Wednesday, December 8, 2010

Women and Freemasonry Since the Enlightenment

Conference organized at Bordeaux University and Musée d’Aquitaine,

June 17-18- 19, 2010

By

LNS (Lumières Nature Société), Université de Bordeaux 3 sponsored by the Conseil Régional d’Aquitaine

CELFF, CNRS, Université de Paris IV Sorbonne

Laboratoire CIRTAI-IDEES, équipe de l’UMR 6228 (CNRS) Université du Havre

Sheffield Centre for Research into Freemasonry, Université de Sheffield

Centre de recherche sur la franc-maçonnerie, FREE, Université de Bruxelles

Center for the Study of Women , UCLA

Unviersité Sapienza, Rome

Scientific committee:

BURKE Janet

ISASTIA Anna Maria

JACOB Margaret

MONDOT Jean

ONNERFORS, Andreas

PORSET, Charles

PRESCOTT, Andrew

REVAUGER Cécile

SAUNIER, Eric

SLIFKO, John

SNOEK Jan

TYSSENS, Jeffrey


Today women are still largely absent from Masonic lodges. Yet few rational arguments can be summoned to account for such an exclusion. The argument of tradition, which is the most frequently put forward, only holds for Anderson’s Constitutions as no such explicit ban against women can be found in the Old Charges. The significance of Elisabeth Aldworth St Leger’s initiation by an Irish Lodge is probably more symbolical than historical as it was a single occurrence never repeated. Yet the event was never denied by the Irish masons at the time, although it probably deterred the “brethren” from renewing the experience and mostly reinforced their convictions on the issue of female initiation. Women however did enter the lodges afterwards, first in the lodges of adoption, and later in co-masonry as well as specific female lodges.

The lodges of adoption have sometimes been considered as a low key form of masonry, a kind of ersatz masonry meant to humour women. Yet their importance and significance should not be underplayed as Margaret Jacob and Janet Burke in particular have recently shown. The lodges of adoption which emerged in Holland and France during the Enlightenment highlight the main features of women’s commitment in those days, with the same limitations, namely the elitist and aristocratic component. Yet they conveyed some important values, let alone possibly through their rituals, and they allowed women to play an unprecedented part in the public sphere, not unlike the celebrated “French salons”.

We may wonder whether those lodges merely reflected the society of their time or whether they anticipated and even encouraged the emancipation of women. How emblematical are they of Enlightenment sociability? Quite significantly the adoption lodges lost lustre at the same time as the Enlightenment. When they emerged again as the Eastern Star in the United States in the following century they were quite different. The nineteenth century Masonic world was predominantly a male one and it would be interesting to find the reasons why. One has to wait till the end of the nineteenth century to find a female presence again in Masonic lodges with women such as Annie Besant, Madame Blavatsky, Clémence Royer or Louise Michel, sometimes in close connection with the Theosophical Society, as in the case of Annie Besant.

We shall endeavour to identify the main evolutions in women’s commitment, both through co masonry, which appeared at the end of the nineteenth century and through female lodges which date back to the twentieth century only. All those women fought for equality, but some hoped to reach it alongside with men while others opted for autonomy in separate lodges. We shall try to understand those choices both in terms of structures and rituals. We shall focus on the social composition of co masonry and women’s lodges, and try to assess how far they committed themselves to the society of their time or preferred to remain discreet. Women’s’ lodges developed in some countries only, we shall try to suggest possible explanations for such disparity. Lodges and Grand Lodges as well as individual itineraries will be studied.

The different factors of exclusion need to be addressed:

- the cultural, social and political factor. Is there a direct link between the development of co masonry and women’s lodges on the one hand and social progress, women’s emancipation and strong feminist movements in the twentieth and twenty first centuries? Why do Scandinavian countries, which have become respectful of women’s rights, or the United Kingdom, the Suffragettes’ country which enfranchised women long before France, lag behind in terms of female initiation?

- the religious factor. How far does the religious context inform the issue of women’s initiation? Can one identify different attitudes in Catholic, Protestant, Islamic or Orthodox countries?

- the Masonic factor : the rift between English speaking freemasonry and “liberal” freemasonry dates back to 1877, when the Grand Orient de France decided to grant complete liberty of conscience to its members instead of imposing a belief in the Supreme being. Curiously enough the issue of women’s admission into freemasonry has also been a dividing one ever since that time. English speaking Grand Lodges and their affiliates exclude women, whereas “liberal” ones accept the idea of initiation, even if the statement needs to be qualified for the latter.

Several levels of exclusion can be identified today : women can either be considered as unfit for initiation, which is still officially the case in the United Kingdom, the USA and in all the Grand Lodges which pay allegiance to the United Grand Lodge of England and in the Prince Hall Grand Lodges, or their presence can be accepted and encouraged but in separate organizations, not considered as Masonic but meant to enhance the male lodges through their charity work: this is the case of the Eastern Star chapters. As to the Women Freemasons, they are still deprived of official recognition by the United Grand Lodge of England. Finally, the “liberal” Grand Lodges are themselves divided on the issue of women’s admission into the lodges. Some have opted for co masonry; others have put the admission of women on the agenda, while others reject the very notion.

How far can one speak of Masonic universalism, how far does gender inform the Masonic issue? Our purpose is twofold. We shall address the problem of women’s exclusion under its various guises and try to uncover some of the motivations, and we shall also concentrate on the specificity of female freemasonry both in time and space, from the earliest lodges to the modern ones, in Europe, Asia and the Americas. Conversely we shall wonder how feminist criticism has viewed women’s freemasonry, from the lodges of adoption to contemporary lodges. We welcome different approaches, and would like the historical and geographical scopes to be broad enough to allow for a better understanding of differences, common points and evolutions.


http://revaugercecile.over-blog.com/article-32171477.html


Why Freemasonry Has Enemies

THE SHORT TALK BULLETIN
The Masonic Service Association of the United States
VOL. 27 MAY 1949 NO. 5
author unknown

Say “Anti-Masonry” to the average American Mason and he will think you speak only of the Morgan affair of 1826. So Many books have been written on this, so many speeches made about it, so many study clubs have discussed it, that it is pretty much in the class with political oratory – interesting once, but as bore when much repeated!

Anti-Masonry neither began nor ended with the Morgan affair. The Fraternity has always had its enemies and, unless the world reforms spiritually, doubtless always will. BUT WHY?

Examine just a few of the exhibitions of anti-Masonry, other than the Morgan affair – which was a sporadic explosion, not a deep – rooted and poisonous plant.

Mussolini, Hitler, Franco, Stalin could not permit the existence of a society which is predicated upon the brotherhood of man; they were, and are, too much committed to a society predicated upon a police power which knows no mercy and has but one object; the destruction of people, ideas, and organizations which do not believe that man is nothing, the State (and its ruler or rulers) everything.

Mussolini’s anti-Masonic feeling was expressed in his doctrine of conflict, which does not even mention the Craft:
” Humanity is still and always an abstraction of time and space; men are still not brothers, do not want to be and evidently cannot be. Peace is hence absurd; or rather it is a pause in war. There is something that binds man to his destiny of struggling, against either his fellows or himself. The motives for the struggle may change indefinitely, they may be economic, religious, political, sentimental, but the legend of Cain and Abel seems to be the inescapable reality, while brotherhood is a fable men listen to during the bivouac and the truce.”

General Erich Ludendorff wrote a booklet against Freemasonry of which more than a hundred thousand copies were sold. Too long to quote here, the reader may get an idea of its contents from some of his words.

“Masonry brings its members into conscious subjection to the Jews…… it trains them to become venal Jews…. German Masonry is a branch of organized international Masonry the headquarters of which are in New York…. there also is the seat of Jewish world power….”

Ludendorff blamed Freemasons for bringing America into the World War I, helped by the Jesuits, B’nai B’rith and the Grand Lodge of New York! This, he stated, was done to destroy Austria Hungary, a Catholic world power. Had it not been for Freemasonry, Germany would have won the war – Kaiser Wilhelm and Czar Nicholas lost their thrones because they were not Freemasons – and so on and on and on for eighty-two pages of “Annihilation of Freemasonry Through revelation of its Secrets!”

Not all anti-Masonry has had causes so fundamental, which lie so deep; small jealousies and little rascals have started anti – Masonic movements; several religions have fought and, indeed, now fight the Craft, as sinful and un-godlike. The opposition of the Catholic Church, based on the Papal Bull of 1738, many times renewed, expanded, explained and emphasized, is well known. The Lutheran church as a whole has been unfriendly to the Craft and certain Synods rabid against it. The Mormon Church has been anti-Masonic ever since hundreds of Mormons were expelled from Masonry by the Grand Lodge of Illinois. Even the Gentle Quakers have opposed Freemasonry and not always gently!

When organized religion has disputed with Freemasonry, it is largely because of the thought that Masonic teaching of “that natural religion in which all men agree” might take the place of that which it espoused; knowing that the Fraternity operated by means of a secret ritual, obligations, religious beliefs and the doctrine that all men of whatever faith might worship a Great Architect of the Universe around a common Altar, Freemasonry became a rival! Just as science disputes with no religion, so Freemasonry does not now and never has questioned any man’s faith. There has never been an anti-clerical party composed only of Masons; there have been anti-Masonic parties in many clerical circles. As late as 1896 an anti-Masonic party convened at Trent. In the BUILDER, April, 1918, George W. Baird, P.G.M. District of Columbia, reports that the general and particular aims of this council were to wage war on Masonry as an institution; on Masons as individuals, in all countries and places where the order exists; to wage war on Masonry as a body, by collecting supposed documents and facts; assertions of perjured Masons as evidence and thus bring to light or rather to coin, by means of the press or special publications, all the misdeeds of the fatal institution; all the demoralizing influences it exercises; through obscene or sacrilegious rites, corruption and occult conspiracies of man and civilization; to wage war on individual Masons by opposing them in every phase of their existence, in their homes, in their industries, in their commerce, in their professional vocations, in all their endeavors to participate in public life, local or general, etc.

The first anti-Masonic campaign – if it be called that – in the American Colonies occurred in 1737. According to an account published in the Pennsylvania Gazette (Benjamin Franklin’s paper) an apothecary duped a young man (Daniel Reese) who had expressed a desire to be a Freemason, into a false and ridiculous ceremony, ending in a scene in which the devil was supposed to appear. When the young man refused to be frightened, the “devil” became angry and threw a pan of flaming spirits on the candidate, who died of burns three days later.

Freemasons, though innocent, were blamed and the incident (if death can be called and incident!) spread far and wide to the serious but not too lengthy embarrassment of Masons of the City of Brotherly Love.

There were a few sporadic attacks in the Colonial press against Freemasonry, including one in Boston in 1751, but no real opposition of any moment in this nation until the Morgan affair of 1826. (See Short Talk Bulletin of March 1933 and February 1946.)

But the Colonies were not to escape prejudice, even if unorganized, for Pritchard’s Masonry Dissected (1730) and Jachin and Boaz (1762) both had wide circulation, the latter pamphlet being reprinted here more than a dozen times; one edition was printed in Spanish in Philadelphia as late as 1822.

These “expose’s” purporting to print the ritual, ceremonies and “secrets” of Freemasonry (invaluable now as giving clues to practices and words otherwise lost in the mist of the years) were then intended as body blows at the Ancient Craft. In early days all Freemasonry was kept secret; place of meeting; men who belonged; candidates proposes, were all considered to be “esoteric”. Hence there was a great curiosity on the part of the public and a large circulation of pamphlets designed to injure the Fraternity by “exposing” its charter, ritual and secrets. Today, few would look at and less would buy such a pamphlet on a newsstand – then, the public demanded these in quantities.

Like all such, the motive of their publication–whether revenge for fancied slights or avarice – kept them from being too seriously considered by the better educated and thinking class.

In England, Pritchard’s “Masonry Dissected” raised a storm when it was published, and was reflected even in the songs of the day. An actress in 1765 offered the following, as coming from the anti – Masonic Scald Miserable Masons:

“Next for the secret of their own wise making,
Hiram and Boaz and Grand Master Jachin;
Poker and tongs-the sign-the word-the stroke
‘Tis all a nothing and ’tis all a joke!
Nonsense on nonsense! Let them storm and rail
Here’s the whole history of the mop and pail*
For ’tis the sense of more than half the town
Their secret is-a bottle at the Crown!” *

An allusion to the tiler’s implements with which he erased the designs drawn upon the lodge floor for he instruction of candidates.

Although inspired by the Morgan affair, the letters of John Quincy Adams had an anti-Masonic effect long after Morgan was forgotten. President Adams was never a Freemason; we have his own words as proof of that. That he was an implacable enemy of the institution is shown by his “Letters on the Masonic Institution” published in book form in Boston in 1847. His enmity of the Fraternity sprang from his belief in the reality of the “murder” of Morgan, the activities of the anti-Masonic party and his own great credulity and strong prejudice. His character as a man, his service to his county, his exhaustless energy made serious his attacks on Freemasonry, even though he displayed a woeful ignorance of the Order, its principles, practices, history and accomplishments.

John Quincy Adams is long gathered to his fathers. His “letters” remain largely unread in libraries and in the minds of historians. He did the fraternity harm once, but, judged by the perspective of a century, it was without permanent effect.

These are but the slightest thumb-nail sketches of a few of the outbreaks against Freemasonry. In all countries since the organization of the Mother Grand Lodge, there have been these ebullitions of passions and prejudice; in some lands, tortures and burnings; destructions of Masonic property, imprisonment of Masons, especially in World War II.

These persecutions have had a hundred underlying causes; avarice, jealousy, desire for notoriety, disappointment, envy, the belief that he climbs high who climbs ruthlessly, the need for a scrape-goat: the list is endless. But all, in the last analysis, boil down to one cause. As the greater swallows the less, the large encompasses the little, the race includes all its blood strains, so the reason for the enmity of Freemasons and Freemasonry, encompassing all of many causes, is simple.

There is always a conflict between any two opposing beliefs, doctrines, dogmas, religions, philosophies, political systems. For hundreds of years organized religion fought science; the doctrine of the divine right of kings ran headlong into the doctrine of the equality of man; today we see democracy and Communism in a cold war to the death; less spectacular but none the less real has been the split of Lincoln’s famous words, resulting in the opposition of those who believe in government by the people, to those who believe only in government of the people, by the governor!

Freemasonry is a philosophy which cannot exist side by side with certain ideologies. Either the latter must sink or Freemasonry must be banished. Wherever men have believed that one man or some men are above the law which applies to the many; wherever as government is by men and not by law, Freemasonry is anathema, must be persecuted, thrown out, dispersed, and done away.

Freemasonry stands and has always stood for freedom of political thought; for freedom of religious thought; for the dignity, importance and worth of the individual. In Freemasonry there is neither high nor low-”We meet upon the level”. In Freemasonry is no compulsion; a man must come to it and be of it “of his own free will and accord.” In Freemasonry is no religious sect: men of all religions or of no religion join hands in kneeling about a common Altar erected to the Great Architect of the Universe, by which name each can worship the God he knows.

Such a plan, such a doctrine, such a brotherhood, cannot but be inimical to the selfish, the crooked, the power-hungry, the dictator, the religion which opposes any doctrine but its own, the self-seeking, the envious, the coward, the prejudiced, the passionate and the dishonest.

The reason for all the attacks on Masonry, no matter how attempted or by whom accomplished, can be expressed in a word…

The word is FEAR. Fear of what?
OF FREEDOM OF THOUGHT!}

The Star of Rosicrucianism is now once more in the ascendant and our Society has made rapid strides in the past ten years. It is curious to note that waves of interest in occult and mystical subjects, seem to sweep over a nation at intervals; periods of Rosicrucian enlightenment alternate with other periods of materialistic dogmatism.

We must remember that Rosicrucianism itself was “no new thing” but only a revival of still earlier forms of Initiation, and was a lineal descendant of the Philosophies of the Chaldean Magi, of the Egyptian priests, of the Neo-Platonists, of the Hermetists of Alexandria of the Jewish Kabalists and of Christian Kabalists such as Raymond Lully and Pic de Mirandola.

The nominal Founder of our Society–Christian Rosencreuz, did not invent, at least in our modern sense of the word, the doctrines he promulgated, and which we should now study. It is narrated that he journeyed to Arabia, to Palestine, to Egypt and to Spain, and in the seats of learning in those countries he found and collected the mystic lore, which was made anew by him into a code of doctrine and knowledge. On his return from these foreign travels he settled in Germany, founded a Collegium, selected certain friends and transformed them into enthusiastic pupils, and giving his new Society his own name, he laid the foundation of that scheme of Mystical Philosophy, which we are now here to perpetuate and carry into practice: let us remember that he died in the year 1484, that is so far back as the reign of our King Richard the Third.

The fratres of the original Collegium, who met in the “Domus Sanctus Spiritus,” or ” House of the Holy Spirit,” were learned men, earnest students and public benefactors. Their rules were: That none of the members should profess any art except to relieve the sick and that gratis; each one should wear the ordinary dress of the country, and should attend on Corpus Christi day at a general Convocation every year, whenever possible to do so; each one should seek a suitable pupil to succeed him: that the secret mark of each one should be C.R. or R.C., and that the Society should remain secret for 100 years.

As time went on the purposes and duties of the fratres became altered, the cure of the sick especially was taken over by the development of the medical profession.

About 1710, one Sigmund Richter, using the motto of “Sincerus Renatus,” published at Breslau his work called “The perfect and true preparation of the Philosophical Stone according to the secret of the Brotherhoods of the Golden and Rosy Cross.” In this volume we find a series of 52 rules for the guidance of Rosicrucian members; these rules are such as were likely to lead to useful and orderly lives.

Again, about 1785, there was published at Altona in Germany a most important volume of coloured theosophical plates with eludicatory words and phrases and several essays on Rosicrucian subjects: its title was “Geheime Figuren der Rosenkreuzer”; it was in two portions. An English translation of some part of this work was published in 1888 by Franz Hartmann, a German Theosophist.

We catch a further glimpse of the purposes of the Rosicrucians at a later date, from a curious little tract relating to a French branch of the Society, which relates the Reception of Dr. Sigismund Bacstrom in the Mauritius–French colony–by the Comte de Chazal in 1794. I cannot say where the original MS. now is, but our copy was made by the secretary of the well-known Rosicrucian and crystal-gazer Frederick Hockley, who died in 1885. Bacstrom signed his pledge to fourteen promises;–to piety and sobriety, to keep the secrecy of his admission, to preserve the secret knowledge, to choose suitable successors, to carry on the great work, to give aid and charity privately, to share discoveries with his fellows, to avoid politics, to help strangers, and to show gratitude to those who had led to his reception, etc..

During a recent visit to East Africa I met in Natal a Mauritius born doctor whose wife was a Miss de Chazal, a native of Mauritius; among her ancestors about 1780-90 there was this M. de Chazal who was an eccentric genius and was considered to possess curious arts; he also became a notable Swedenborgian and held classes of mystical philosophy. The name is many times mentioned in a French history of Mauritius which was lent to me by Dr. Dumat of Durban. At the time of the French Revolution it would be natural for our count de Chazal to drop his title, as did many of the French nobility.

The aim of our own Society at the present day is to afford mutual aid and encouragement in working out the great problems of Life, and in discovering the Secrets of Nature; to facilitate the study of the system of Philosophy founded upon the Kabalah and the doctrines of Hermes Trismegistus, which was inculcated by the original Fratres Rosae Crucis of Germany, A.D. 1450; and to investigate the meaning and symbolism of all that now remains of the wisdom, art and literature of the Ancient World.

The Rosicrucian Societies of Anglia, Scotia and the United States, alike Masonic bodies, are by no means the only descendants of the original Collegium, for in Germany, and Austria there are other Rosicrucian Colleges of more direct descent than our own, which are not fettered by any of the limitations which Freemasonry has imposed upon us, and some of these, although not composed of many members, include students who understand many curious phenomena, which our Zelators have not studied. The German Rosicrucians keep their Colleges and membership entirely secret, they print no transactions nor even any notices, and it is almost impossible to identify any member.

The German groups of Rosicrucians now existing are much more immersed in mystic and occult lore than ourselves; they endeavour to extend the human faculties beyond the material toward the ethereal, astral and spiritual worlds: at the present time I understand that they use no formulated Ritual, but German Colleges have experienced a notable revival and the teachings of Rudolf Steiner are considered as giving an introduction of their system of occult Theosophy. Several of Steiner’s volumes are now available in English translations, such we his “Initiation and its Results,” “The Gates of Knowledge,” and “Way of Initiation.” They are well worthy of study.

The Societas Rosicruciana in Scotia, as well as the Societas Rosicruciana in the U.S.A. were branches from the same Rosicrucian source and sprang from a rejuvenation by Frater Robert Wentworth Little of that lapsed Rosicrucian College in England which is mentioned by Godfrey Higgins in his notable work “The Anacalypsis,” or “An attempt to withdraw the Veil of the Isis of Sais,” which was published in 1836; he remarks that he did not join the old College there referred to.

About fifty years earlier a certain eminent Jew named Falk, or Dr. Falcon, lived in London (a reference to whom will be found in the “Encyclopaedia of Freemasonry” by Kenneth Mackenzie) and was of high repute as a teacher of the kabalah and of other studies of a Rosicrucian character; he was indeed said to have magical powers. Falk could not have flatly affiliated to any Rosicrucian College because he was a strict Jew of the Jews, and the members of all true Rosicrucian Colleges have always been Christians, but perhaps not of an orthodox type, for there was a tendency in the teachings toward Gnostic ideals. Mackenzie classes Dr. Falk among the Rosicrucians of eminence, and certainly told me he had first hand evidence of his connection with the Society; many Christian students adopted a modification of the old Jewish kabalah, so perhaps some Jews have been allied to the Christian Rosicrucians.

Our own Magus Frater R. W. Little surrounded himself with several other notable Rosicrucian students, of whom I may mention the late Supreme Magus in Anglia, Dr. William Robert Woodman, a learned Kabalist and Hebrew scholar; W.J. Hughan, the great Masonic historian; William Carpenter, editor of Calmet’s “Dictionary of the Bible”; Alphonse Constant, better known as “Eliphaz Levi,” who gave Fratres Little and Kenneth Mackenzie much assistance, and was in return elected an honorary member of the Metropolitan College in 1873. Our Society unfortunately lost Frater Little at a very early age. Frater H. C. Levander, too, a Professor at University College, London, was a learned member; and took great interest in the mystic lore of the Society.

The late Lord Lytton, the author of “Zanoni” and “The Strange Story,” who was in 1871 Grand Patron of our Society, took very great interest in this form of Philosophy, although he never reached the highest degree of knowledge; for public reasons he once made a disavowal of his membership of the Rosicrucians, but he had been admitted as a Frater of the German Rosicrucian College at Frankfort on the Main; that College was closed after 1850.

Among the Fratres who have recently been ornaments to our Colleges, I may draw attention to the lately deceased and quaintly cultured John Yarker of Didsbury; to our late Adept of York, T. B. Whytehead, who was famous as an antiquarian: to Frater Fendelow of the Newcastle College, who was the author of a learned and suggestive Rosicrucian Lecture: to Frater F. F. Schnitger, who made deep researches into the French and German Rosicrucian Treatises: to Samuel Liddell Mathers, the translator of portions of the Hebrew “Zohar,” and to Frederick Holland, the author of “The Temple Rebuilt,” and “The Shekinah Revealed.” Another deceased Frater of eminence was Benjamin Cox of Weston-super-Mare, and with him I naturally couple the greater name of Frater Major F. G. Irwin, who, however has now also gone to a Temple far away.

Among the learned juniors of our Society, I may name Fratres Dr. Vaughan Bateson, Thomas Henry Pattinson, the Rev. C. E. Wright, Sir John A. Cockburn, W. J. Songhurst, Herbert Burrows, A. Cadbury Jones, W. Wonnacott, Dr. Wm. Hammond, Dr. B. J. Edwards, and Dr. W. C. Blaker.

Our Colleges need not languish for want of subjects of study; the narrative of the foundation of our Society is singularly suggestive of points for future investigation. The German “Fama Fraternitatis” of 1614, in an English translation by Thomas Vaughan of 1652, presents you with the History of Christian Rosenkreuz: its companion tract the “Confessio Fraternitatis” gives you a slight insight into the views of the Rosicrucians of a date a hundred years later. The “Chymische Hoctizeit” or “Chemical Wedding” by C.R., and the “Secret Symbols of the Rosicrucians’ by F. Hartman, are tractates of Rosicrucian Allegory which will well repay, not only perusal, but deep study; while the elucidation of the whole set of Medieval Divinatory Sciences, Astrology, Geomancy, etc, are suitable themes for lectures in your College. For such as can understand medieval Latin a most interesting work is the “Oedipus Aegyptiacus” of Athanasius Kircher. It is desirable that our students should make themselves acquainted with the Ancient Mysteries of Egypt, of Greece and of Rome. The basis of the Western occultism of medieval Europe is the Kabalah of the medieval Hebrew Rabbis, to which I have published “An Introduction.” This philosophy, although at first sight barbarous and crude, yet will be found, when one has grown familiar with the nomenclature, to be a concrete, coherent and far-reaching scheme of Theology, cosmology, ethics and metaphysics, serving to throw light on many obscure Biblical passages and to suggest original views of the meaning of most of the allegorical descriptions found in the Old Testament. A copy of a very curious old Kabalistic picture from a Syriac Gospel with a descriptive essay by Dr. Carnegie Dickson, a notable Scotch Rosicrucian Adept, has just been given to our Library.

The works of the great Rosicrucian Kabalist, Eliphaz Levi, are, to those who read French with ease, a mine of mystic lore, full of fine imagery, and replete with magical formulas. His “Histoire de la Magie” is a storehouse of information relating to the Secret Sciences and Secret Fraternities of all times and among many nations, while in English the two volumes of the new edition of Heckethorn’s “Secret Societies” should be read as an introduction to deeper personal research.

The work of Franz Hartmann, named “Magic, White and Black,” I can recommend to serious enquirers, for it elucidates the real aims of the Higher Magic, with which alone we are concerned, and it clears away many misconceptions which exist in the minds of the uninitiated.

To such as desire to follow more closely the Old Testament religious element, I should advise a perusal of the commentaries of Dr. Mien Barnes on “Daniel” and “The Book of Revelation,” and the symbolical descriptions of the book of Ezekiel. On the Christian aspect I recommend “The Perfect Way,” or “The Finding of Christ,” by the late Dr. A. Kingsford; in this volume will be found worked out the broader scheme of Christian teaching which is so apt to be obscured by sectarian forms of worship. The tenets of this work are closely approximate to those of the earliest of the followers of Christian Rosencreuz, whose name was probably a mystic title, motto or synonym, and not a family cognomen:- “Christian” referring to the general theological tendency, and “Rosenkreuz” to the Cross of Suffering whose explanation and key may need a Rose or secret explanation.

There is one doctrine for the learned, and a simpler formula for those who are unable to bear it yet, even as the new testament itself tells us, of the Great Master who taught his immediate disciples the true keys, but to others he spake only in parables,–”and without a parable spake he not unto them.”

Such, my Fratres, are suitable subjects for the attention of your members, but there are many allied topics which might form suitable centres of interest and instruction, for example the whole range of church architecture as crystalised symbolism, the dogmas of the Gnostics, the several systems of philosophy of the Hindoos, the parallelism between Rosicrucian doctrine and Eastern Theosophy, for which read Max Heindel’s “Rosicrucian Cosmo Conception,” and that enticing subject, the origin and meaning of the 22 Trumps or symbolic designs of the “Tarocchi” or pack of Tarot cards, which Eliphaz Levi says form a group of keys which will unlock every secret of Theology and Cosmology. For such as are interested in the Alchemy of the past I recommend a perusal of “A Suggestive Enquiry into the Hermetic Mystery” 1850, by an anonymous author, and E. A. Hitchcock’s “Remarks on Alchemy and the Alchemists,” 1857. And, lastly, we may make researches into that most interesting problem–Did Speculative Masonry arise from the Rosicrucians? I am to understand that the German Rosicrucians say that before the Masonic revival of 1717 these were identical in Europe.

Let us not forget; that not only as Rosicrucians, but even as Freemasons, we are pledged, not only to Brotherhood and Benevolence, but also to look below the surface of things, and to seek and to search out the hidden secrets of Nature and of Science. Let us be in mind that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but that deeper study reveals the roots of knowledge, as well as increases our store of information. Let us not, with folded arms, float with the tide of indolence, but ever strive after increase of that true knowledge which is wisdom and remember that “to labour is to pray,” or as the Latin motto has it, “Laborare est Orare,” for the day.

Tuesday, December 7, 2010

Member of Masons says he was wrongly expelled



CHARLESTON, WV -- An administrative law judge testified Monday in Kanawha Circuit Court that he was expelled from the West Virginia branch of the Masons after he tried make the organization more inclusive toward minorities and people with disabilities.

Frank Joseph Haas, of Wellsburg, said that he joined the Most Worshipful Grand Lodge of Ancient, Free and Accepted Masons of the State of West Virginia in 1986. He always wanted to be a Mason, he said, largely because his father, uncles and cousins were members.

One great-grandfather was a Mason in Scotland, he said.

"I always considered myself to be a part of a Masonic family," he said.

Haas worked his way up to become Grand Master of the Grand Lodge, the state's overseeing Masonic body, in October 2005. During his one-year term, he tried to modernize the policies and practices of the state's Masons, he said.

"I wanted to make freemasonry more open, more inclusive, more compassionate," he said.

Haas said he was compelled to take action after a black member of a group recognized and accepted by the Masons was denied entrance to a Masonic meeting in Moundsville.

A clarification of Mason policy -- that it was wrong to exclude an otherwise welcome visitor based on nationality, race or religion -- was part of his agenda that passed at the end of his tenure as Grand Master, he said.

A rule change allowing people with physical disabilities to join the Masons also produced some bitter resistance, he said.

In November 2006, shortly after he had replaced Haas as Grand Master, Charles F. Coleman II sent a letter to every Masonic lodge in the state, reminding them that each lodge's Master -- roughly analogous to a chapter president -- had the discretion to decide which visitors to allow at his particular lodge.

"The [Masters'] prerogatives are to be exhibited with great care," Coleman wrote, adding that each Master should be mindful of the "peace and harmony" within his lodge.

Haas sued the West Virginia Masons, Coleman and Coleman's successor, Charlie L. Montgomery, in 2008, after Montgomery issued an edict in November 2007 that expelled Haas from the Masons.

Montgomery and Coleman wrongly believed that Haas was involved with a website called Masonic Crusade, which was critical of Montgomery and Coleman for purportedly trying to undo Haas' progressive reforms, Bob Allen, Haas' lawyer, said during his opening statement.

At a meeting in Haas' home lodge in Wellsburg, Montgomery "dressed him down and called him a liar," humiliating Haas in front of his friends and his father, Allen said. It was "a total ambush," he said.

Contrary to the Masons' rules, Haas was not given an opportunity to refute the allegations, he said. In fact, a Mason named Greg Wentzel was responsible for the website, he said.

After his expulsion, Haas lived for a while in Steubenville, Ohio, which allowed him to join the Ohio Masons, he said. In response, the West Virginia Masons cut all relations with the Ohio branch, he said.

Jim Tinney, representing the Masons and the two past Grand Masters, countered that Haas had lied when questioned about his knowledge and involvement with the website. The defendants could not defame Haas by accurately describing him as a liar, he said.

Moreover, as a private organization, the Masons are allowed to manage their own affairs, including who should be admitted or expelled, he said.

The trial continues Tuesday before Kanawha Circuit Judge Carrie Webster.


http://sundaygazettemail.com/News/201012060885





GOUSA - First Female Freemason

On November 30, 2010 the Grand Orient of the United States of America proudly initiated its first female member and affiliated its first female Master Mason. The Council of the Order then appointed the newly affiliated Sister to the position of Grand Master of the North-Eastern Orient.

In attendence at the historic event were brothers and sisters from the Grand Orient of France, George Washington Union of Freemasons, Grand Lodge Hiram Abif, Le Droit Human, Women’s Grand Lodge of Belgium, Grand Lodge of Maryland, and the Grand Lodge of West Virginia.

Embracing the principle of gender equality, the Grand Orient USA has recognized since its inception both Mixed-Gender Free-Masonry (men and women) and Female Free-Masonry (all women). It is true that the 1723 Book of Constitutions of the Free-Masons excluded the entrance of women, but this was within the social milieu and clubbing practices of London common in 1723. That having been said, the best of recent academic scholarship has shown that in a number of situations, and at a variety of places, women have historically constituted a presence in Free-Masonry.In the eighteenth century, women in Free-Masonry in France were largely confined to a so-called “adoptive” Masonry—Les loges d’Adoption. The adoptive Lodges developed steadily throughout the eighteenth, nineteenth and twentieth centuries. On October 21, 1945, as women and men returned from fighting in World War II, Anne-Marie Gentily, presiding over a meeting of assembled Lodges of Adoption in Paris, France, announced their reconstitution as l’Union Maçonnique Féminine. On September 22, 1952, l’Union Maçonnique Féminine became the Grande Loge Féminine de France. This is the oldest and largest all-female Masonic body in the world with its roots set deeply in the eighteenth century.

An additional important illustration is that on January 14, 1882, Maria Deraismes, a journalist advocate of women’s and children’s rights, was initiated in the Lodge Les Libres Penseurs, in Le Pecq, France. Eleven years later, she, along with Georges Martin, and others, created the Grande Loge Symbolique Ecossaise de France, Le Droit Humain, the forerunner of the international Masonic body for men and women called Le Droit Humain.

In the 21st century, women are more and more enjoying the same rights and duties as men; they pursue successful professional careers, and some of them are political figures, ministers in governments, or heads of state. Therefore, we believe that men and women are complementary, in Free-Masonry as well as in everyday life, and that the inclusion of women can only be a benefit to all.

In the totality of the global community of Free-Masonry, the Craft can no longer ignore half of the population in the world. To sincerely claim that universal Freemasonry promotes the advancement of human kind, we can no longer afford to discriminate and exclude women from this noble pursuit without maintaining hypocrisy and a double standard. We have already removed the walls of discrimination against those who choose not to believe in God or gods; gender is the next logical extension of this philosophical position. The search for light can only be accomplished through Harmony and Diversity.

Therefore, the Grand Orient of the United States of America is pleased to announce that effective immediately it will begin chartering male, female and mixed-gender lodges. Existing male-only lodges may choose to become mixed or remain as male only. Women may also petition to form female lodges. Given our philosophical alignment and treaty of amity with the Grand Orient of France, this change is consistent with and in support of its recent decision to charter mixed-gender lodges in Europe.

These changes have been implemented to expand the spirit of friendship and solidarity among all Masons, and to promote the brotherhood and sisterhood of all human beings.

http://www.gomasons.org/first-female-freemason/


Monday, November 29, 2010

Cronology of Masonic History

Color code indicating geographical origin of event:

White – United Kingdom
Maroon – Continental Europe
Blue – United States

1621: An “acception” occurs into the London Company of Freemasons, where men were admitted into a body of the company (1), p. 90

1631: An “acception” occurs into the London Company of Freemasons (1), p. 90

1641: Sir Robert Moray (one of the founders of the Royal Society in London) is initiated at Mary’s Chapel Lodge of Edinburgh; claimed to be the first non-operative initiation (1), p. 127, (2), p. 12-13, (7), p. 210

1646: Elias Ashmole, while taken prisoner by the Roundheads in Lancahsire, is “made” a speculative Mason in a lodge at Warrington, in Lancashire, England (1), p. 97, 99, (7), p. 210, (8), p. 22

1665: Randle Holme likely “made” a Freemason at a lodge in Chester (1), p. 103

1676: Passage in the publication “Poor Robin’s Intelligence” suggests an association of the London Company of Masons with the notion of an “accepted” Mason (1), p. 104

1682: Ashmole witnessed 6 men received into Freemasonry, four of which were members of the London Company of Masons (operative) (1), p.100, (8), p. 22

1686: Dr. Robert Plot, a natural philosopher, in his “The Natural History of Staffordshire” writes that eminent men were Masons, that Freemasonry was spread throughout the nation, and that there was a large parchment volume containing the rules and history of the Craft; uses the term “Lodg” for a meeting of Freemasons, which consists of at least 5 or 6 members; states that candidates present themselves with gloves, that they have secret signs, and that a fellow of the society is called an accepted mason; does not state that Freemasonry was “nothing more than a Rosicrucian ‘stunt’” (1), p. 106, (8), p. 23, (8), p. 23

1691: John Aubrey records that Sir Christopher Wren and others were adopted as a brothers, as Brethren of the Fraternity of the Accepted Masons w (1), p. 111

1709: The Tatler makes a reference to ‘free-masons’ (1), p. 114

1710: The Tatler mentions “the certain Company called the Free Masons” (1), p. 114)

1717: The first Grand Lodge is founded in London, consisting of four lodges: one (No. 4) at the Rummer and Grapes, Westminster; one at the Goose and Gridiron, St. Paul’s Churchyard; one at the Apple Tree Tavern, Covent Garden; and one at the Crown Ale House, Drury Lane (1), p. 170-171 [taken from Anderson’s Constitutions and The Complete Freemason by an anonymous author], (5), p. 78

1723: The Constitutions by James Anderson published; the two-degree sysem speculated to have been practiced by the 1712 lodge is confirmed (1), p. 180, 234

1723: A Mason’s Examination printed in three issues of The Flying Posts or Postman (1), p. 194

1724: Old Lodge at York constituted as a Grand Lodge (1), p. 179

1725: Grand Lodge of Ireland established (1), p. 179, (5), p. 79

1725: An old Lodge in the City of York formed itself into “The Grand Lodge of ALL England” or “The Grand Lodge at York” (1) p. 213

1727: Oldest written reference to the third degree, in lodge minutes of the lodge at the Swan and Rummer in London; fully established in a number of lodges by 1730 (1), p. 243

1728: English Grand Lodge of France assembled, changed to the Grand Lodge of France in the 1750’s (4)

1730: Prichard publishes “Masonry Dissected” and a vital set of “vital” changes may have been made to Masonic ritual (1), p. 165

1730: Grand Lodge of 1717 (The Premier Grand Lodge) in an effort to prevent irregular Masons from entering its lodges, inverted the modes of recognition of its first and second degrees (1), p. 195

1730: Duke of Norfolk, then the Grand Master of the (1717) Grand Lodge of England (Moderns), deputizes Colonel Daniel Coxe of New Jersey, a member of the Lodge at the Devil Tavern within Temple Bar, London, to be "the Provincial Grand Master of the Provinces of New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania"; St. John's Lodge No. 1, at the Tun Tavern , is constituted, but not chartered (9) (11)

1732: Bro. Allen is elected Grand Master of Pennsylvania on St. John the Baptist's Day, as recorded in the Pennsylvania Gazette, June 19 - 26 of that same year. As Grand Master, Bro. Allen appointed William Pringle as Deputy Grand Master, and Thomas Boude and Benjamin Franklin as Wardens (9) (10)

1733: Part of the Grand Lodge of France broke away and created its own Masonic body, the Grand Orient of France; result of a dispute between Parisian and provincial lodges, and regarding the use of the Rite of Perfection by the Parisian lodge; this split mirrors the prior Modern/”Antient” split in England; The Grand Lodge of France was “Scottish” oriented, with the proliferation of higher degrees, and the Grand Orient of France choosing a “modern way” (4), (5), p. 23

1734: Ben Franklin is elected Grand Master of Pennsylvania (Modern Lodge) and publishes a reprint of Anderson’s “Constitutions” in America, the first Masonic book published in America (10)

1735: William Smith, a London publisher, produces the first Masonic “pocket companion” (2), p. 29

1745-1746: First concrete evidence of a mixed-gender lodge of adoption in Bordeaux (2), p. 93

1736: Grand Lodge of Scotland established (1), p. 179

1738: Second edition of the Constitutions published; names and dates added; “Entered Apprentice” and “Fellowcraft” terms borrowed from Scotish Masons ; three degree system is officially recognized (1), p. 180-182, 240

1738: Pope Clement XII issues a Bull denouncing Free-Masonry (1), p. 191; lodge membership is condemned and Freemasonry is charged with being a new form of religion (2), p. 18

1750: William Byron, 5th Baron Byron, Grand Master of the Moderns' Grand Lodge at London, deputized William Allen Provincial Grand Master for Pennsylvania, and he erected the first Provincial Grand Lodge in Pennsylvania (11)

1751: Pope Benedict XIV issues a Bull denouncing Free-Masonry (1), p. 191

1751: In The Hague, a lodge of men and women used French as its primary language and left a list of its officers in both the masculine and the feminine (2), p. 19; recorded as the earliest known women’s lodge in Europe (2), p. 93; the earliest extant ritual intended for women’s participation anywhere in Europe is that for the Loge de Juste in the Netherlands, and written in French

1751: Rival Grand Lodge of the “Antients” founded, believing that they practiced a more ancient and purer form of Masonry (emulating more operative rituals and principles); called the “The Most Ancient and Honorable Society of Free and Accepted Masons” (1), p. 193, 197

1756: First edition of Ahiman Rezon, by Laurence Dermott, published as Constitutions of the “Antient” Fraternity (1), p. 198-199

1756: Dutch Freemasons organize their national system of authority and governance, the Grand Lodge of the Netherlands (2), p. 21

1760: Grand Lodge of England changes its rules to require the Bible on lodge altars (until then Anderson's Constitutions was acceptable), and originally candidates were not asked to express a belief in God ("the laws and ritual of the original Grand Lodge in 1723 required no more of its initiates on the subject of religion than that they should be good men and true, men of honor and honesty, obeying the moral law") (3)

1763: Earliest written French ritual text for women is written by the Count de Clermont, Grand Master of French Freemasonry (2), p. 100-101

1771: Minutes of the Grand Lodge in The Hague record that “England promises not to grant constitutions anymore to lodges within this territory” and the London Grand Lodge declares the Dutch Grand Lodge “free and independent” (2), p. 65

1774: The Grand Lodge of Paris chooses to establish a national assembly, where representative from all over the country had one vote (2), p. 23

1774: The Grand Orient of Paris officially recognizes and votes female lodges as Masonic organizations (2), p. 97

1779: The “Grand Lodge of England, South of the River Trent” is formed led by William Preston, and authorized by the Grand Lodge at York (1), p. 213)

1779: Culmination of female Masonic ritual evolution with the publication of La vraie maconnerie d’adoption, by Louis Guillemain de Saint Victor, which became the most popular ritual (2), p. 108)

1785: Mark at which there were likely over 1500 women Freemasons in Europe (2), p. 24

1799: The Grand Lodge of France changed its name to the “Scottish Grand Lodge of France” and merges with the new formed “Supreme Council of France” in 1805 (4)

1809: Lodge of Promulgation founded by the Moderns with the purpose of communicating the ancient landmarks and instructing masons of Modern lodges in the alterations necessary (1), p. 219

1809 (April): The “Moderns” become convinced that a union with the “Antients” was essential and that they must take the first steps, leading to the passing of a resolution that “it is not necessary any longer to continue those measures which were resorted to, in or about the year 1739, respecting irregular Masons, and do therefore enjoin the several Lodges to revert to the Ancient Land Marks of the Society” (1), p. 218)

1811: The “Antients” pass a resolution that “a Masonic Union on principles equal and honourable to both Grand Lodges, and preserving inviolate the Land Marks of the Ancient Crafts, would, in the opinion of this Grand Lodge, be expedient and advantageous to both” (1), p218-219

1813: The “Modern” Premier Grand Lodge of “Moderns” the Grand Lodge of “Antients” unite into the United Grand Lodge of England (1), p. 221

1821: The Central Grand Lodge is created by the Supreme Council of France to manage the 3 first degrees of the AASR. The Supreme Council of France keeps its management for the 4th to the 33rd degrees.

1848: The new ideas of Secularism, Liberty and Hope begin to depict the voice of the French people and many Freemasons accept these new ideas. The Grand Orient of France begins to consider revision of its Constitution. The idea of secularism and free-thinking was slowly growing in the lodges of the Grand Orient of France until 1877 (4).

1849: France (GOdF) followed the English (UGLE) lead by adopting the "Supreme Being" requirement, but pressure from Latin countries produced by 1875, the alternative phrase "Creative Principle".

1868: Grand lodges in the U.S. begin to withdraw their recognition of the Grand Orient of France (GOdF) when the GOdF recognized a Masonic group called the "Supreme Council of the A. and A.S. Rite of the State of Louisiana," which was not recognized by the Grand Lodge of Louisiana. As printed in the Louisiana Proceedings, “one of the reasons the GOdF recognized this ‘Supreme Council of … Louisiana’ is because that group allowed the initiation of men ‘without regard to nationality, race, or color.’ The GOdF report mentioned "civil and political equality … between the white and colored races," opposition to slavery, and the necessity of its abolition” (3) (5), p. 23

1869: GOdF passed a resolution that neither color, race, nor religion should disqualify a man for initiation (3)

1873: “To avoid the Central Grand Lodge being hit by the Secularism movement, the Supreme Council of France imposes that all documents should begin with ‘To The Glory of The Grand Architect Of The Universe, under the name and the auspices of the Supreme Council of France, Liberty, Equality, Fraternity’” (4)

1875: The Supreme Council of France and the Central Grand Lodge adopt the definition of the Lausanne Communication about the Grand Architect of the Universe which says “The Grand Architect of the Universe is the Principle Creator of the Universe” (4)

1877: GOdF, at its general assembly, proclaims absolute liberty of conscience as a right belonging to every man, and out of respect for this liberty they expunge from their Constitution a dogmatic formula, which seemed to a great majority of the members to be in contradiction with liberty of conscience. (3)

1877: The Grand Orient of France suppresses the invocation “To the Glory of the Grand Architect of the Universe” in its rituals. The United Grand Lodge of England breaks its relationship with the GOdF because of “irregularity” (4)

1877: The United Grand Lodge of England decided to break its relationship with it because of “irregularity” (4)

1879: Following differences among members of the Supreme Council of France, twelve lodges withdrew from the Grand Orient de France and founded the Grande Loge Symbolique de France. One of these Lodges, Les Libres Penseurs (The Free Thinkers) in Pecq, reserved in its charter the right to initiate women as Freemasons, proclaiming the essential equality of man and woman (12)

1882: The Lodge Les Libres-Penseurs in Le Pecq, France, initiated Maria Deraismes, a well-known feminist writer and activist. This was against the rules of the Grand Orient, who closed the Lodge(12).

1893: Maria Deraismes and Dr. Georges Martin, created the Droit Humain (the first Grand Lodge of Co-Masonry) in Paris, a Masonic organization open to both men and women, which eventually spread to all continents, including in the United States where it is known as Co-Masonry (first form of non-adoptive co-gender Masonry, and has members in 60 countries world wide) (12)

1894: The Central Grand Lodge becomes fully independent of the Supreme Council of France and changes its name to “The Grand Lodge of France,” an independent Masonic body, managing the AASR blue lodges, continuing the Regular French Masonry (4)

1902: The Order of Universal Co-Freemasonry in Great Britain and the British Dependencies was founded by Annie Besant and officers of the Supreme Council of the French Maçonnerie Mixte (known today as The International Order of Co-Freemasonry, Le Droit Humain (12)

1903: The first Co-Masonic Lodge in the USA was instituted under Le Droit Humaine by the French professor Muzzarelli in New York. He founded the first Alpha Lodge in Charleroi, Pennsylvania and more than 50 others within four years before leaving the United States of America in 1908 (12)

1911: creation of the first Belgian Lodge of the Droit Humain, in Brussels (12)

1918: Grand Lodge of Louisiana enthusiastically recognizes the Grand Lodge of France and re-recognizes the GOdF, leading several other U.S. Grand Lodges to do the same (3)

1945: Anne-Marie Gentily, presiding over a meeting of assembled Lodges of Adoption in Paris, France, founded the Union Maçonnique Féminine de France (The Women's Masonic Union of France) (12)

1955: The Grand Lodge of France adopts of declaration of principles, centered maintaining the glory of the Grand Architect of the Universe, the requirement of Masons taking their obligation on the compass, square, and Volume of the Sacred Law (Bible), forbidding discussion of religion and politics, and maintaining the Old Charges (4)

1955: Pierre de Ribaucourt, Edouard de Ribaucourt’s son, 30 Grand Officers of the GLNF and the lodges “Les Philadelphes” and the famous “Le Centre des Amis”, create a new Grand Lodge : The “French National Grand Lodge – Opera”, changed to “Traditional And Symbolical Grand Lodge” (GLTS or GLTSO). In 1982 (4)

1976: George Washington Lodge N° 1 was granted Masonic Charter by the "Conseil de l'Ordre", and the G.M. of the "GRAND ORIENT DE FRANCE (13)

1977: A Covenant was signed between the G.O.D.F and G.W.L. N° 1, A.L .in the Or .of New York to establish relations of fraternal friendship. George Washington Lodge N° 1 requested and was granted full membership to the International Masonic organization known as C.L.I.P.S.A.S. which stands for " Centre de Liaison et d'Information des Puissances Signataires de l'Appel de Strasbourg“. C.L.I.P.S.A.S is a federation of autonomous Masonic powers covering several continents (13)

1994: The Supreme Council of American Co-Masonry, The American Federation of Human Rights, was reformed by members of the Grand Inspector General of the Thirty-third Degree. Also known as, this now-independent obedience, which has its headquarters in Larkspur, Colorado, has since become American Co-Masonry, the largest Co-Masonic organization in the United States (12)

2001: Le Droit Humaine formally expelled four senior members of the British Federation over several disagreements. Following these expulsions, approx. 70 members resigned. The defecting lodges reformed as the American Federation of Human Rights, the Honorable Order of American Co-Masonry, the Eastern Order of International Co-Freemasonry, and a number of smaller orders (12)

2005: Several lodges declared their independence from the Anglo-American Masonic system and formed a confederation of sovereign lodges under the banner of "United Grand Lodge of America" (6)

2007: Several more U.S. lodges declared their independence from the Anglo-American Masonic system and the Council of the Order was convened to formalize our relationship with our brethren in France and throughout Europe. The Council voted unanimously to change the name of the United Grand Lodge of America to the Grand Orient of the United States of America to better, and more precisely, identify it with the existing currents of 'Modern' Free-Masonry throughout the world (6)

2008: The Grand Orients of France and the Grand Orient of the United States signed a Treaty of Amity fully recognizing one another as sovereign Masonic powers (6)

(1) Jones, Bernard E. Freemasons’ Guide and Compendium, Cumberland House, 1950

(2) Jacob, Margaret. The Origins of Freemasonry: Facts and Fictions, Penn, 2006

(3) Bessel, Paul. “U.S. Recognition of French Grand Lodges in the 1900s”, Heredom: The Transactions of the Scottish Rite Research Society -- volume 5, 1996, pages 221-244]

(4) Jaunaux, Bro. Laurent. “Concise History of the French Regular Freemasonry”, Regular Grand Lodge of Belgium. Website: http://www.masonicnetwork.org/blog/2009/concise-history-of-the-french-regular-freemasonry/

(5) Dedopulos, Tim. The Brotherhood: Inside the Secrets of Freemasons. Carlton, 2006

(6) Grand Orient of the United States. Website. www.gomasons.org

(7) Yates, Frances A. The Rosicrucian Enlightenment. Routledge, 1972

(8) Ridley, Jasper. The Freemasons: A History of the World’s Most Powerful Secret Soceity. Arcade, 1999.

(9) The Pennsylvania Freemason. Website: http://www.pagrandlodge.org/freemason/0106/page12-13.html

(10) Sachse, Julius F. “The Masonic Chronology of Benjamin Franklin”, The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, Vol. 30, No. 2 (1906), pp. 238-240 Online: http://www.jstor.org/pss/20085334

(11)Coil, Henry W. (1961). Article "America, Introduction of Freemasonry into," pp. 30-31. Coil's Masonic Encyclopedia (rev. ed. 1996). Richmond, Va: Macoy Publ. Co.

(12) Wikipedia, “Co-Freemasonry” website. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co-Freemasonry

(13) George Washington Union. Website. http://www.georgewashingtonunion.org


(THIS IS A WORK IN PROGRESS)
Compiled by Bro. Kris Hartung
Praxis Lodge, Boise Idaho

Grand Orient of the United States
www.praxislodge.org