Showing posts with label guarding the west gate. Show all posts
Showing posts with label guarding the west gate. Show all posts

Guarding Our Own West Gates and Self-Tyling

by Midnight Freemason Guest Contributor
C. R. Dunning, Jr.


Recently I had the privilege of being involved with the Leadership Academy of the Grand Lodge of Kansas. In one of the many wonderful conversations of the weekend, Right Worshipful Brother Derik Hockett and I spoke briefly about guarding the west gate and tyling not only as practices for a lodge but also as practices for individual Masons in their own lives. I have continued to ruminate on this parallel, and I want to share with you some of the meaning I have found in it.

Guarding Our Personal West Gates

We typically use this phrase, “guarding the west gate,” to reference the responsibility we each have for ensuring that nobody is made a member of the lodge who is not sufficiently prepared to do the work of Masonry, who is not ready, willing, and able to keep our obligations and make good use of the lessons and charges in our rituals and monitors. This practice protects both the lodge and the individual in question, but our present focus is on the lodge. Guarding the west gate helps us preserve and even enhance the peace, harmony, and unity of the lodge in pursuing the sacred purposes described by our rituals.

Now, let us consider that the lodge is, among other things, symbolic of the self. The self, like a lodge, is an assembly of things brought together according to certain patterns and principles. In Freemasonry, we represent those patterns and principles with symbolic images and allegories taken from operative masonry and especially as it relates to the building of King Solomon’s Temple. We traditionally translate those images and allegories and the patterns and principles they represent into ideas about being virtuous human beings, living our lives in ways that are more conducive to the well-being of ourselves and everyone else. Thus, the different elements of the lodge necessarily relate to different parts of our being – they  form a blueprint of the whole self with all its physical, emotional, intellectual, spiritual, and social aspects working together in peace, harmony, and unity.

Taking the lodge as a trestleboard of the self, “guarding the west gate” can be understood as exercising good judgment about what we allow to become parts of our lives. Just as with prospective candidates for the lodge, we have a responsibility to carefully examine things, to consider who is recommending them and why, to take note of how they relate to other things, and to discern the effects they generally have on others. We are looking for a favorable report, a reputation for contributing to the good. In more direct terms, when considering a new possibility for ourselves, we carefully consider its potential to help us become wiser, stronger, and more beautiful human beings. If it lacks sufficient potential, then we regard it as an unworthy and unqualified prospect, no matter how pleasing it might otherwise seem, and we say no to it as we continue to welcome and embrace those things that pass the test.

This process can be challenging. In some cases, what is good for others may not be good for oneself, and what is bad for others may indeed have significant positive potentials for oneself. For example, wine contributes to the beauty and joy of life for many people, but to others, it is psychologically and spiritually poisonous. So, it is not enough to simply rely on the experience and opinions of others, we must also deeply know and be very honest with ourselves. Another challenge is that there are some things that seem harmless, even very pleasing in some way, and yet they do little to enhance the quality of our lives but instead squander the time, energy, and other resources that could be better invested. Many things marketed to us in popular culture fall into this category, often made to seem as if they are essential to “the good life,” when in fact they are the psychospiritual equivalent of junk food. These things are among the superfluities referenced in the lesson of the Common Gavel; guarding the west gate of ourselves keeps them from being added to all the stuff we need to chip away.

Tyling Ourselves

In the work of our lodges, tyling is meant to protect our sacred space from the intrusion of the “profane,” those in the world around us who have not passed the tests of the west gate and are not duly initiated into our tradition. It also prevents members of lower degrees from admission into meetings, rituals, or ceremonies for which they are not qualified. Referring to the lodge as an analogy for the self, the implications include not only those we have already seen with guarding the west gate, but also recognizing that some things we might recognize as generally worthy parts of our lives are not always fitting to admit within the boundary of specific moments of conscious attention.

The Tyler’s instrument is the sword, which we naturally associate with protection and defense against threats. At a more symbolic level, the sword is often said to represent the power of reason, which can cut through illusions, divide one thing from another, and penetrate toward deeper understandings. There are meaningful connections here with the lesson of the 24-inch Gauge. That instrument teaches us about the need to equitably divide our time – and  thus our attention, energy, and other resources – among our usual vocations, the service of God and others, and our own rest and refreshment. In both cases, we are talking about the power of discernment and how it can be used to focus our minds and efforts, and the importance of such focus on being able to make intentional differences in our lives and the lives of others.

Exercising this discernment in the act of self-tyling involves the recognition that certain attitudes and actions are not appropriate during some Masonic activities that would be entirely fitting during other kinds of fellowship. For a specific example, recall that all our proceedings should be free from political and religious debate, even though such discussions can be very meaningful among brethren outside the lodge. The compasses should also come to mind here, for they represent the ability to circumscribe our desires and keep our passions within due bounds. As another example, consider that when we are sitting in lodge, profane thoughts include distracting ourselves with matters outside the lodge, such as our jobs and hobbies. So, we self-tyle by setting such thoughts aside and attending as fully as possible to the work for which the lodge has assembled. As a final case, note that the fun and banter that we may enjoy during a festive board is not conducive to the solemn purposes of a degree ritual. Self-tyling in this context includes not only being aware of one’s own thoughts and feelings, such as temptations to get a laugh with a wisecrack or a comedic act, but also internally saying no to such potentials and refocusing oneself in the proper mood and mentality for the work at hand.  

Finally, I want to discuss self-tyling in the context of contemplation, those practices of stilling and focusing the mind that our ritual repeatedly recommends in our search for more light. Such practices can include centering consciousness on the image of a Masonic symbol, pondering a part of our ritual, meditating on the challenges of embodying one of our traditional virtues, internally chanting one of our sacred words, or sitting in reverent silent openness to the presence of the Divine. Whatever the case may be, self-tyling in these situations begins with one’s awareness of things that distract from the intention of the moment. Most often, such distractions include sensory perceptions, leftover emotions from a previous experience, or the wandering of our thoughts from one tangent to another. In such cases, self-tyling is the act of recognizing these internal “cowans and eavesdroppers” and then simply letting them go or turning attention away from them to refocus on the intended practice. Despite the symbolic relevance of the sword to this process, it should not be a hostile or violent act, for negativity only makes things worse. Rather, this self-tyling is best accomplished with patience and understanding, and the commitment to gently realign our attention with our intention as often as necessary. It is metaphorically bringing our focus back to the chosen point within the circle of our awareness. In fact, that process of self-redirection is itself a very good practice that over time enhances the other forms of self-tyling and guarding our own west gates, and facilitates the development of more wisdom, strength, and beauty not only internally, but in how we behave with others.

Whether doing the work of Masonry within the physical lodge of our fraternity or the psychospiritual lodge of the self, what happens there is meant to prepare us to be more effective instruments of light, and we should govern ourselves accordingly. 

~CRD


Brother Chuck Dunning
is an advocate, facilitator, trainer, and consultant in contemplative practice, with more than 30 years in the professional fields of higher education and mental health, as well as in Masonry and other currents in the Western esoteric traditions. He has authored Contemplative Masonry: Basic Applications of Mindfulness, Meditation, and Imagery for the Craft (2016), and The Contemplative Lodge: A Manual for Masons Doing Inner Work Together (coming in 2020), and was a contributing author in The Art and Science of Initiation (2019). Chuck has articles published in several Masonic journals and websites, is a nationally recognized speaker and trainer on the Masonic Educational circuit, and has been interviewed for numerous periodicals and podcasts. In 2019, the College of Freemasonry in Rochester, New York presented him with the Thomas W. Jackson Masonic Education Award for Fraternal Leadership in Masonic Research and Esoteric Study. In 2018, the Southern California Research Lodge recognized him as being among the Top Ten Esoteric Masonic Authors. Chuck is the founding Superintendent of the Academy of Reflection, which is a chartered organization for Scottish Rite Masons wanting to integrate contemplative practice with their Masonic experience. He is also a Full Member of the Texas Lodge of Research. You can contact Chuck via his webpage: https://chuckdunning.com/.

The Most Important Masonic Tool?

by Midnight Freemason Guest Contributor
Mark St. Cyr

Let’s start with the usual litany of disclaimers: this doesn’t represent any Grand Lodge, Lodge, Appendant/Concordant body, Brother, Sister, cousins ____________(fill in your own here)  viewpoint except the authors.  

So now with that out of the way, let’s begin… 

I read a lot of varying viewpoints from an even greater number of  Masonic authors. You read about “the working tools” and their importance to both the personal as well as their greater application in the masonic and/or profane world. You’ll read about the importance of one tool over another or its application in unison with another et cetera.  

Many of these points I completely concur with, especially how it’s originally presented in our catechism. However, with that now said, I believe the most important masonic “tool” is rarely ever mentioned, if at all: The voting box. 

Sure, we all hear how important our duty is to fulfill one of our most honored and sacred responsibility, right before we cast. But does anyone really listen? Worse, does anyone dare vote against the grain? 

Here’s where I believe many, if not most, of our current issues, are developing from. i.e., A yes vote placed in favor when they have absolutely no clue on the who, why or anything else pertaining to a candidate. It’s all just… 

Be presented with the voting box; select the appropriate marble (i.e., in-favor); then sit back and continue the side discussion; check your social media pages, or all three simultaneously. Rinse, repeat.  

Here’s why I know the above - I’ve both observed it at every single voting matter I’ve attended, while also following much of that script myself before I knew any better. e.g., Was presented the box; selected in favor; went back to the prior discussion.  

I’ve also done the: was already in discussion; was presented the box; kept on talking, albeit at low volume; selected, and never missed a syllable.  

I did this because I observed that was how the “old guys” were doing it, and since I was a newly minted MM, I figured this was the accepted way. It wasn’t until via my own research and self-edification into such things I found, to my horror, just how much it is not. 

We read and hear complaints about just how low the bar has been set for one to become a Mason, and I freely admit to being one doing precisely that. However, what separates people like myself and the others that stand on this side of the fence, is that we are willing to both call “a spade a spade” while also voting with that other “tool” known as our own two feet. And not partaking in what should be sacrosanct acts of Masonic protocols with a “just going through the motions” attitude for enablement. 

Now, what is going to be said from this point forward is going to both tick off, as well as send a few into a bout of hives and who knows what else. However, before I start let me make this point abundantly clear… 

I am not proposing willy-nilly to disrupt or to cause mischief into any of our most important obligations concerning the Craft. 

What I am saying, is that for those that complain about the quality or many other concerning aspects of the Craft, resulting from the candidate process. Vague to no answers concerning candidates are now demanding to be questioned for the good of the Craft.  i.e., Why are they really petitioning? What are they expecting once accepted, etc., etc., etc.  

Now with that stated, let’s continue… 

There is a moment in the entire process that either allows or disallows the process to begin in the first place. And no - it is not the investigation. 

It is - the voting process. 

I’m not sure of the rules from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, heck,  let’s just say I don’t even know the rules for my own. This will allow my points to be made without the “That’s not the way it’s done!” crowd possibly having blood pressure issues. But then again, that alone might be too high of a bar, but I digress. 

So in that vein, let’s forget “the rules” for the moment and think about my overarching premise, which is… 

If you believe your Lodge is ruining itself, along with possibly weakening the fraternity as a whole by accepting candidates via the only stipulation they can fog a mirror. Then the absolute ultimate tool to stop it is - at the voting box. 

It is, by far, the single most powerful “tool” available to any  Mason committed to bringing about change, bar none. That’s why it should also be seen as something not to be toyed with in any way,  shape, manner, or form. 

So the obvious question now comes: How does one use this process without casting no votes and ruining both the process and is it being injurious to a possible good candidate but poorly presented? 

Here are my thoughts…  

Remember, I am not advocating this be done willy-nilly.  Anything concerning the voting process must be done with very deliberate and conscience forethought. To use an analogy: You’re playing with nuclear fuel and a functioning atom smasher. Bad  things happening here are not going to be something known as  “trivial.”  

How many times have we heard, “The investigation committee has returned a favorable report. Let’s vote!” Then we do, and it’s really nothing more than a going through the motions formality.  

I propose doing something different from now on, again, for those that truly understand what the current issues facing the fraternity are; are dedicated to helping in the quest to doing the right things; and have the wherewithal to both articulate their viewpoints and the fortitude to back those viewpoints with sensible, constructive actions. Regardless if they’ll now be relegated to “That guy!” status.  

Next time the investigation committee is said to return a  favorable report. I propose raising one’s hand immediately and asking… 

“What were the specific questions asked? And what were the  specific answers of response?”  

Or: “Before we vote can the committee or WM share the notes on  such with the brethren before we cast?” 

If there are no “notes.” Ask, “Why not?” And, “If there are no notes, then surely we can have the investigation committee take questions as to try and illuminate the brethren on who this man is and why he wants to join. Sounds reasonable does it not?” 

Here’s what it’ll probably raise: Eyebrows that hover over eyes filled with daggers of disdain. Like I said, this is not something for the timid. 

Yet, why is this not asked? Why is this not freely given anyway?  No, the most common thing for entry is: we sent a committee and all three concurred - he fogged the mirror. So let’s vote! 

Formalizing the investigative committee process as to have pertinent questions and notes taken on the answers given, along with the committee itself addressing open forum questioning from the brethren before the “Get the box!” order is given, I  believe, should now be a prerequisite. And if not?  (Again, this is not for the timid.)  

I believe someone needs to stand up and say, “With all due respect to the fraternity, the Lodge, and my brethren. I can not in good conscience vote to accept someone into our ranks blindly.  Therefore, I shall abstain from voting.” 

And do just that. Every. Single. Time. 

At some point, others are going to start remembering precisely why they’re voting in the first place, and you may be surprised how many others might join your stance once they do.  

At a minimum, it will open the conversation for possibly fixing the  “west gate” issue before the “horse” as they say enters the barn rather than after. 

Another stark reminder it also forces back into the spotlight is with someone (or more than just one) verbally making the arguments as to why they can not vote for such. Every time there is a call for one? 

A going through the motions process immediately gets upended into the serious business that it is. Because all it takes is just one  “No.” And no one knows who that one maybe. But what everyone will know is that the possibility for it now needs to be seriously contemplated.  

So getting those answers in the beginning now becomes just as,  if not more so, as important as getting the petition to begin with. 

Think about it. 

Mark St.Cyr 

Freemason

Please stop asking “Why?”

by Midnight Freemason Guest Contributor
Mark St. Cyr

You already know why but refuse to act on what you know, that’s the real problem of today. 

Over these ensuing months, I have attended both in person as well as many virtual meetings, and have listened with great interest on a topic that has had one echoing feature. i.e., Why is it that the fraternity is having these continuing issues, and what can be done about it? 


Here’s is where I’m going to separate myself with not only most  Masons asking these questions, but also giving what would be mandated and delivered by someone in my former capacity as a  turn-around specialist, which is… 


The problem is: Everyone “knows why” but simply refuses to do what everyone knows should be done, and why.  


It’s that simple. 


I have listened to many brave individuals trying desperately not to offend as they work through some very compelling statistics that prove their points. Many are business people themselves and understand the dynamics and issues, a few have been actual clinical psychologists that understand behavior and more.  


Some are even very high up the ladder as the saying goes bringing up points, arguments, and more which are both very courageous, as well as perilous for their own positions within the  Craft. These men, especially, deserve our respect. 


But again, many have the facts, figures, and arguments that support their positions. They get grand consensus from both attendees and more. Many up-and-down-the-line to use another fitting phrase agree with most if not all of their assertions.  


Then… 

Nothing happens. Again, for the umpteenth time. 


Yes, it seems it’s been going on forever and in fact maybe even longer. But here’s the real issue that is the heart of the matter… 


It will continue forever till it finally rendezvous with its moment of destiny known as insolvency or irrelevancy. And we’re not that far from the latter if one looks squarely at current figures and projections. 


So now with the above now stated, here’s that moment in the  writing where I warn “If you get ticked off easily - this is the place  you close the screen and go onto other things because I didn’t get to my level (i.e., top of the business pyramid) by holding back  my words.”  


So, let’s just say, you’ve been warned. Let’s continue… 


One of the largest issues both befalling as well as failing the fraternity is the idea and preservation of the “Progressive Line”  (PL). 


This construct is anathema to any business, yet we seem to believe we are uniquely fortified against its inherent dangers.  Please save the “We’re not a business so it doesn’t apply!”  arguments, for it’s precisely that mindset that proves my point even further. 

Eventually, all following this construct, sooner or later, will wind up in the dust bin of history. 


Again, time is the only variable, regardless of what any HR  Department might argue, but that’s for another column. 


What happens is that a PL within itself caries all the seeds and nurturing needed via its construct to perpetuate the process to progressively get worse. 

 

That’s not a play on words. 


Side note: Have you ever taken notice in any note-worthy company many a succession plan isn’t even allowed to be seen by the current management? There’s a reason, but let’s get back to where we were. 


Let me give you a classic example that happens to many a  business as it grows, then tries to thwart both the inherent issues that come from that growth, but more importantly, sow the seeds to collapse all that prior growth under its own weight. 


Once a PL sets into any organization the thinking will go like this…  


Note: This (PL) can be switched out for what’s also known as the  “Managerial Mindset” for ease of discussion. Also note: The following examples are also meant to be over-simplistic for that purpose. 


Let’s use putting in place 12 managers to handle the now growth of having 120 employees. That’s now 10 per manager, a  reasonable fit based on the metrics of the day. 

Then the employee count changes: 10 goes to 12 or 15 in some areas and 7 in others and so on. The Managerial class will instinctively look to add an “assistant manager” to help the managers with now “too many” workers and the issues they may now face i.e., more people, more problems. 


However, what they’ll now say to the ones with less is: “Not only  take care of your own but give them more instruction in efficiencies and so forth, after all, your workload is now lighter.” 


Makes sense right? Seems to, but that’s the issue as I’ll illustrate. 


The managers with less don’t (and actually more like won’t) find  ways to enhance worker relations, efficiencies, or anything else  with that so-called “extra time.” No, what most will do is divide their once dedicated oversight time from 10, and now expand  that time to handle only seven or six or _____ (fill in the blank on your own.) 


And for those truly paying attention. Did you notice as numbers went up more managers were added, but for those that went down, management did not? If so, kudos. 


In other words, efficiencies are now going down as well as expenses going up. What do you say? Easy, because managers,  even assistant ones, usually cost more. But there’s also another cost - they tend to not view their “work” like they once did. They fall into (and very quickly I’ll add) the premise of “That’s for others to do. (i.e., the now managed or downstream) I’m the one that tells them what needs to be done. After-all, I worked very  hard to get this title!”  


That thought process is also prevalent within the meritocracy format, but there are efficiencies and more that can deal with it in real-time. i.e.. layoffs, restructuring on the fly, etc., etc., etc. It’s also known as “The human condition.” In other words - any business leader worth their salt not only knows it but expects it, in order to deal with it. 


That doesn’t happen where a PL is concerned. Here’s the corollary…

Using the PL construct, what happens is all that’s inherent (good,  bad, or indifferent) becomes indemnified and calcified with a little to no desire for introspection as to find inefficiencies or anything else contained within itself.  


In other words: all issues are derived to need correction or  “managing” from entities outside of itself. Or, said differently… 


If we only had a better sales promotion, easier terms, lowered  the standards for credit terms, better marketing campaigns,  company parties, __________(fill in your own blank here). That would solve or at least halt our dilemma, then we could start again from there. Stronger, faster, better….” (cue Six-Million-Dollar Man  theme here.) 


Hint: Does any of the above sound like something you may have heard in the outside world from a company you used to frequent or were employed by right before, you know, they were gone? 


This is where the inherent dangers can (and usually does) also become toxic very quickly to not just the hierarchy, but to all those in contact with them. It breeds elitist type stigma, whether it wants to or not throughout the ranks, where everyone starts  thinking: “No one knows what they’re doing and it’s all just getting  worse.” 


To further extrapolate: A PL, both in business and politics, will enshrine itself in a category of “untouchable” status within any organization till it takes on the appearance to all onlookers as to resemble more tyrannical attributes than what the original term  “progressive” seems to signal. 

 

Again, regardless of all the good intentions for its implemented or sustained reasonings. It is one of the fatal flaws contained within the model, you can not separate it out.

Let me be clear: This is not a backhanded swipe at any leader or  Line within our fraternity. What I am arguing is what the idea and ramifications of this construct facilitate over any mounting period of time and has the potential to evolve into.  And “potential” is marked only by time measurements, not an eventuality, for once the process (e.g., Progressive Line) gets codified within an organization, that’s when you can start the timer to mark the beginning of the end.  


Here’s a takeaway example I inferred to help bolster my arguments using the statistics and deep-dive presentation by RW  Chad Kopenski of Ohio.  

Note: These are my conclusions, not RW’s, and I commend him for looking at prior stats with a different eye than most which then prompted my own investigation. 


In about the early 1800s, using Ohio as an example, there were about 400 Lodges and around, let’s say, 36,000 members for example purposes. There were 6 districts and six “Assistant GMs” to help the GM verify things were being done correctly. 


By about 1850 there were about the same amount of Lodges, yet the membership had, for ease of discussion, doubled. (Although  this is off the top of my head, I’m not that far off in the figures.)  


Guess what started to grow along with it, only exponentially?  Hint: “Management” of all sorts. (“Management” is  interchangeable with PL for this discussion.) 

Guess what hasn’t decreased commensurate with membership declines? Read “hint” above.

 

Please give me the rationale for why this is both the case and why it is needed? 

It’s OK, I’ll wait.


Now here’s where I might really tick a few off, so if you’re still here? I’m sorry, but the rest is intended for the “adults” as they say. So here we go… 


The reason why you could have so little “management” (again, all my conjecture, of course) in the early years (say 1800 through early 1900s) with an even greater workload for travel and more  (They were horse and buggy and barely functioning roadways and vehicles back then, remember?) was that the idea, and the reverence, for being a Mason was both installed and ingrained in those wanting to partake in this great fraternity. The “West Gate” was extremely well guarded, Lodges knew what had to be done,  enjoyed the work, and had reverence for it. 


A visiting “Manager” I’ll say, could walk into a Lodge, look  around, view the work, and more than imply “Looks good, maybe  a tweak here and there, but I’ll see you next time.” And move on. 


Today? We have made it so unqualified or unskilled labor is  permitted to enter the “works” and as long as they pay a paltry  fee and show-up they can (more like, will) be elevated to a higher  position not only once in their local Line.” But even into the Line of higher “management.” 

 

Now here’s what some might say is where the fly-in-the-ointment seems to appear… 

And all those added Lines and titles were added (exponentially so) as membership grew throughout that period, as membership has now clearly fallen off the cliff to use another phrase, guess what appears to have remained a constant? 


All those PL’s.


Here’s another troubling “fly” as they say… 

Again, anyone that steps into a PL will now progress to then replace a possible over-traveled, burnt-out, maybe not fully ready for prime-time predecessor ahead of him. 

Why “burnt-out?” As I insinuated prior: “Management” now has to not only oversee Lodges that may be less than fully functional,  but they don’t really have the “working tools” of real management acumen to do anything about it. It’s a very soul-draining process to everyone involved and caught in this Catch-22 predicament.  


Once again (I know I’m saying that a lot, but it’s important),  Remember their only requirement? They said, “OK, I’ll join the  line.” From that point forward, “moving on up” is a near  guarantee, not to mention it also comes with a spiffy new title  and badge every time he/they “progress.” 


Here’s another “bonus” as they say, that many don’t contemplate, but surely many just might. Ready? 


Now, when something comes up on the TV talking about how  “powerful” Freemasons are, whether they’re alone or with friends,  they get to nod and imply “Yep, that’s right, have you seen my new ring? Just wait till I tell you my new title!” 


Again: How will this all be accomplished?  


Hint: All for about the price of just one, yes, just one steak dinner at a fancy restaurant - once a year. (Some less, much less.) 


To reiterate, so the point is not lost: All one has to do is spend about the same amount they would on an easily forgotten meal,  wait out one term, and they’ll progress to the next level, then the next, and next and so on. Rise, repeat. Till next thing you know - 

they may be a hares-breath from the most important and coveted position in all Masonry. 


Think about that very carefully, because it tells one quite a lot if they dare to actually think about it, truthfully. 


How do we know this? Because that’s the way a “progressive line” system works, meaning… 


No matter where you start on the ladder or why you're on it at all.  As long as you “get on it” progression and/or accession within the ranks higher, higher and higher is all but guaranteed. Whether you deserve to be there or not. After all - you showed up! That’s everything today and basically all that’s required. And last but  certainly not least, today you’re basically begged, never mind  asked, to “Get in the line!”  


Who in their right minds thinks this is a good idea? Let alone,  thinks it’s so great as to continue on with it.  


This not only allows for men to be in leadership positions they may not be ready to ascend to. But worse, they may not understand precisely how or what is actually plaguing aspects of the Craft and will enact measures they think will help solve something, but will actually make matters even worse. (Also  known as the “HR fallacy of management dynamics,” but again, I  digress.) 


The PL construct will not allow for radical change when that change is either needed or demanded. It’s far too easy for all involved to argue: “Well, next year they can look at all this, let’s just finish out this year (for they’ll be gone) and leave it up to them. After all, it’s their year to do just that, that’s why they're  elected!” 


See the conflict here?


In my opinion… (as if I was hired by the fraternity to make such  recommendations.) 

Any and all progressive lines for accession should be halted immediately. Meritocracy at every level should be the overwhelming and imperative stance from here on out. Again,  immediacy is the working operative here. 


If GL’s need to be cut for non-fulfillment of worthy candidates to fill their ranks - they should, with immediacy. If Lodges can’t pick themselves up by their own bootstraps and begin fulfilling the original intent and commitment that Freemasonry was founded on - they should close. Charters should be pulled with ease from  Lodges that are sullying the reputation and look of the fraternity.  i.e., They resemble a frat house both in dress, as well as regard to the “work.” 


If today’s WM position is overburdened trying to fulfill antiquated  things piled on over years via GL edicts or expectations that may  no longer make sense but are continued because “That’s the way we’ve always done it!” They should be struck and rescinded,  again with immediacy. 


Position within any Line should be voted on for meritocracy with little to no expiration date within reason. i.e., You don’t want to enable fiefdoms, but you also don’t want to mandate good men needing to vacate when needed most.  


Again, I know this isn’t an easy process, but it needs to start instead of asking “Why?” any further. We know why we just  won’t do it, everyone says it with me: “Not on my watch!”  

We are far too close to a possible “extinction” type moment in time, meaning, we’re really out of time. The time to do is now, enough talking has already been done. Sorry to be so frank, but that’s what I do. Let’s continue… 


Non-performing Lodges need to close, merge, or whatever. The idea that one Lodge can’t mix with another because it has “too much pride” and is allowed to rarely if ever, form a quorum and perpetuates a feeling and look of dispirited members indefinitely is a working insult to anything this fraternity supposedly stands for using just the basic “trowel” for understanding. 


The onerous has to be put back on the idea of men that want to be Freemasons because of what being a Freemason truly signifies. i.e., The quality and dignity of the man to himself, his family, his brothers, the fraternity, and the world as a whole.  Not: I have a dues card therefore “I am.” 


No, sorry, but that’s a mistaken assumption. 


The fraternity is now at a point in history where it must decide not only: Where are we going and why?  


But more importantly… 


With whom, precisely? 


We don’t need more leaders to lead men that don’t understand where the fraternity needs to head, or worse, don’t want it to go there in the first place. (Think and want the social club ideals and  status.) 


No, what needs to be done and what would be done in any business facing our current dilemma is painfully obvious… 


Reduce management, meritocracy not progressive advancement,  and last but certainly not least…Guard that “West Gate” with as much zeal and effort as can be exerted as to make the idea of Freemasonry invaluable to those looking for it, filling the ranks with far more competent and willing men that understand it all, and, will help work even harder to get it where it deserves to be: As a beacon of light for the dignity and sovereignty of Man under the auspices of The Grand Architect. 


Other than that I have no strong feelings on the matter. 


Mark St. Cyr 

Freemason

What I Believe

by Midnight Freemason Founder 
Todd E. Creason, 33°


When I stepped behind the pulpit for the first time last April, I realized the journey to that place had started 37 years ago.  I never thought I’d actually get there. 

When I was 18 and had just graduated high school, what I wanted to do was be involved in ministry.  At that point in my life, what appealed to me was missionary work.  Apparently, I was a bad speller and wound up in the “military” instead of the “ministry.”  But even when I was in the army, I looked into what it would take to be a chaplain.   

But then life happened.  The army didn’t work out as well as I’d hoped.  I got married way too young.  I started a career in a bare-knuckles competitive environment where success was measured by your ability to be ruthless and vicious.  I made some really big mistakes in life, and they began to pile up.  I got divorced.  My church took my ex’s side and basically kicked me out of the congregation.  I took up fishing and drinking beer as hobbies, and became fairly proficient at both.  The more life happened, the further I got away from the church, and the further away from that idea of ever being involved in ministry became.  I still thought about it sometimes, but I knew I was no longer suitable material for ministry . . . or so I thought. 

So what changed my trajectory?  Two things initially.  The first thing was I met my wife Valerie just over 25 years ago.  The second thing was a chance conversation I had one evening 17 years ago in a local pub with a Freemason.  I joined shortly after.     

Masonry changed everything for me.  It restored my faith in mankind.  I met men from every faith, race, and background.  I saw what one man could accomplish through hard work and determination, and more importantly, what men from all these different backgrounds could do together under the banner of a common set of values.  It didn’t take months.  It didn’t take years.  It took almost no time at all.  I learned from ritual.  I learned from books.  Most importantly, I learned from my Brothers.  They became my family, and my family changed me.  I became very involved.  I studied.  I wrote books and articles.  I started this blog in about 2006--shortly after I published my first book (just over a year after I joined). After 8 years of marriage, Valerie and I started a family that year, too.  My daughter Katie was born almost a year to the day of my being raised a Master Mason.  The change was dramatic, and the change happened fast.   

And I found my Bible again, too.  Looking back, I can see God was at work in my life from the beginning, but I don’t know how I could have gotten from where I was to where I’m at without my friends.  My Brothers.  Freemasonry got me back to where I started, and back to the plan God had for me all along.  I got a second shot at it.  And all that living I did, and all those regrettable mistakes I made will serve me well as I serve Christ.

I get concerned sometimes when we talk about guarding that west gate.  I see a lot of conversations these days about who we should let in and who we should keep out.  I question the motives of members who talk this way.  The qualifications for admission into a lodge are few, and the reasons for disqualification should be even fewer if the petitioner sought us out with sincere intentions.  I’ll be honest with you, based on some of these conversations I’ve seen lately I don’t know if I’d be able to get into the west gate now in some of these Lodges.  I certainly couldn’t have sixteen years ago when I knocked.  There’s no way.

When we talk about “what kinds of men we should admit” into our Fraternity we’re creating obstacles for men that may very well have something unique to contribute if they’re given a chance.  When we talk in terms of what kind of values one should have when petitioning a Lodge we need to remember they are petitioners at that point and not Freemasons—they’ve come to our door with a desire to improve themselves.  We should be focusing more on why they knocked rather than on where they’re at in their life.  There should be a very compelling and easily justified reason to close that door. 

When we start thinking of petitioners as “not our sort of people” or “a little too rough around the edges” we are doing ourselves a great disservice.  If you read my books you’ll quickly see that some of our most celebrated members weren’t exactly stellar examples of gentlemanly sophistication when they knocked on our door.  Our strength is in our diversity in both the kinds of men we call Brothers and the diversity of ideas they bring to our Lodge.  Our strength is in our shared experience as Freemasons and Brothers, but it is also the life experience and unique perspectives of our members.  Our Fraternity understood from day one that we’re all different and our Lodges were built so that we could all come together one the level!  Different, but equal.  Our purpose is to improve ourselves and our Brothers, and we do that by learning from each other and sharing and encouraging each other.  But if that’s our purpose, we need to remember that those who seek us out aren’t perfect and they’re coming through that west door looking for something. 

I’m reminded of what Jesus said in Luke 3:32 “I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.”

So who are we here for? Freemasonry would be of little use to a perfect man, but to a man seeking improvement in himself, it has the potential to change his entire life.

~TEC 

Todd E. Creason, 33° is the Founder of the Midnight Freemasons blog, and an award-winning author of several books and novels, including the Famous American Freemasons series. Todd started the Midnight Freemason blog in 2006, and in 2012 he opened it up as a contributor blog The Midnight Freemasons (plural). Todd has written more than 1,000 pieces for the blog since it began. He is a Past Master of Ogden Lodge No. 754 (IL) where he currently serves as Secretary. He is a Past Sovereign Master of the Eastern Illinois Council No. 356 Allied Masonic Degrees. He is a Fellow at the Missouri Lodge of Research (FMLR). He is a charter member of Admiration Chapter No. 282 and is a Past EHP. He is a charter member and Secretary of the Salt Fork Shrine Club.  You can contact him at webmaster@toddcreason.org