking part. With knowledge comes respect and appreciation, both vital facets of a healthy organization's members.

Within the lodge as well we must be careful not to overdue the pomp and pageantry, while at the same time maintaining our reverence for the proper procedures and customs. Everything in our lodges has a history and a meaning, both in our furnishings and our rituals. Much of this; however, is hidden in the outdated language of our rituals which is, at best, poorly understood by the average member. Explanations of these things would encourage understanding which in turn promotes acceptance and support. The resultant knowledgeable Mason would be more comfort- able in lodge and more likely to become an active member.

The onus for initiating required changes must come from the Grand Lodge level, leadership is action, not position. It is also not enough that they ask their constituent lodges to comply, they must insist that they comply, and the