Wow, I start blogging and folks chime in for coverage of their favorite Masonic event, which is quite a compliment. Thank you.
Those who’ve asked whether I’ll cover or attend a certain U.S.-based research society’s conference in September have been quite taken aback by my uncharacteristically icy response.
I don’t do icy often or especially well. On this occasion, it’s deserved. I have never, ever – for almost a decade – appreciated the need to push a “separate but equal” idea behind full membership requirements of that society. I find it especially and unnecessarily ugly because it’s done by a society that supposedly has a high regard for Masonic scholarship.
Yes, I am aware the conference is in the U.S. and it plans to feature “nationally renowned Masonic speakers, panel discussions on Freemasonry, formal festive board, and tours of the Kentucky Horse Park and Henry Clay’s Ashland estate.” Yes, presentation topics are expected to include “American Freemasons: Three Centuries of Building Communities,” “Admit Him if Properly Clothed: Three Centuries of American Masonic Regalia,” and “Data Driven Masonry.” Yes, there’s even a plan for a drawing for a Kentucky long rifle.
I’ve heard from one Co-Mason who lives in that region and received an email invite from the society to attend the conference. That raised a brow for me. Really? That’s a thing?
That prompted me to revisit the membership page of The Masonic Society, and I see that full membership requirements have not changed.
To be a full member of the Masonic Society, you must be a Master Mason and member of a lodge in good standing chartered by “a recognized Grand Lodge.” By recognized, The Masonic Society is referring mostly to male-only orders, so that your lodge is “recognized” just fine might not apply here. This means that your Grand Lodge must be either a member of the Conference of Grand Masters of Masons in North America (CGMMNA) or recognized by at least three CGMMNA member grand lodges.
That’s not the part that bothers me. If the society wants to have its own little club and restrict membership, I have no issues with that point. Freemasonry itself, after all, is exclusive.
What troubles me is this bit: “All others, including but not limited to Libraries, Masonic Lodges, Lodges of Research, other institutions, and those individuals who do not otherwise qualify for full membership may purchase a subscription to the Journal.”
So, my money is good enough for The Masonic Society, but I’m not. Well, huh.
Why bring it up? I can subscribe to any number of publications in the world put out by male-only bodies that don’t consider me “regular” but see no need to point it out when I subscribe. The Masonic Society supposedly is a research body that is independent, not beholden to any grand lodge or Masonic supreme body, so specifically telling me a subscription is all I may have is a bit glaring. It speaks volumes that the society feels the need to pointedly state that.
It’s my understanding that fees collected by The Masonic Society, including subscriptions, pay for printing its regularly published magazine and to fund its annual meetings, such as September’s conference. I hear the society produces a lot of fine research.
Its beginnings were difficult. The Masonic Society’s birth in March of 2008 was accompanied by far more heat than light. It was born out of a “failed coup” by disaffected Brothers of the Philalethes Society, which regularly publishes its “Journal of Masonic Research & Letters” and celebrated its own Assembly and Feast in Bloomington, Minnesota earlier this month. The Philalethes Society was shaken for quite a while but, to my observation, has since managed to steady itself.
I was around for a lot of the discussion at the time, and it was not pleasant. Amid all that heat, the newly incorporated society’s, membership requirements came up hardly at all. In fact, to my knowledge, I was the only one who mentioned it.
I belong to other research bodies and I’m kept plenty busy. I’m also friends with a number of Brothers in The Masonic Society. I’m not doubting they do good work, at least within their narrow sphere. I just don’t go there. As a Co-Mason, I don’t go where I’m not wanted or respected.
That’s me, my personal take and what I think about it. I’m not at all suggesting that no one attend the conference or that anyone else be offended as I am.
I am suggesting that any Co-Mason or any other “unrecognized” Brother who attends this conference or has anything to do with the society be aware that she or he may be considered or treated as second-class.
I do not intend to ever again blog about The Masonic Society so long as this bit remains as it is. I’m thinking they won’t miss me. And since there is no such thing as bad press, this coverage of the conference should be plenty.