  FULL OF SOUND AND FURY

A column wherein our gentil readeres shake a lance at
ignorance, at one another, at ye olde editor and on rare
occastons even succeed in hittinge ye naile on ye heade.

Dear Brother Marsengille

This is being written in response to the
article in the June 1990 issue of The
Philalethes Magazine. The article was en-
titled An Epidemic of Change and was writ-
ten by Brother Dennis Scott. Following
my reading and re-reading of the article
several times I really feel the need to
respond and express some of my opin-
ions on the subjects that Brother Scott
raises.

The article begins by offering the
prophetic statement, "An epidemic of
change is sweeping and if we do not find
a cure to stem this debilitating process,
it is feared that our beloved Fraternity
will become just another club." I guess
that even though I am fairly involved in
Masonry on the local level I wasn't aware
that there was a great fear present that
we were about to lose our "fraternity"
identity and move to a "club" status. I
am aware that some change is taking
place in our Fraternity today but had no
way been aware of the problems that this
was causing. It was only after reading the
entirety of Brother Scott's article that I
really had nothing, at least in my mind,
to worry about.

Brother Scott cites several examples of
"debilitating process" that I believe I
am obligated, by my sense, or lack
thereof, to comment on. The first of
these is his concern over the removal of
the penalties from the obligation in the
ritual of Freemasonry. Brother Scott, it is
apparent, believes that this is the first
step in the continual process of modifica-
tion of the ritual. I am sorry, but I
honestly do not see the correlation and
will present my reasons for believing
such.

The penalties contained within the
degrees of Freemasonry are ancient ar-
chaic methods of treating someone who
might violate his oath. To my knowledge
no one has ever been subjected to these
penalties, at least in modern times. To
me they serve as a link to an ancient past.
Their removal or modification would in
no way detract from the ritual of Freema-
sonry. I am in favor of at least informing
the candidate that he will be required to
take an obligation which contams some
ancient, archaic penalties. I have come
to this conclusion because of many can-
didates expressing concern over the
penalties after they had witnessed the
first degree. Once it was explained to
them, they understood, and were very
satisfied with the reasons. I do not view
this as a modification of the ritual, and if
it is, then so be it, welcome to the 21st
Century.

I, in my little reading on the history of
Freemasonry, am of the opinion that re-
vision and modification has taken place
over the many years. I do not know, at
least for sure, if Brother George Wash-
ington received the same degrees that I
did or not. I really doubt it however. I am
fairly positive that Brother Harry
Truman and I received approximately
the same degrees, because we both re-
ceived them in the State of Missouri.
However, I have belonged to a Lodge in
Iowa since 1984 and I would point out
that there is a difference between Iowa
and Missouri ritual, a difference in
neighboring states. Does Brother Scott
consider this modification of the ritual?
It is, at least in my mind.

I know since takmg my work in Mis-
souri and then later being Master in
Iowa that I was obligated to certain
things in Missouri that are not required
in the Iowa ritual. Modification of the
ritual takes place everytime a degree is
conferred. I know full well that I as
Master left certain things out of the de-
gree work, not on purpose however. My
local Lodge brethren will be the first to
tell you that I also toss in a little extra
when I work in the Lodge, combining the
Missouri and Iowa rituals. This is not
done on purpose, but out of force of
habit. Still I do not see this as detracting
from the ritual, and it is modification.

The ritual is Freemasonry' s way of tel-
ling a story, illustrating principles, pre-
forming a meaningful drama, that no
matter what we think, is going to be
interpreted each and every time differ-
ently. If a little change is made but the
premise remains the same, have we dam-
aged the product? I am caught thinking
of another work of "art" that was mod-
ified. Modified to bring more insight
into today's society, more applicable. I
am referring to the Holy Bible, which if
memory serves me correctly, has been
"modified" several times, yet the story
stays the same. I am sorry Brother Scott,
but your alarm to me at least, is like the
little boy crying wolf for the first time.

I was really taken aback by the com-
parison that Brother Ssott makes be-
tween the advertising that is being done
today and the selling of Freemasonry. I
am by no means a marketing person, but
I fail to see the correlation between what
he believes is being done and what is
being done. I am a strong believer in the
fact that there is a major difference be-
tween " selling" and " public relations . "
I am, I think, intelligent enough to know
that good "public relations" very often
results in " sales . " I believe what is going
on is down and out public relations, and
I would challenge anyone (remember, I
am from Missouri, so you better show
me too) to convince me that it is the
purpose of the Grand Lodges to "sell"
Freemasonry. I think that we are so be-
hind the times when it comes to telling
others about ourselves it is ridiculous.
Let me cite a personal example. In Mt.
Pleasant Iowa where I live, a Masonic
Lodge has existed since 1845, even
before the town itself became a reality. In
1924 the Lodge constructed a 3 story
edifice in the downtown area of the com-
munity of about 700 people. In recently
building a new structure, I was amazed
at first and later the feeling of stupidity
sank in, to find that people did not know
where our building was. Some people did
not even know that there was a Masonic
Lodge in Mt. Pleasant, let alone the fact
we have 200 + members. This was all in
spite of the fact that we had this 3 story
structure with a gigantic stone sculpture
of a Masonic emblem on the front of the
building. This was in spite of the fact that
the building houses the local theatre and
has since 1924, a theatre that hundreds
of people pass through each week. This
was in spite of the fact that the theatre's
name is Temple Theatre! What did we
do wrong? Could we have done anything
differently to let people know that we
existed in this community? I believe we
can, and we, just like a lot of Grand
Lodges, are starting to do it. It is called
PUBLIC RELATIONS! It is not the
selling of Freemasonry. We have sat on
our laurels far too long and have hidden
our light under the proverbial bushel too
many years.

The Grand Lodge of Iowa has started
what I consider to be a model program
when it comes to public relations. I am
very impressed with it, and firmly
believe that it will become the model for
other Grand Lodges to follow. Brochures
have been written and printed, video-
tapes produced. This has been done to,
at least in my mind, help and aid the
subordinate Lodges and the local craft. I
am a strong believer in the fact that local
Lodges that use the material will be aided
greatly in their work and their public
relations.

One way the publications and video-
tapes will be a boost will be at friendship
nights, which I suppose, now that I think
of it, could be construed as a form of
"selling" Freemasonry. Think how dif-
ficult it is for the average Mason to re-
spond to the question, " What is Freema-
sonry? " I have heard some well meaning
brothers explain that it is an old frater-
nity, that has had 13 U. S. Presidents
among its membership, and does a lot of
charity work. These well meaning
brothers often go on and perpetuate the
myths concerning the Boston Tea Party
and the myth about all of the signers of
the Declaration of Independence being
Masons. These are well meaning
brothers, passing along stories and
myths, because they are explaining a
subject that is difficult to explain. Ma-
sonry is a personal subject that means
different things to different people and
we must remember this. If the Grand
Lodges can come up with short concise
explanations of Freemasonry to show or
give to an audience, so be it. It certainly
makes it easier for local Lodge brothers
when it comes to explaining the generali-
ties of the Craft to the uninitiated.

I believe that it is important to note
that Masonry needs to be more sophisti-
cated in attracting young men today.
There is a lot of competition for a per-
son's time today. If you are a young
person, you are really looking for some-
thing that is going to be worthwhile and
valuable, rather than just sitting in a
meeting, paying the bills, reading the
minutes, etc., and then going home. Of
course one of the answers to this would
be Masonic Education, and the subject
of an entire different discourse.

Financial concerns are important for
any business, whether in today's society
or in years past. If you do not believe that
Freemasonry is a "business" then I
believe that we are not looking at the
situation objectively. However, to
believe that the only reason the Grand
Lodges are going into this public rela-
tions campaign is for financial gains,
then I would again sharply disagree.
Brother Scott also expresses a concern
that Grand Lodges will pressure local
Lodges to vote in the people who have
been attracted to them in this public re-
lations campaign. This I really have a lot
of trouble believing or even Imagining.
To think that a Grand Lodge would even
know how many were attracted to Ma-
sonry because of this advertising, is
totally inconceivable. I really cannot
believe that any Grand Lodge would put
pressure on a local Lodge for something
such as this. I am, however, only familiar
with one Grand Lodge, and not able to
competently comment or pass judge-
ment on the others.

The whole topic of solicitation to me, at
least, is an interesting one. My thoughts
are that if you believe that solicitation
just began in a few states, then I would
have a question, " What cave did you just
emerge from?" To deny that solicitation
has been going on for years and years is
to not admit the facts. It has however,
only recently, become legal in some
states. To think that now it is legal, so
people are now going to start doing it is
ludicrous. In a parallel vein, the legaliza-
tion of Monitors for the ritual work, cer-
tainly does not mean that they never
existed until they became legal does it? I
guess if we want to look at the letter of
the law, and not face facts we could as-
sume that solicitation and the use of
monitors just became a fact in a few
jurisdictions. I was asked "when are you
going to join the Masons?" This ques-
tion was asked by a Mason. Now I ask
you, is this in any way solicitation? Yes it
is, and it happened in 1977, so it was,
and at least in Missouri, as far as I know,
still against Grand Lodge rule. But the
question remains, is it wrong? I would
debate that it isn't. Brother Scott seems
to want to tie in solicitation and the fact
that it will lower our ability to be selec-
tive. I really don't think that Freema-
sonry has ever had to worry about its
ability to be selective. The investigation
committee is the first step, if it is done
correctly, is ensuring that Freemasonry
remains selective. The second step is the
ballot box. The only problem that I can
see is that quite often not many brothers
are at Lodge to ballot upon petltions. My
response to that is, you have a vote, but
you can't do it if you are sitting on your
duff in your easy chair napping and
watching the tube. It is like the election
process held statewide and nationally,
you have a vote, use it. However, if you
don't use it, then don't sit around and
bitch and moan. Be a part of the process
make it work!

I just do not view one of Freemasonry's
problems going into the 21 st century that
of worrying about selectiveness. From
my short years in Masonry and my read-
ing about it we seem to have a knack for
remaining selective. If some believe that
we aren't being selective enough, then
they form another " elite " appendant
body for those "select" few that qualify.
If you look at the number of these bodies
we might even appear to have the market
cornered on selectivity. At least it is
something to consider.

Brother Scott expresses some concern
and good questions raised by the recent
actions of the Grand Lodges of Connec-
ticut and Nebraska. I agree that there are
questions to be answered, but all I will
say on this subject, at least for now, is I
am glad they have taken these steps and
I hope more will take them in the future.

The last paragraph of Brother Scott's
article is one of the reasons that I get
frustrated with Freemasonry and what I
believe to be one of the problems that we
need to get solved or at least work harder
on it.

There are several brethren that believe
they have the market cornered on what
Freemasonry is all about, and what it
should and should not be. Baloney! This
whole idea of change has gotten some
into an utter turmoil both emotionally
and physically. We, as a race, have been
able to adapt and change, shouldn't the
organizations we belong to go through
some change? Some people eventually
come around and see the value in
change, while others have to be dragged
into the modern times. I am not advocat-
ing anything that in any way should or
will detract from the beauty of Freema-
sonry. Let me cite two personal ex-
amples. In 1984 two other Shriners and
I wanted to start a local Shrine Club. We
were told and told, and told that there
was no interest in one. We persisted and
2 months later we had a very active
Shrine Club with 60 members. That
Shrine Club is still very active today.
Another example is our new Masonic
Temple in Mt. Pleasant Iowa. Again, a
few 'young" people saw a need for a
new temple. The old one was getting to
be a burden financially and the two
flights of stairs were taking its toll on
some of the older members. We began to
peruse the idea of a new temple. My
land, you would have thought that we
were destroying the ancient landmarks
of Freemasonry, which none of these in-
dividuals even knew. I became so tired of
hearing, you can't, you won't, you
shouldn't, it'll never work, etc., etc.
Some people fought us tooth and nail.
Why? Because it was change, and
change is scary to a lot of people. Less
than two years after the initial discus-
sions began, we are sitting in a brand
new structure on the ground floor, and
are enjoying our debt free building.
What really is amusing is the people that
fought us, are now taking full "owner-
ship" of the building. They like to in-
form guests how "we" built the build-
ing. It gives some of us good reason to
chuckle, bite our lips and go on about our
business. The main point is that it was
change, and it proved to be a worthwhile
change for the local Lodge and Freema-
sonry in the State of Iowa.

Comparing the Mona Lisa to Freema-
sonry is an insult to different works of
art. The Mona Lisa is a static form of art
and Freemasonry is not a static form of
art. It is as simple as that. The two com-
pare as easily as rabbits and elephants.

My reading of Freemasonry indicates
that there has been change, and will if
you can look forward past next week,
continue to be change. Freemasonry has
had to adapt to the situation that it was
in during a particular time and period in
its existence, and has survived quite well.
Think of the Brothers that met under the
situation of the 2nd World War in Ger-
many in the 1940s. Freemasonry
changed and adapted and survived. It
did, like most examples of change in the
Craft, nothing to detract from the story
or the underlying principles of the order.
Change does not always result in a less
beautiful piece of work. If that was the
case, and all other persons had the same
attitude, then I guess that we would only
have one or two colors of roses in our
gardens to brighten our day. As beautiful
as the society of Freemasonry is, it is not,
Brother Scott, without its blemishes. Yes,
I firmly believe that no person, organi-
zation or society has reached the point of
perfection. Wouldn't life be boring if we
did? One onlv needs to look toward the
writings of Abraham Maslow, and look
at his theories of "Hierarchy of Needs"
to find validation for this. The scary
thing to me is that we must not be afraid
to look at and examine our society, and
see the blemishes and rough spots and
see what can be done to smooth them
out. We too often get caught in the trap
of not being able to see the forest for the
trees. Failing to see the blemishes, or
refusing to acknowledge their existence
will not make them go away.

In responding to Brother Scott's article,
I am not proposing sweeping changes for
Freemasonry. I am proposing however,
that all of us as concerned brethren be
willing to take a deep hard look at our
beloved fraternity and be willing to ex-
amine its rules and regulations from time
to time. It is not something that should
cause us undue concern, but something
we should look at like a performance
evaluation. If we never find out how we
are doing, we will never be able to look
at the possibilities for how we might do.
I firmly believe that Freemasonry must
make some changes to survive, however,
I am not soothsayer enough to tell any-
one just what they are. I feel strongly that
if we don't we could continue to harp on
our antiquity as we perish according to
the Darwinian theories. I am in my own
way attempting to see Masonry into the
next century and beyond. I only hope
that what I am doing for the Craft will
help it advance.
Tom L. Dean, MPS

Dean, Iowa Wesleyan College

Comments on a letter from Jack
Beardsley to John Mauk Hilliard

In my younger days, I worked for an
editor who said that he always allowed
four or five typographical errors to get
into print, because there is a tiny seg-
ment of any readership whose real joy in
reading is to find a mistake. That's
harmless enough, but then there is the
reader like Mr. Jack Beardsley, who is
not harmless. He is so desperately
anxious to give expression to his superior
knowledge that he misquotes, and finds
mistakes where there aren't any. He
drapes them in irrelevant (and often er-
roneous) trivia, doesn't hesitate to ac-
cuse an author of deliberately Iying
about history, and then congratulates
himself for thus putting down an editor
and book reviewer who are his Masonic
brothers.

If Mr. Beardsley's letter had come to
me personally, I would have ignored it.
Since, however, he has used my book as
a weapon to beat down two very dedi-
cated Freemasons, I feel forced to re-
spond.

Most of Mr. Beardsley's criticism is
based upon what he perceives to be his
deep knowledge of the Duke of Lancaster
known as Tohn of Gaunt, whom he some-
times refers to as "Gaunt." That's
rather like referring to T. E. Lawrence as
"Arabia, " since Gaunt is an English cor-
ruption of "Ghent," where John was
born. First, Mr. Beardsley changed my
generic descriptive word "controller" to
the capital C "Controller," to change
the word into a title. (Surely he knows
that there were personnel managers for
centuries before there were Personnel
Managers.) He says that I give the im-
pression that every Duke of Lancaster
was John of Gaunt. On pages 155-7 I cite
the ambitions of Thomas, Duke of Lan-
caster during a prior period. Most read-
ers appear to have understood that John
and Thomas were two different people
(although John of Gaunt may indeed
have been every subsequent duke, since
Mr. Beardsley's letter does tell us that
John just died earlier this year, in 1990,
at the age of 650).

John of Gaunt was not in charge during
the Peasants' Revolt. He was all the way
up on the Scottish border, and when he
finally received news of the Revolt he
didn't believe it. He had absolutely noth-
ing to do with the actions of the royal
government durin~gthe Revolt, nor
during its judicial aftermath.

I did not say that John Wycliffe had
anything whatsoever to do with any un-
derground Templars. I did not report
that John of Gaunt was Wycliffe's pro-
tector, because that relationship had
ended before the Revolt in disagreement
over Wycliffe's rejection of the doctrine
of Transubstantiation.

I did not mention Geoffrey Chaucer
because he had nothing to do with the
thesis of my book. No, the House of
Tudor did not descend from the illegiti-
mate children of John of Gaunt and
Catherine Swynford. No, Henry IV did
not "begin" the House of Lancaster.

The "rittle ditty" was left out of my
book because no documentation ties it
directly to the Peasants' Revolt, and no
documentation has Wat Tyler
"chanting" it.

At last we come to the imagined tri-
umph of all this trivia. Mr. Beardsley
now feels justified in questioning my
position on the Lollards, and asks what
other misplaced ideas and omissions
may be found in my book. I need help
here. I have read and re-read Mr.
Beardsley's letter and cannot find any
statement as to my position on the Lol-
lards, which he now calls into question.
And if there are misplaced ideas and
relevant omissions, I don't find them in
this letter, either.

Finally, Foucault's Pendulum does not say
that "the Templars are the sub rosa begin-
ners of Freemasonry," but in fact takes
the directly opposite point of view. Pro-
fessor Eco scoffs at any relationship be-
tween underground Templars and
Freemasonry, rejecting all such ideas as
" raving nonsense. "

The purpose of all this? Mr. Beardsley
attacks the accuracy, knowledge and in-
tegrity of his Masonic brothers on the
staff of The Philalethes, and thinks they
need an overseer (and appears to be vol-
unteering for that position). I can only
urge that if The Philalethes ever does de-
cide to set up an editorial quality control
board, this sad man should not be al-
lowed within a thousand yards of it.

Do I sound angry? You see, we have a
tradition here in Kentucky that when a
man calls you a liar, you're supposed to
get very upset. As you know, I have a
deep respect for tradition.

Respectfully,

John J. Robinson-- Author of "Born in Blood"

Philalethes, December, 1990
