Dear Brother Marsengill,

This letter is in response to the Phila-
lethes Lecture "Can Freemasonry
Adapt To Change?" by Brother Tom
Eggleston, MPS; published in the April
1990 issue of Thc Philalcthcs magazine.

I quickened upon reading the title for I
thought 'Oh no, here is another Brother
who is going to tell us how it should be
done. ' (I don't know why I get so upset,
I have no reluctance at doing the very
same thing myself.) However, as soon as
I came to the bottom of the second
column I found that I feared for naught.
How cunning of Brother Tom so to
stimulate us, yet give us no cause to
parry the thrust of the sword of innovation.

Not that I think there is no place for
startling suggestions in the pages of our
magazine; but because the absence of
such, in the Lecture, permits us to con-
template the message that Brother Tom
presented; vis. that Freemasons should
give thought to whether they are unrea-
sonably resistant to change, (not what
changes should be made).

I envy Brother Tom's enthusiasm for
Masonry, I wish I felt so. I have a feeling
that I became a Mason fifty years too
late. Before my initiation, I perceived the
Masonic Lodge to be a Fraternal (read
Men's) organization. One that welcomed
only the "better classes of their com-
munities. " I thought they met in stately,
well- appointed and maintained build-
ings. I envisioned dignified meetings fol-
lowed by convivial fellowship around
what I now would refer to as the " Festive
Board. "

What I found is more like a service club
with women at all but tiled meetings (and
they lurk in the foyer at some of those);
members, some of whom would not be
welcome in polite society; plain and even
shabby meeting places; and paper
plates, folding chairs and the necessity to
draft one group of Brothers to serve
another in the kitchen and at serving
meals. (The latter is understandable in a
fledgling Lodge or modest community,
but not in an established Lodge in
Orange County, California.

My Elks Lodge, by comparison, is care-
fully and comfortably furnished with a
well-appointed dining room with linen
covered tables, real chairs and plates so
that Brothers can eat and visit in com-
fort. I joined a particular Elks Lodge
even though it is some distance from my
home, in part, because of those pleasant
surroundings. The dining facilities are
open to the public except on meeting
nights. We have a full-time kitchen staff
that also serve our Lodge dinners, so that
it is unnecessary for some of the Brethren
to perform such duties while others relax
and enjoy the occasion. (Unfortunately,
the edifice was built by our predecessors
and was not properly maintained by the
subsequent membership, and so will
soon be lost.)

So it seems with Freemasonry. We neg-
lect our Fraternal and virtual buildings.
We have no plan for the future, we trust
that things will work themselves out.
What change we do concede is thought-
less response to outside influence, we are
like a weather vane that responds only to
the wind with no will of its own.

Once a singular men's organization,
now a pseudo family club with wives and
children underfoot at almost every meet-
ing.

Our membership is in decline, en-
dangering the financial and spiritual
well-being of our Fraternity. Once most
Lodges were rural or small town, and
suitable petitioners were aplenty. Wor-
thy men were attracted by the character
of the Masons they knew in their com-
munity. Now, most of us live in or near
big cities. We come in contact with a
great number of people but have little
knowledge of their character or connec-
tions. Freemasonry is almost invisible.

I hesitate to suggest we cast away the
ancient landmark that prohibits the so-
licitation of petitions. Yet the suggestion
that we relax the rule is not without
merit. I am, however, convinced that we
should raise the standards of character
that we demand of petitioners. Men of
quality will have no desire to join an
orgamzation unless they are confident
that they will be in like company.

Why do the three principal Lodge of-
ficers have to be proficient in the Ritual?
Such proficiency does nothing to
guarantee that we will be led by wise or
skilled leaders. The primary qualifica-
tions for those officers should be their
ability to promote Wisdom, Strength
and Harmony in the Lodge; and to at-
tend to the administration of its business
affairs (no small task in todays compli-
cated world). Many qualified men have
little time (or lack ability) to learn the
lengthy Ritual associated with our
ceremonies. We could just as well have
Ritual  Teams Cconsisting of willing and
talented men, which wou8ld free the
Master and Wardens to apply their time
and energies to the above mentioned
tasks, a full-time job in its own right.

  Maybe we should examine our dues
structures. They should be adequate to
provide funds to maintain comfortable
quarters, buildings appropriate for the
dignified and stately proceedings con-
ducted within. Provisions should be
made that take into account Brethren
living on fixed incomes. This is not im-
possible!

Should we reduce the amount of
memory work required of candidates?
Well, why not? I enjoyed the challenge
and benefited too. not only did I profit
from the knowledge communicated by
the catechism, but I gained additionally
(and unexpectedly) by a greatly im-
proved memory. But, for some, the work
is overwhelming. They are humiliated
by the necessity of performing clumsily
in front of the Lodge. Why not give
candidates a choice, i.e. Iong form or
short form. There are good arguments
for either choice.

  The brochure 'To The New Mason's Lady',
is a worthy idea, (we have a similar pam-
phlet in California). My desire to keep
our organization fraternal does not mean
that we should ignore our wives or
family, however I have no desire to bring
my wife or children to Lodge. The argu-
ment most likely to persuade our wives
to give us up for a few evenings a month
will be found in the standards of conduct
we display as a result of the lessons pro-
mulgated in the Lodge.

I shudder to think that Masonry might
become just one more service club, not
because there is anything wrong with
service clubs, but because there are al-
ready many such clubs worthy of our
attention but only one Masonic Lodge.
The Masonic Lodge is unique. In it we
deal not so much with causes or charities,
but with individual men. In our parlance
it might be said that we are concerned
with the ashlar or separate building
block, our task to see that each will be
found fit for many and various useful
applications. Most clubs deal with the
group and what they, together, can ac-
complish. We deal with individuals and
what they, severally, can contribute. I
detect a feeling, among some of the
Brethren, that we must justify our exist-
ence by adopting some public (and
highly visible) charity. In my opinion
these Brethren are much too concerned
with public opinion and ignorant of the
profound and mysterious truths that are
peculiar to our venerable society.

Well Brother Jerry, I have run off at the
word processor a bit, and written some-
thing sure to offend or anger many. I did
that which I complimented Brother Tom
for not doing. His is a splendid lecture,
mine is a little less, but still it is the
sincere opinion of one Mason. I suspect
that Brother Tom intended to provoke a
little thinking, and here are the thoughts!
George Laun, MPS
===============================================
Dear Brother Marsengill:

As a Mason, I am totally appalled, dis-
gusted and horrified by what I have been
reading in Thc Philalethes magazine, con-
cerning some American Lodges pre-
ferment for only Christian and white
candidates. As Master of a Lodge under
the Jurisdiction of The Grand Lodge of
Canada, in the Province of Ontario, I
cannot condone or tolerate such prac-
tices, as this discrimination violates
every Principle and Tenant that I have
been taught, or teach about Ancient Free
and Accepted Masonry. How can we
dare call ourselves the 'Gentle Craft,"
or the "Most moral human institution
that ever existed," when such blatant
non-humanitarian conditions exist?
How can you practice Brotherly Love,
Relief and Truth, if you Blackball a man
because he is not white, or a Christian?
Don't tell me that is the way it has always
been, or that is the way we do things here,
or it cannot be changed. Because, if that
is true, Freemasonry is doomed to medi-
ocricy, and has failed to be the teacher of
men that she professes to be. For we are
the Brotherhood of Man, under the
Fatherhood of God, not the Brotherhood
of the White Man, under the Fatherhood
of a Christian God.

In our Grand Jurisdiction, the Candi-
date must be "a man, Free Born of ma-
ture age, and under the tongue of good
report," and be able to answer the fol-
lowing three questions satisfactorily.

1. Do you believe in the existence of a
Supreme Being?

2. Do you believe that the Supreme
Being will punish vice and reward
virtue?

3. Do you believe that the Supreme
Being has revealed His will to man?

Nowhere in our Ritual is it written that
the Candidate for Initiation be white or
a Christian. He may take his Obligations
on any Volume of the Sacred Law,
whether it be the King James or the
Douay versions of the Holy Bible, or the
Old Testament or the Talmud, or any
other Holy Book of the Candidate's re-
ligion.

The time has most assuredly come to
cast aside prejudices, and to adhere to
the lessons of Freemasonry we profess to
believe in, and above all, practice those
lessons of Brotherly Love, Relief and
Truth, both within the confines of the
Lodge and in our daily lives.

Nelson King, MPS
============================================
Dear Brother Marsengill:

Brother Allen Roberts, FPS, wrote an
excellent article about " Exclusivity. "
For a while I thought he was writing
about our Fraternity in general and was
surprised to find the poor skeleton was
turned over to a local Lodge for burial.

This is assuming that a local Lodge did
indeed survive and was willing to con-
duct the service. Perhaps its only purpose
for survival was to perform the somber
duty of burying the last Mason.

What puzzles me is why Brother
Roberts didn't tell the rest of the story.
While the excellent ritual was not shared
with thousands of men of good character
and high qualities, it was the World at
large which lost because society was de-
prived of the influence of the advantages
of living by a higher code of morality.
Unless I have misinterpreted the ritual,
I believe this is the purpose for our exist-
ence.
Fraternally,

Dean Osborn, MPS
============================================
Dear Brother Marsengill:

Re- Exclusive Territorial Jurisdictions
as related in the article; "An Epidemic
of Change" by Brother Denis Ssott.

As Bro. Ssott noted, 'Exclusive Jur-
isdiction' is an American invention. He
neglected to mention that the principle
was 'violated' in America nine years ago
when the Grand Lodge of Alaska was
formed in 1981 and several Lodges chose
to and still remain within the Jurisdiction
of the Grand Lodge of Washington. Also,
in reverse, the Grand Lodge of Massa-
chusetts has 'invaded' other jurisdictions
with Lodges in Panama, Chile, Cuba,
China, and Japan. The Grand Lodge of
New York has several Lodges in Le-
banon.

An increasingly large number of North
Dakota Masons believe that recognition
of Prince Hall Masonry is long overdue
and the teachings of Freemasonry are
NOT being adhered to IF we cannot
overcome the bigotry of the past. Prince
Hall Masonry has co-existed on this con-
tinent, for more than two-hundred
years. They adhere to Anderson's Con-
stitutions. For 200 or more years the
origin of Prince Hall has been declared
'irregular'. In recent years, however,
some modern historians have decided the
origin of Prince Hall is indeed very sim-
ilar to the origin of several older 'Amer-
ican Grand Lodges as was the custom of
the times.' In any event, two-hundred
years of favorable existence 'surely be-
stows some measure of regularity. ' Inci-
dently,--not ALL Prince Hall Masons
are Black!

The basic difficulty is, of course, the
social (racial) problem that America is
attempting to correct by legislation and
by court decision. England was con-
fronted with a similar difficulty 200 years
ago, when Jews were ostracized. English
Freemasons began admitting Jews into
the Craft and over a period of sixty years,
the ritual was transformed, from the
New to the Old Testament (Ars Quatuor
Coronatorum vol. 97; 'De-Christianiz-
ing the Craft. ' Quote; " It was not Chris-
tianity which was to be discarded at this
point--it was dogmatism, bigotry and
Intolerance. ") Freemasons were the
leaders for social change! We MUST
again become leaders!

The Caucasian and Prince Hall Grand
Lodges of Connecticut, Nebraska and
Wisconsin have now voted to accord full
recognition of the opposite Body, within
their own Jurisdictions.

Bro. Scott is concerned that foreign
Grand Lodges may gain entry into the
States of America. I have visited the
Freemasons Hall in Durban, Natal,
South Africa. In one single building,
Lodges under the Jurisdictions of Eng-
land, Scotland, Ireland and South Africa
meet in harmony! The reputation of our
esteemed Brother Rob Morris, long ago,
fell into disrepute, because he became a
'Conservator~--i.e. he thought the ritual
should be identical were so ever a Mason
were to go in America. How boring!
Perhaps introduction of other ritualistic
work would make the Craft more inter-
esting. By simply crossing the Red River
to Minnesota, Masons of Fargo, North
Dakota are able to witness a variation of
ritual at Moorhead Lodge. In May of
this year, 32 Masons of Olaf Kyrre Lodge
No. 22, Oslo Norway, brought their own
Candidate and made an Entered Ap-
prentice of him in the Masonic Hall of
Fargo! The room was packed! (one of our
Past Grand Masters summed it up by
saying "Never have I enjoyed Masonry
more and understood less! ") Some of our
Masons are apathetic and are anxious to
see anything different. Perhaps it might
prove to be a 'shot-in-the-arm IF the
Grand Lodge of Norway were to 'in-
vade' the exclusive jurisdiction of North
Dakota and establish a Norwegian
Lodge in our State of North Dakota!
Similarly, it may give some new life to
our Freemasonry, IF and WHEN our
jurisdiction can recognize the two Prince
Hall Masonic Lodges of North Dakota
which are under the Jurisdiction of the
Prince Hall Grand Lodge of Minnesota.

Prince Hall Masons, understandably
wish to remain ' sovereign' BUT they do
wish to be recognized "as Men and as
Masons! "

"Recognition is a desirable privilege. It
promotes fraternal growth, preserves
fraterna, contacts, and enables the ex-
change of thoughts and ideas between
those having a common purpose. "
(Prince Hall Freemasonry in the United
States of America from the Philosophical
Lodge of Research, A.F.&A.M. of Con-
necticut).
Allen Ohrt, MPS
===========================================
Dear Bro. Marsengill:

I know that you, as a rule do not publish
my letters to the Editor, but I hope that
you will publish this one.

I have often maintained that many of
those who write for The Philalethcs ma-
gazine often don't know what they are
talking about. The recent article "An
Epidemic of Change" by a rather naive
Denis Scott shows his ignorance concern-
ing the so-called doctrine of Exclusive
Jurisdiction, which has never been re-
spected by mainstream American Ma-
sonic bodies.

I think Bro. George Draffen of Newing-
ton summed it up best in his article " The
Doctrine of Exclusive Jurisdiction" car-
ried in the 3rd Quarter 1978 issue of the
Phylaxis magazine "If joint Sovereignty
can work in New Zealand, with four
different jurisdictions, in India with four
jurisdictions, in Southern Africa with
five jurisdictions then it can work equally
well in (The United States) with a Black
(Prince Hall) jurisdiction and a Cau-
casian Jurisdiction. The fact that each
Grand Lodge has its own Code of Laws
and that what may be done under one
Grand Lodge may not be done under
another Grand Lodge is of no impor-
tance. A close examination will invaria-
bly show that such differences as exist are
prlmarily administrative and do not ef-
fect the fundamental basis of the Craft. "

Perhaps if Denis Scott would read
Chapter XI of Harry E. Davis' book "A
History of Freemasonry Among Ne-
groes in America" where he makes it
quite clear that the term "jurisdiction"
relates to Lodges, and nothing in the
context indicates territory or territorial
jurisdiction plays any part in the scheme
of Masonic recognition.

Spare us from people who want to write
about things they have no knowledge of.
Joseph A. Walkes, Jr., FPS
President, The Phylaxis Society
==============================================
Dear Bro. Marsengill:

Finished reading Born in Blood by John
J. Robinson. Carroll County, KY, his
place of residence is maybe 50 miles
down the Ohio from Cincinnati. Hence,
his nearness probably in why he used the
Cincinnati Temple library for a lot of his
Masonic Research. I used to spend my
evenings there 30 years ago. At the time
I was doing consuIting work on the bus-
iness systems of a trade journal publisher
located in the neighborhood.

Robinson's descriptions of the ritual
are Ohio GL based also. At least the work
I saw then had some uniqueness which
Robinson described in the book. By
unique I mean they differed from the NY
ritual I know best.

I also reread Allen E. Roberts', FPS
panegyric and paean to the book in his
review in the February 1990 issue.

I began to get uncomfortable with the
book when one of the few references to
John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster he
introduces on page 23 "...went to the
Savoy Palace of the hated royal uncle
John of Gaunt." The insurrectionists
destroyed the Savoy Palace. On page 26
he lists Friar William Appelton as phys-
ician and counselor to John of Gaunt,
whom they attacked. Then, on page 31,
he references Thomas Haseldon as the
Duke's Controller. (The OED lists the
first use of that title, Controller, as 1441
in the household of Henry VI. Was he
really Gaunt's Reeve?) Haseldon's home
was also destroyed. And that's about all
except to refer occasionally to the Duke
of Lancaster who was not always John of
Gaunt (1340-1390), since he was not al-
ways in existence during some of the
time Robinson uses the title.

Now, you may ask why I raise these
points. In 1381, the time of the Great
Peasants Revolt, John, Duke of Lan-
caster ran England. He did until 1386.
Many then and historians today believe
he should have been King instead of his
brothers and nephew, but he was the 4th
son! However, Gaunt definitely ran the
regency of his nephew, Richard II, and
was in charge during the Peasant's Re-
volt in 1381.

Again, you may ask why do I bring this
up since this may have little to do with
Robinson's thesis. Robinson implies that
John Wycliffe, translator of the first Eng-
lish vernacular version of the Bible and
spiritual start of the Lollards was some-
how involved in the underground Tem-
plars. Nowhere, does Robinson note that
Gaunt was the patron and protector of
Wycliffe. Of course, he couldn't because
that would upset his thesis.

Further, (and this has nothing to do
with his thesis) he makes no mention of
probably the most noted individual of
that era, Geoffrey Chaucer. Gaunt was
also Chaucer's patron and promoter.
This could have been because Gaunt's
lifelong mistress was Katherine Swyn-
ford, nee' de Roet, Chaucer's sister-in-
law! (Gaunt married Swynford as his 3rd
wife in 1396.) The Tudors were descen-
dants from them! Gaunt's son by his first
wife, became Henry IV succeeding Ri-
chard II. This began the House of Lan-
caster.

He also left out a famous little ditty of
the Peasant's revolt which Wat Tyler and
others chanted:

When Adam delved and Eve Span,

Who was then the gentleman?

Modern day Communists have liked it,
too.

I am not disputing Robinson's thesis,
and his speculations certainly make in-
teresting food for thought. However, if
an amateur like myself can question his
position on the Lollards in his theory
what other misplaced ideas and omis-
sions exist in it? For example, my know-
ledge of French is small and nothing of
medieva, French or English either for
that matter. But I really wonder about
his ideas on the origin of Heredom among
others.

Another book, Foucault's Pendulum by
Umberto Eco, also presents the thesis
that the Templars are the sub rosa begin-
ners of Freemasonry. However, Eco as
usual is having fun with us all in his
writings. One always wonders how seri-
ous Eco is in what one reads after reflec-
tion.

Jacob E. Beardsley, MPS
================================================
Assembly-Feast-
Forum 1991

February 22, 1991 is the date for the
continuting Assembly-Feast-Forum of
The Philalethes Society. The Forum, a
continuation of the Workshop of yester-
year, is the oldest Masonic educational
conference meeting in Washington, D. C .
It is one of the few justifications for the
annual Masonic meetings held around
Washington's birthday.

With rare exceptions the Lecturers
chosen since the adoption of the Annual
Feast have been widely quoted. Howard
L. Woods, Grand Master of the Grand
Lodge of Arkansas, Prince Ha,l Afflia-
tion, should be no exception. Among
black Freemasons, and those white Ma-
sons who know him, he is highly re-
spected. His primary theme has been
Masonic "Growth Through Educa-
tion. "

Here are the details in a nutshell:
The date: February 22, 1991
Thetime: 6:00p.m. sharp
The place: Washington Hotel,
Washington, DC
(Ca,l 1-800/424-9540 for reservations)

The Lecturer: Howard L. Woods, G.M.
Arkansas, PHA

The investment: $24 for prior
registration; $29 thereafter

Deadline for prior registration:
February 14, 1991

Make checks payable to:
The Philalethes Society, PO Box 70,
Highland Springs, VA 23075-0070.

27
