The Builder Magazine

February 1921 - Volume VII - Number 2

 

MEMORIALS TO GREAT MEN WHO WERE MASONS

GENERAL LEWIS CASS

BY BRO. GEO. W. BAIRD, P.G.M., DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

LEWIS CASS, the first Grand Master of Masons in Michigan, was born in New Hampshire in 1782 and died in Detroit in 1866. He was the son of a General Officer in the Revolutionary Army. Early in life he took up the duties of a schoolmaster - fortunately for him, for if there is anything which gives to a man an understanding of a subject, it is the attempt to teach it. The family moved to Ohio, where Lewis studied law, and in 1802 was admitted to the bar. He married in 1806 and soon thereafter was elected to the legislature. He drew up the address to Jefferson, embodying the views of the legislature on Aaron Burr's expedition, and drafted the law under which Rurr's boats and provisions, built and collected in Ohio, were seized.

 

In the War of 1812 Cass was a Colonel in the Ohio Volunteers under General Hull. He was promoted to be a Brigadier General, and at the end of the War was appointed Governor of what is now the State of Michigan, and in that capacity was Superintendent of Indian Affairs. During his term of eighteen years in this office he negotiated twenty-two treaties, securing, by concession of the Indian tribes, immense tracts of land in the Northwest; instituted surveys, constructed roads, built forts and organized counties and townships.

 

In the year 1815 he purchased, for $12,000, a homestead tract of five hundred acres in Detroit, which the subsequent growth of the city made valuable. He explored the upper lakes and the headwaters of the Mississippi, the report of his explorations having been published in the North American Review for 1828-9.

 

Cass was Secretary of War under President Jackson in 1831, and was Minister to France in 1836.

 

The most remarkable incident of his diplomatic career was his attack on the quintuple treaty for the suppression of the slave trade, which led to his resignation, in 1842.

 

He was elected United States Senator in 1845, an in 1846 was Democratic nominee for President. He was reelected to the Senate in 1849, the year of the “gold fever” in California. Though instructed by the legislature of Michigan to vote for the “Wilmot proviso” he vigorously opposed it, which shows his independence and fealty to the commonwealth in lieu of his State. In 1850 he was made a member of Clay's compromise treaty, but did not vote for the fugitive slave bill. At the Baltimore Convention in 1852 he was a candidate for the Presidential nomination, but was not successful in securing the nomination.

 

In 1854 he voted for the Douglas Kansas-Nebraska bill proposing the repeal of the Missouri compromise, but which included a provision embodying Cass's suggestion in the famous Nicholson letter to leave to the inhabitants of the territories the power to regulate their own institutions, subject only to the constitution. Subsequently he declined to obey the wish of the State legislature as to his vote on the Kansas question.

 

Cass was Secretary of State in Buchanan's administration, during the most trying period of the Nation.

 

Men thought that their first fealty was to their State, this sentiment having come down from the time of the Colonies; the National constitution was silent on the privilege of a State's secession. Cass was a democrat, in the dictionary sense of the word: his fealty was to the commonwealth, while most of the other of the cabinet officers, particularly Mr. Davis and Mr. Cobb, thought differently. The writer was living in Washington at the time and, while under age, was cognizant of much that transpired in the executive departments. The President believed the war was a flurry, or a bluff, and even after Fort Sumter was fired upon we all thought the war would not last three months. Mr. Cass had urged upon the President to reinforce Fort Sumter, but the latter could not conceive of the gravity of the situation. He was naturally fond of Mr. Davis, the Secretary of War, over whose desk such an order must pass, and in the President's hesitancy Mr. Cass resigned. It was a pity. It was lack of vision on the part of the President. He may have been misled by the unconcealed apathy of his secession surroundings in breaking with the government, but he lacked experience.

 

When fighting begins personal friendships and old associations are forgotten. The writer heard Mr. Capers (in Charleston) tell of that first shot. It was aimed at the Star of the West, as she entered the Harbor of Charleston to reinforce Sumter. Capers, who was a member of Colonel Stevens' battery, says that Stevens, apparently choking with emotion, looking upon the old flag at the peak of the Star of the West said: “Boys, it almost breaks my heart, but, Number One, fire!” and that was the first shot of the war. Then Senator Wigfall, of Texas, (who had never hear the screech of an angry shot), said, on the floor of the Senate, “You sent the Star of the West into Charleston Harbor; we fired on her, and you dare not resent it !”

 

The beautiful memorial to General Cass, shown in the frontispiece, is an enduring tribute to one of the bravest, wisest, far-seeing men the Nation ever produced. The monument is the pride of Detroit.

 

WOMAN AND FREEMASONRY

 

THE BUILDER FEBRUARY 1921

 

Wise men tell us that there never has been a woman Freemason.  Perhaps that is true.  This question has been called to the attention of the able scholar and devoted Mason who contributes this series of articles.  Can Freemasonry enlarge its borders to include women or must they forever remain outside the pale? If they are to be made Masons in literal truth in what way can we reorganize the ritual so as to eliminate certain features which might prove embarrassing to them? If they cannot be admitted into full membership in what way can the spirit and teachings of this ancient Fraternity be made available to them? Since Freemasonry began to be this has been a moot question; it is still.  It will be for years to come.  It is a theme of perennial interest.  For this reason we are very glad indeed to give to our readers the reasoned and mature judgments of a scholar who has every right to speak on this interesting question.

 

WOMEN FREEMASONS

 

ALTHOUGH the Antient Charges forbid the admission or initiation of women into the Order of Free and Accepted Masons, there are known instances where as the result of accident or sometimes design the rule has been broken and women have been duly initiated.  The most prominent instance is that of the Hon. Elizabeth St. Leger, or, as she afterwards became, on marriage, the Hon. Mrs. Aldworth, who is referred to sometimes, though erroneously, as the “only woman who over obtained the honour of initiation into the sublime mysteries of Freemasonry.”

 

The Hon. Elizabeth St. Leger was a daughter of the first Viscount Doneraile, a resident of Cork.  Her father was a very zealous Freemason and, as was the custom in his time - the early part of the eighteenth century - held an occasional lodge in his own house, when he was assisted by members of his own family and any brethren in the immediate neighbourhood and visitors to Doneraile House.  This lodge was duly warranted and held the number 150 on the Register of the Grand Lodge of Ireland.

 

The story runs that one evening previous to the initiation of a gentleman named Coppinger, Miss St. Leger hid herself in the room adjoining the one used as a lodgeroom.  This room was at that time undergoing some alterations and Miss St. Leger is said to have removed a brick from the partition with her scissors and through the aperture thus created witnessed the ceremony of initiation.  What she saw appears to have disturbed her so thoroughly that she at once determined upon making her escape, but failed to elude the vigilance of the tyler, who, armed with a sword stood barring her exit.  Her shrieks alarmed the members of the lodge, who came rushing to the spot, when they learned that she had witnessed the whole of the ceremony which had just been enacted.  After a considerable discussion and yielding to the entreaties of her brother it was decided to admit her into the Order and she was duly initiated, and, in course of time, became the Master of the lodge.  According to Milliken, the Irish Masonic historian, she was initiated in Lodge No. 95, which still meets at Cork, but there is no record extant of her reception into the Order. It is, however, on record that she was a subscriber to the Irish Book of Constitutions, which appeared in 1744 and that she frequently attended, wearing her Masonic regalia, entertainments that were given under Masonic auspices for the benefit of the poor and distressed.  She afterwards married Mr. Richard Aldworth of Newmarket and when she died she was accorded the honour of a Masonic burial.  She was cousin to General Antony St. Leger, of Park Hill, near Doncaster, who, in 1776, instituted the celebrated Doncaster St. Leger races and stakes.

 

Helene, Countess Hadik Barkoczy, who was born in 1833, was the sole heiress of Count Johann Barkoczy, and being the last of her race was permitted by the Hungarian Courts to take the place of a son.  She succeeded her father on his death in 1871, in the extensive Majorat of Barkoczy.  In 1860 she married Count Bela Hadik, aide-de-camp to the unfortunate Emperor Maximillian of Mexico. With her inheritance she came into the possession of an extensive Masonic library.  She was a highly educated lady, and made the Masonic literature her earnest study; and having mastered the statements concerning almost every degree in Freemasonry, an ardent admiration for the Masonic idea was aroused in her. She was well acquainted with some Freemasons, through whom she endeavoured to gain admittance into the Craft.  Her desire was granted and in 1875, she was duly initiated in the Lodge Egyenloseg, in Unghvar, holding a warrant from the Orient of Hungary.  On hearing of this glaring on of the statutes the Grand Orient of Hungary instituted proceedings against the brethren who had been guilty of this “breach of the Masonic vow, unjustifiedly conferring Masonic Degrees, doing that which degrades a Freemason and Freemasonry, and for knowingly violating the statutes.” The judgment of the Council was given at their meeting on January 5th, 1876, when all the accused were found guilty. The Deputy Master of the lodge was condemned to the loss of all his Masonic rights and expulsion from the Order forever; the officers to have their names struck off the lists and the other members of the lodge to be suspended for a space of three, six, or twelve months.  But still the question remained as to whether the duly initiated Countess could and ought to be looked upon as a regular Freemason and whether she could claim all the rights of a member of the Fraternity.  On this point the Grand Orient of Hungary decided in their meeting held on 10th March, 1876, as follows:

 

1. The Grand Orient declares the admission of the Countess Hadik Barkoczy to be contrary to the laws, and therefore null and void, forbids her admittance into any lodge of their jurisdiction, under penalty of erasion of the lodge from the rolls, and requests all Grand Lodges to do the same.

 

 2. The Countess is requested to return the invalid certificate which she holds within ten days, in default of which measures will be taken to confiscate immediately the certificate whenever produced at any of the lodges.

 

Mrs. Beaton, a Norfolk lady, it is said, contrived to conceal herself behind the wainscotting in a lodgeroom, where she learned the secret of the First degree, before she was discovered, upon which she herself was initiated. There is, however, no official record of this incident, which rests largely upon tradition.

 

Madame de Xaintrailles, the wife of General de Xaintrailles, was a member of an Adoptive lodge, and it is said that she was afterwards initiated into Craft Masonry.  This event is said to have occurred at the close of the eighteenth century, but this also rests largely upon tradition.

 

The story of Madame de Xaintrailles is told by Clavel in his Histoire Pittoresque de la Franc-Maconnerie but neither date nor place is mentioned:

 

“Although the rule which forbids women admission to lodges is absolute, yet it has once been infringed under very remarkable circumstances.  The Lodge of Les Freres Artistes, presided over by Bro. Covelier de Trie was giving a Fete of Adoption. Before the introduction of the ladies the brethren had begun their ordinary work.  Among the visitors who were waiting in the ante-chamber was a young officer in the uniform of a major of cavalry.  He was asked for his certificate.  After hesitating a few moments he handed a folded paper to the Expert-Senior Deacon, who, without opening it, proceeded to take it to the Orator.  This paper was an aide-de-camp's commission issued to Madame de Xaintrailles, wife of the General of that name, who, like the Demoiselles de Fernig and other Republican heroines, had distinguished herself in the wars of the revolution and had won her rank at the point of the sword.  When the Orator read to the lodge the contents of this Commission the astonishment was general.  They grew excited and it was spontaneously decided that the First degree, not of Adoptive Masonry, but of real Freemasonry, should be conferred there and then on the lady who so many times had displayed all the virtues of a man and had deserved to be charged with important missions which required as much courage as discretion and prudence. They at once proceeded to acquaint Madame de Xaintrailles with the decision of the lodge and to ask her if she would accept the hitherto unprecedented favour.  Her reply was in the affirmative.  'I am a man for my country,' she said, 'I will be a man for my brethren.' The reception took place and from that time Madame de Xaintrailles often assisted in the work of the Lodge.”

 

The Palladian Lodge, No. 120 on the Roll of the English Constitution of Free and Accepted Masons, is said once to have numbered a lady among its members.  It is a tradition of the lodge that, in 1770, Mrs. Havard was proposed as an honourary member and was initiated therein, in order that she might have the necessary qualification.  There is, however, no record of such initiation.  The Palladian Lodge, it may be stated, was warranted in 1762 and celebrated the centenary of its existence in 1862.

 

The most modern instance of a woman claiming to be a member of a recognized Masonic lodge is that of Mrs. Catherine Babington, whose Biography was published by her son, J. P. Babington, himself a member of Lee Lodge, No. 253, Taylorsville, N. C., U.S.A., the third edition of which was issued in 1912.  Mrs. Babington was the only daughter of Charles and Margaret Sweet, and was born at Princess Furnace, Kentucky, on 28th December, 1815. Near her grandfather's house the Freemasons are said to  have met in the upper story of a building in a room designed for a church, in the corner of which an old-fashioned pulpit had been erected and under which it is said she concealed herself from time to time during a period of a year and a half, and where she frequently saw and heard the various Masonic degrees conferred. Finally, the story goes on, one of her uncles, named Ulen, who had left his rifle in the ante-room, went back to get it, and saw Kate emerging from her place of concealment.  When they got home he and his brothers summoned her before them to find out what she had learned about Freemasonry.  Having ascertained the extent of her information the question arose as to what was to be done. And the story runs: “Accordingly a suitable uniform of red flannel was made and she was taken to the lodge where she was obligated as a regular Mason, but not admitted to membership.” The day she took the obligations was the first and last time she was ever inside a Masonic lodge (where she could be seen) while it was at work.  She knew Masonry and kept herself posted up until a short time before her death; but never attempted to visit a lodge.  On one occasion, it is related, while they were considering her case in the lodge, she was met on the outside by a party of masked men who demanded that she tell them what she knew about Masonry; and relating the incident to her uncle, she is reported to have said: “They might kill me, but they could never make me tell anything about Masonry.” Many incidents are told of her use of Masonic signs and words in her travels through Ohio, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Virginia, Maryland, Tennessee, and other States; but most of them are seemingly improbable, if not impossible.  Mrs. Babington died in Shelby, N.C., where she was buried, and the “Shelby Aurora,” which was owned and edited by a member of the Craft, describing the funeral, stated: “At her death she was the only female Mason in the United States and was well versed in the workings of the lodge.”

 

The following curious advertisement appeared in the “Newcastle Weekly Chronicle” of January 6th, 1770:

 

“This is to acquaint the public that on Monday, 1st inst. being the lodge or monthly meeting-night of the Free and Accepted Masons of the 22nd Regiment, held at the Crown, near Newgate, Mrs. Bell, the landlady of the house, broke open a door with a poker, by which means she got into an adjacent room, made two holes through the wall, and by that stratagem discovered the secrets of Masonry, and knowing herself to be the first woman in the world that ever found out the secret, is willing to make it known to all her sex.  So that any lady that is desirous of learning the secrets of Freemasonry, by applying to that well-learned woman (Mrs. Bell) who has lived fifteen years in and about Newgate, may be instructed in all secrets of Masonry.”

 

In the “Edinburgh Courant” of 2nd December, 1772, there appeared the following paragraph:

 

“A few nights ago a regular Lodge of Freemasons was held at the Star in Watergate Street, in the city of Chester, when a woman who lodged in the house, concealed herself in a press in the lodge room in order to satisfy a painful curiosity she had a long time imbibed of discovering the reason of their secret meetings; but the ever wary and careful fraternity, making a timely and secret discovery of the place of her concealment, assembled themselves within her hearing, and after repeating the punishment which they always inflict on every person whom they detect prying into their secrets, opened the press and took her out, almost dead with apprehension of what she was to suffer, which had such an effect on the humanity of the brethren then present, that they unanimously agreed to dismiss her, without doing her any other injury than that of a severe reprimand for her folly.”  The Masonic lodge held at this particular house at this time was the principal lodge in the Chester Division of what are known as the Operative Freemasons. This body has certain officers known as “Searchers” and their duty is to search the lodgeroom, as well as all other rooms which are either under, over, or adjoining the lodgeroom, and the tradition is that the woman was discovered by the Searchers before the Operative lodge was opened.

 

Lady Morgan, in her Diary, published in 1859, claimed to have been initiated in a lodge in Paris.  Under date of January, 1819, she wrote:

 

“Well, here I am, a Free and Accepted Mason, according to the old Irish Masonic song.  When we drove to the solitudes of the Rue Vaugirard, Faubourg St. Germaine, we found the court of the Hotel la Vilette and all the premises full of carriages: Belle et Bonne magnificently dressed in white satin and diamonds, with Voltaire's picture round her neck, set in brilliants, received us in the salon with a sort of solemn grace, very unlike her usual joyous address.  Madame la Generale Foy, the wife of the popular militaire, stood beside her; his Royal Highness Prince Paul of Wurtemberg, the Bishop of Jerusalem, Talma, Count de la Rochefoucault, in full dress, looking very like his illustrious ancestor of Les Maximes; Denon, the Count de Cazes, pair de France (brother to the premier, the Duc de Cazes), General Favier, and many others whom we knew, were assembled, and muttered their conversation in little groups.  At half past eight they all proceeded to hold the Chapter for the installation of the Dames Ecossaises du Temple, according to the programme, we, les dames postulantes, remaining behind till we were called for.  I really began to feel some trepidation, and the stories that I had heard from my childhood upwards, of the horrors of the trial of a free Masonic probation, rose to my mind, red hot poker included.  At nine o'clock we were summoned to attend the 'Overture de la Cour des Grands Commandeurs.' When the battants were thrown open, a spectacle of great magnificence presented itself.  A profusion of crimson and gold, marble busts, a decorated throne and altar, a profusion of flowers, incense of the finest odour filling the air, and, in fact, a spectacle of the most scenic and dramatic effect ever presented itself.  Such of the forms as are permitted to reach the ears profane are detailed in the programme.  We took the vows, but as to the Secret, it shall never pass these lips, in holy silence sealed.”

 

It is clear that this was one of the many Adoptive lodges then in existence.

 

According to the records of the Lodge Sincerite held at Klattau, Bohemia, the charter of which was recalled in September, 1780, a women's lodge was formed as an auxiliary, the membership of which was confined to the wives of the members of the parent lodge.  An exception to this rule was made in favour of the Baroness Chanowsky de Langendorf, who is described as “the most honest. virtuos, and fairest lady.” This female lodge worked under the name “The Three Crowned Hearts”; but, with the exception of its by-laws, no records of any kind concerning the activity of the lodge have been left.  A Master Mason managed the lodge as its Master, the office of Treasurer being also occupied by a Master Mason, but, with these options, all the other officers were women.  The by-laws stipulated that the members should be “God-fearing, humble, discreet, modest, honest, of righteous heart, obliging as well as charitably inclined toward the poor.” The initiation could not take place when the candidate was in delicate health.  The petitions were passed upon by the Master as far as proposition fees were concerned in accordance with the petitioner's circumstances or means, while the amount of dues was fixed by the candidate herself.

 

The underlying purpose of the lodge was purely moral and virtuous.  Besides impressing upon its members the observation of secrecy, they were strictly admished to observe peace, harmony, union, and unblemished behaviour, with the exclusion of haughtiness and arrogance.  They were also strictly given in charge to utter words of slander or commit defamatory acts nor were they allowed in any circumstances to indulge in illicit love affairs.  The special task of strengthening the members in the observance of a virtuous life was in the hands of the Master and the Woman Orator.  The funds were used to assist a sick sister or brother in the event of misfortune or unemployment. The Constitution and By-laws of this lodge are in the archives of the National Museum in Prague, Bohemia.  The creation of the lodge contributed in no small degree to the difficulties which afterwards befell the parent Lodge Sincerite, the members of which, in the main, army officers belonging to the Dragoon Regiment Prince Coburg.

 

Mr. Charles Purton Cooper, F.R.S., a well-known Freemason of his day, addressed the following communication to the editor of The Freemasons Magazine, which appeared in that journal of April 4th, 1863:

 

“In the autumn of 1831, whilst on a visit of importance to the 'domaine' of La Favee, near the village of St. Eusebe des Pois, in Burgundy, then belonging to myself, but now belonging to my grandson, Arthur, Viscount Delagueriviere, I became acquainted with an octogenarian lady, the Countess de G----, owner of another 'domaine' in the neighbourhood.  The Countess, finding I was a Mason, spoke with singular delight of her 'reception au grade d'apprenti' in a Paris lodge about 1780 and regretted that a sudden and lasting change of residence - France to Italy - had prevented her proceeding to a higher degree.  Her early days had been spent with her mother and grandmother at Dijon, both of whom had been members of lodges there - one of the Loge La Concorde and the other of the Loge Les Arts Reunis.”

 

The MS. “Constitutions of the Freemasons,” bearing date 1693 have occasionally been quoted in support of the contention that at one time women were admitted into the Masonic guilds.  One of the clauses runs:

 

“The one of the elders taking the Booke, and that he or shee that is to bee made a MAson shall lay their hands thereon, and the charge shall be given.”

 

IN the same manuscript there is more than one reference to the “Dame” as well as the Master.

 

From the records of the Lodge of Operative Masons held at Mary's Chapel, Edinburgh, it is evident that the widows of Master Masons could, to a limited extent, occupy the position of “Dame” or “Mistress” in a Masonic sense,

 

“Adr., 17 of Apryle, 1683.  The whilk day, in presence of Thomas Hamiltone deakone and John Harvy warden, and remnant masters of the masone craft, in corroborations of the former practise quhich was of use and wont amongst them, it is statute and ordained that it shall be in tyme or in no wayes leithsome for a widow to undertake workes or to imploy jurneymen in any manner or way, but if such work as ancient customers of the deceased husbands or any other ouner who may out of kyndnesse offer the benefite of their work to the sd widoes be ofered unto them, than and that caice it shall be leithsome to them to have the benefite of the work, providing alwayes that they bespeake some freeman by whose advyse and concurrance the worke shall be undertaken and the jurneymen agreed with, quhich freeman is hereby charged to be altogether inhibited to participate of the benefite arriessing from the sd work, under the paine of douhling the soume reaped and arriessing to them by the sd work unjustly and to the prejudice of the sd widoues, and contrare to the intent of the masters mette for this tyme; and lykewise to underly the censure of the deakon and masters in all tyme coming, if they shall think it expedient to punish them for their malversatione and circumventione of the said widoues.  Written and subscribed by order and with consent of the deakon, warden, and masters by Ar.  Smith, Clerk.”

 

In this connection mention must be made of the famous Chevalier D'Eon.  Deon de Beaument was born at Tonnerre in Burgundy on 5th October, 1728, and, in 1755, received an appointment at the Court of Louis XV. After a successful career in the diplomatic world, in 1764, doubts began to be expressed very freely as to his sex.  So notorious did the matter become that between 1769 and 1777 a scheme of “Insurance on the sex of M. le Chevalier (or Mlle. la Chevaliere) D'Eon” resulted in policies to the amount of 120,000 pounds  being effected.

 

While the discussion was at its height, the Chevalier was initiated as a Freemason in La loge de l'Immortalite, a French lodge under the  English Constitution, bearing the number 376 on the roll of the Grand Lodge of England.  The lodge was formed in 1766 and its headquarters were at the Crown and Anchor in the Strand.  He proceeded to the Third degree in January, 1769, and in the same year was appointed Junior Warden of the lodge. Fearing that an attempt to kidnap him might be made by those who had effected policies on the issue he was sheltered by Earl Ferrers at Staunton Harold, near Ashby-de-la-Zouch.  Earl Ferrers in 1762 and 1763 held the position of Grand Master of England.

 

In 1777 an action was brought by a policy-holder against an insurance broker to recover the sum secured by the policy, when two witnesses swore in Court that, of their own personal knowledge, the Chevalier was a woman.  All doubt was, however, set at rest by D'Eon's own admission that “he” was a woman.  The King of France commanded that the Chevalier should “resume the garments of her sex” and the command was obeyed. To her credit, let it be said that she never again attempted to enter a Masonic lodge, but after her death, there was found the manuscript of an essay on “Freemasonry and Quakerism,” in which she said:

 

“What I say here about Masonry is not meant to win the Gold or Silver Medal, advertised in the London 'Courier Francais,' but only to win, in my heart, a prize graven on the Masonic Compass and Triangles, each point of which, like the Trinity, rests on Truth, Virtue, and Benevolence, Common foundations of Equality and Justice between brothers by birth and by Christianity, as between Brethren by Masonry, enlightened by the Sun of Truth, inasmuch as this is the Truth held by the primitive Christians of Jerusalem and Antioch.  But since the Greek, Latin, Gallican, and Anglican Churches have organised themselves into formidable bodies, they deride, individually and collectively, the sombre Society of good Quakers, who are good only at whining, snivelling, and having no power among them; while the Freemasons have established themselves in Worshipful Lodges, in order to laugh, drink, sing at their ease, and display benevolence towards their Brethren and Fellows dispersed over the Earth, without infringing the Laws of Moses or of the Covenant.  They spread sunshine, God's consolation, and true happiness in the heart of all human beings capable of appreciating simple Virtue.  The happiness of Mankind and the well-being of the Material World are to be found in Nature, Reason, Truth, Justice, and Simplicity, and not in huge bodies compiled by Philosophy and Divinity.”

 

The following advertisement appeared in the Publick Advertiser, of 7th March, 1759:

 

“FOR FEMALE SATISFACTION

 

“Whereas the mystery of Freemasonry has been kept a profound secret for several ages, till at length some men assembled themselves at the Dover Castle, in the Parish of Lambeth, under pretence of knowing the secret, and likewise in opposition to some gentlemen that are real Freemasons, and hold a Lodge at the same house; therefore to prove that they are no more than pretenders, and as the ladies have sometimes been desirous of gaining knowledge of the noble art, several regular made Masons (both ancient and modern) members of constituted Lodges in this metropolis have thought proper to unite in a select body at Beau Silvester's, the sign of the Angel, Bull Stairs, Southwark, and style themselves Unions, think it highly expedient, and in justice to the fair sex, to initiate them therein, provided they are women of undeniable character; for though no Lodge as yet (except the Free Union Masons) have thought proper to admit women into the fraternity, we, well knowing they have as much right to attain to the secrets as those Castle humbugs have thought proper so to do, not doubting but they will prove an honour to the Craft; and as we have had the honour to inculcate several worthy sisters therein, those that we desirous and think themselves capable of having the secret conferred on them, by proper application, will be admitted, and the charges will not exceed the expenses of our Lodge.”

 

The following advertisement appeared in various English newspapers in the early part of 1762:

 

“C. LOGE C.

 

“Advertissement aux dames, etc., - Pour vencre que les Francs Massons ne sont par telles que le public les a representees en particulier la sexe feminine, cet loge juge a propos de recevoir des femmes aussi bien que des hommes.

 

“N.B - Des dames seront introduits dans la loge avec la ceremonie accountemee ou le serment ordinaire et le real secret leur seront administrees.  On commencera a recevoir des Dames, Jeudy, 11 de Mars, 1762, at Mrs. Maynard's, next door to the Lying Inn Hospital, Brownlow-street, Long Acre.  La porte sera ouverte a 6 heures du Soir.  Les Dames at Messieurs sont priees de ne pas venir apres Sept.  Le prix est 1 pound 1s.”

 

A STUDY OF MORMONISM AND ITS CONNECTION WITH MASONRY IN THE EARLY FORTIES

 

BY BRO.  S. H. GOODWIN.  P. G. M., UTAH

 

THE PLAN of this paper contemplates a consideration of the introduction of Masonry among the Mormons at Nauvoo, and a brief study of some of the outstanding conditions in the midst of which Masonic work was done in that community up to the time when - and shortly after - it was disowned by the Grand Lodge of Illinois.

 

In the latter part of April, 1839, the first steps were taken toward the establishment, in Illinois, of a semi-theocratic community under the leadership of Joseph Smith, the Mormon prophet.  Similar attempts had been made by this teacher of a new faith at Kirtland, Ohio, and at several points in the state of Missouri - all of which had come to a disastrous conclusion.  The “why” of these failures does not lie within the province of this paper.

 

On the date named certain of the Mormon leaders came up from Quincy, some fifty miles down the Mississippi river - whither they had fled from their troubles in Missouri - and definitely fixed upon a location for a new settlement.  The site of this new Zion included the straggling village of Commerce.

 

On the first of May, the initial purchase of land was made by a committee headed by Joseph Smith. Soon other extensive holdings were secured and a year later, when a postoffice was established there, the Post-master General re-christened the place  “Nauvoo,” in deference to the wishes of the settlers. (1)

 

To this place the Saints gathered in large numbers, coming especially from Missouri, where multiplied troubles had beset them.  In consequence of this movement Nauvoo experienced a phenomenal growth, for those times.  Within two years from the time the first land was secured by Joseph Smith, the population had grown from almost nothing to more than three thousand, and when Grand Master Jonas instituted Nauvoo Lodge, March 15th, 1842, between eight and ten thousand people made their homes there. (2) Three years later Nauvoo enjoyed the distinction of being the largest city in the state of Illinois and, with the exception of St. Louis, it had no rival in the Northwest.

 

These people came originally from the older sections of the country and from foreign lands, more particularly from England, and were largely the fruits of the aggressive missionary policy which has distinguished this church from its inception.

 

Among those who were attracted by the proclamation of this new evangel were a number who were, or had been, members of the Masonic fraternity. Prominent among these were Dr. John C. Bennett, an Ohio Mason, Heber C. Kimball - one of the first apostles and a trusted friend of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young - who had received the degrees in Victor, New York, and Hyrum Smith, the prophet's brother, who was also a New York Mason. (3)

 

Early in the summer of 1841 these Masons addressed a communication to Bodley Lodge No. 1, located at Quincy, in which they asked for the usual recommendation in order that they might establish a new lodge at Nauvoo.  This request was denied, the reason assigned by Bodley Lodge being that “....  as these persons are unknown to this lodge as Masons,  it was thought prudent not to do so. (4) A recent writer informs us that not only was the recommendation withheld, but also that Bodley Lodge protested against the granting of a dispensation to the Nauvoo brethren. (5) However that may be, on October 15th, 1841 - ten days after the close of Grand Lodge - Grand Master Jonas issued his dispensation authorizing a lodge at Nauvoo, and five months later, March 15th, 1842, he paid an official visit to that place and set the lodge to work.

 

In this connection it may not be amiss to note the fact in passing, that the Grand Lodge of Illinois was barely one year old when the Nauvoo dispensation was issued, and that there were few, if any, over one hundred members in the constituent lodges of the state.  The natural desire for increase of numbers may have had something to do in determining the action of Grand Master Jonas in this case.

 

From the very first, the movement to establish a Masonic lodge in Nauvoo appears to have been regarded with suspicion and distrust by Masons elsewhere in the state, more particularly by the members of Bodley Lodge No. 1, at Quincy. (6) This attitude may have been due, in part, at least, to the tales and rumours of misdoings which had followed the Mormons from Ohio and Missouri. But there were other factors.  The history of the period now under review points unmistakably to certain political, religious, social and personal forces and considerations which were not without a positive, and very great, influence on the character and fortunes of the Mormon lodges, and which did much to shape Masonic opinion concerning those lodges and their membership.  At the risk of a seeming digression, space must be given here to a consideration of some of these elements of the situation, for otherwise we shall find ourselves without either clue or background.

 

Among the sinister forces of the time which reacted unfavourably, politics played no inconspicuous part.  With the rapid increase of population at the Morman centre came a realization, on the part of the politicians of the state, that the Mormon vote was a factor that must be reckoned with.  And the concern of the leaders of the two political parties was in way lessened when they discovered the fact, that, for all practical purposes, the leaders of the church could turn the Mormon vote to the one party or the other, as their plans or needs might dictate.  If there lingered any doubt on this score in the minds of any, must have been set at rest when the prophet unequivocally declared that he and his people would support the men and party who were friendly to their interests. (7) As a result, both Whigs and Democrats sought by acts of kindness and promises of help, to win this support.  Nor were the leaders of these religions slow in making use of their power.

 

At the general conference of the church held in October, 1840, it was decided to petition the St. Legislature to incorporate the town of Nauvoo, and committee of three, including Joseph Smith and Dr. John C. Bennett, was selected to draft the necessary petition and bill.  These documents were taken to Springfield by Bennett, who appears to have been a shrewd lobbyist, in December of that year.  When presented, the bill seems to have met no opposition. It passed the lower house with only one or two dissenting votes, and the Senate with none at all. (8) Indeed, we are informed by a recent wrier that in the House of Representatives the bill was not even read, except by title. Yet there were in the Assembly at the time such men of later national prominence as John A. Logan, Lyman Trumbull and Abraham Lincoln. (9) And Stephen A. Douglass, then Secretary of State, of Illinois, and leader of the Democratic party, used his influence to expedite the passage of the bill.  The act granting the charts to Nauvoo was signed by Governor Carlin, December 16th, 1840.

 

This charter, which “included charters for the Nauvoo Legion and the University of the City of Nauvoo,” was of a most extraordinary character.  The only restrictions placed on the city council was that no law should be passed which was repugnant to the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution of the State.  Among other unusual powers granted by this remarkable instrument was that of issuing writs habeas corpus by the municipal court. (10) This feature as the sequel shows, was a dangerous provision: it was so liable to abuse.  And it was abused.  It was the misuse of such writs that brought the city and state authorities into conflict, fed the fires of hatred an opposition and furnished a pretext for mob action.

 

About the time that the Nauvoo Masons were taking the initial steps in the organization of a lodge Judge Stephen A. Douglass, then one of the Justice of the State Supreme Court and located at Quincy, visited Nauvoo, addressed the people, was entertained by Joseph Smith, and while there appointed Dr. John C. Bennett Master in Chancery.  As noted above, Douglass had aided in securing the passage of the act of incorporation for Nauvoo, and had thereby won the gratitude of the Saints.  His action in the present instance increased the favour with which he was regarded by Joseph Smith and the people. But it brought upon him the unsparing criticism of his political opponents and from this the people whom he had so signally favoured did not entirely escape.  Indeed, so caustic was the criticism levelled at Douglass by one paper - the Warsaw Signal - that Joseph Smith, in a vitriolic communication addressed to the editor of that paper, ordered his subscription cancelled. (11) On another occasion, not long after the Nauvoo lodge had been set to work, Douglass adjourned court in order that he might visit Nauvoo and witness the review of the Nauvoo Legion. (12)   In connection with the elections of that fall Joseph Smith published an article in which he declared that the Mormon people did not care a fig for Whig or Democrat; that they all looked alike, and that he would support those who had shown themselves to be friends of the Mormons, adding, “Douglass is a master spirit, and his friends are our friends.  We are willing to cast our banners on the air and fight by his side.” (13) In the gubernatorial election, which resulted in the choice of Thomas Ford for Governor, the situation had become so tense that the opposing candidate, Joseph Duncan, felt justified in making opposition to the Mormons one of the chief planks of his platform. (14) The curious who may be desirous of seeing to what lengths politicians were willing to go in those days to secure the support of the prophet and his followers, are referred to some of the speeches made before political conventions in Illinois during the early forties. (15)

 

Enough has been said above to indicate somewhat of the methods employed by the politicians of those days and the sacrifices they were willing to make for party advantage.  The effort to win the Saints to the support of one political party or the other continued to be a factor in their affairs as long is they remained in Nauvoo, and it was this rivalry to secure their political adherence that made it possible for them to secure such unusual favours and to wield the influence they did in political affairs.  And it was this rivalry that made them alternately courted and hated by those who would use them. (16)

 

Another factor which at first blush might seem to be rather remote from the subject, but which none the less militated against the Masonry of Nauvoo, developed in the county to the south of that in which the city of the Saints was located.

 

Some time previous to the date upon which Grand Master Jonas issued his dispensation to the Nauvoo brethren, a campaign was begun to secure the removal of the county-seat from Quincy to Columbus.  Quincy was the home of Bodley Lodge, while Grand Master Jonas lived at Columbus.  Naturally, the Grand Master was in favour of the proposed change, while quite as naturally the prospect of losing the county seat did not commend itself to the people of Quincy and the membership of the Masonic lodge there.  A good deal of bitterness was engendered as a result, and feeling ran so high that when the Grand Master sent communications to the nine papers in advocacy of the change, those reflectors of public feeling and opinion refused to print them. (17) Not to be baffled in his purpose to carry on the fight, Grand Master Jonas and some of his friends went to St. Louis, purchasing the necessary printing outfit, shipped it to Columbus and began the publication of the Columbus Advocate, the very name of which indicated the purpose for which it was established.  While this furnished the Grand Master with a medium through which he might express his views, it did not tend to mollify the feelings of the people of Quincy.  One result was, apparently, that the members of Bodley Lodge lost no opportunity to embarrass the Grand Master, and the lodge minutes and the proceedings of Grand Lodge show how this situation reacted unfavourably on the Nauvoo lodges. (18) But, while the machinations of slanderous politicians, and the venom and ill-feeling engendered in an extraneous squabble over a county seat were each influential in the affairs of Nauvoo and its Masonry, neither was as baleful in its effects or as portentous of evil for all concerned as were certain events which even then were taking place within the community itself.

 

Exactly one month previous to the visit of Judge Douglass to Nauvoo, when he appointed John C. Bennett Master in Chancery, viz., April 5, 1841, Joseph Smith took his first plural wife. (19)

 

While this, so far as the available records show, was the first instance of the practice of polygamy, or “the great and glorious principle of plural marriage,” (20) the doctrine had been taught by Smith to certain of his followers fully ten years earlier. (21) According to the records, the principle was first impressed upon the mind of the prophet in 1831, and from the same sources we learn that immediately he made it known to a few of his close personal friends, and that they in turn passed it on to certain others. (22) Although the revelation on plural marriage, as it appears in Doctrine and Covenants, was committed to writing July 12, 1843 - at which time Joseph Smith had not less than twelve plural wives, and other leaders of the church had followed the prophet in this practice - it was not officially proclaimed as a doctrine of the church until some years subsequent to the settlement in Utah. (23)

 

A moment's digression at this point may be justified by the interesting fact that as late as 1865 Brigham Young - in conversation with a prominent visitor, who was a political figure of national importance at the time - gave the impression that he was responsible for the revelation on plural marriage.  As reported in the Journal of Schuyler Colfax, the president of the church declared, “. . . that the revelations of the Doctrine and Covenants declared for monogamy, but that polygamy was a later revelation commanded by God to him and a few others, and permitted and advised to the rest of the church.” (24)

 

It is a matter of record that Joseph Smith began teaching this principle actively, though with great caution, in the year following the settlement at Nauvoo. (25) At first he confided it only to his closest friends, and those in whom he had absolute confidence, and not to them until he had exacted the most solemn promises of secrecy, for it was not yet “lawful” to utter this teaching in the hearing of the multitude. (26) He did, however, venture to test the feelings of the people concerning this doctrine,  some time prior to the return of apostles from Europe, viz., before July 1, 1841. On the occasion named he preached a sermon on the “Restoration of All Things,” in which he strongly hinted that the “patriarchal, or plural order of marriage, practised by the ancients, would again be established.” We learn that this statement created great excitement and consternation among those who heard the discourse - delivered at a morning service - so much so, in fact, that the prophet “deemed it wisdom, the afternoon, to modify his statement by saying it possibly the spirit had made the time seem nearer in it really was, when such things would be restored.” (27)

 

From the evidence at hand it appears that while this time, i.e., during the first half of the year 1841, knowledge and acceptance of the doctrine of a plurality of wives were confined to the leaders and principal men the church - and that not all of them had been enlightened on the subject - within two years information on the subject had been quite generally disseminated among the people. (28)

 

To believe that such a revolutionary practice could be taught and indulged in for any, considerable length time and have a knowledge of the, fact limited to those for whom it was intended, would place too great a tax upon our credulity and would flatly contradict the teaching of experience concerning human nature. The presence of “apostates”' in the community, and in adjoining settlements, some of whom had stood high in the councils of the church, would preclude the possibility of maintaining secrecy. Gradually, knowledge what was going on in respect to plurality of wives percolated throughout the community, and was taken up and given trumpet-voice by the enemies of the church.

 

Here, too, the fact should be noted, that while it appears to have been a matter of common belief that the leaders of the church were practising polygamy, those same leaders did not hesitate to deny, directly and by implication, that such was the case.  This conflict between the teaching and practices of Joseph Smith and others was used with effect by those who, one reason or other, had entered the lists against the Mormons.  When referring to this feature, a present-day historian, and member of the church, declared that, “wicked men took advantage of the situation and brought sorrow to the hearts of the innocent and reproach upon the church.” (29)

 

A single incident that occurred but a few months before the prophet's death must suffice to illustrate what, not unfairly, might be characterized as double-dealing.  It seems that an elder of the church who had been instructed in the doctrine of a plurality of wives, had been sent up into Lapeer county, Michigan.  Whatever the directions he may have received from the church authorities as to the use to be made of this teaching, his zeal appears to have outrun his wisdom. He publicly proclaimed the principle with the result that the greatest excitement ensued. Upon learning the facts, Joseph and Hyrum Smith prepared and published the following, in the church paper:

 

 NOTICE

 

As we have lately been credibly informed, that an elder of the Church of Jesus Christ, of Latter Day Saints by the name of Hiram Brown, has been preaching Polygamy, and other false and corrupt doctrines, in the county of Lapeer, state of Michigan.

 

This is to notify him and the church in general, that he has been cut off from the Church, for his iniquity; and he is further notified to appear at the Special Conference on the, 6th of April next, to answer to these charges.

 

Joseph Smith Hyrum Smith

 

Presidents of said Church. (30)

 

Yet, at the time when this “notice” was published, the prophet was the husband of not less than twenty plural wives. (31) It might be noted in passing that the matter of Elder Brown's delinquencies was only remotely hinted at by Joseph Smith at the April Conference, and the people were told that if they expected that matters of a petty, trivial character were to be considered they were doomed to disappointment.  (32)

 

Instances of denial that polygamy was either taught or practised at Nauvoo or elsewhere occur not infrequently in the literature of the church, even some years after the death of the Prophet. (33) It appears, however, that such statements, and even the paragraphs in Doctrine and Covenants which deal with monogamy are not to be regarded as denials of the principle by church authorities, but rather as an “evasion to satisfy the popular clamour.” (34)

 

Undoubtedly the disaffection of Dr. John C. Bennett, which occurred early in May, 1842, had more to do with focusing attention upon the practice of polygamy by Joseph Smith and others, than any other one event.  It is immaterial, for our purpose, how this man is to be regarded.  He appears to have been a very devil, or a gentleman and a scholar, according to the point of view of the writer. (35) This much is beyond dispute: he told the truth, and not “wicked lies about Joseph” when he declared that the prophet “taught doctrines in secret which he dare not make public,” and that he “preached one thing in public and practised another in private.” (36) And further, that he stated facts when he declared in his book - “The History of the Saints” - that Joseph Smith at that time, 1842, had plural wives, including Louisa Beman. (37) It is equally beyond controversy that Bennett was in a position to greatly injure the prophet, and no less true that he used this power to the utmost.  In fact, it has been asserted by a recent writer that more than any other influence or person, he was responsible for the downfall of the Mormon church in Illinois. (38)   For something like a year and a half Bennett had been in a position to know the inner counsels of the leaders of the church, for he was in fact one of those leaders.  When he became a member of the church he was Quartermaster General of the State of Illinois. He helped to draft the famous charters and the bill for the incorporation of Nauvoo, and himself carried them up to Springfield and urged the passage of the act. He had been the first Mayor of Nauvoo under the new charter, was second in command of the Nauvoo Legion, was made Master in Chancery by Judge Stephen A. Douglass, and for a time occupied Sidney Rigdon's place as a member of the first presidency of the church.  When the break came between Bennett and the prophet, the latter, fully appreciating the power of Bennett to do harm, immediately proceeded to forestall the use of that power as far as possible, and this in ways which must have been humiliating to Bennett, almost beyond endurance. (39) In return, Bennett used voice and pen most persistently and effectively against Joseph Smith and all the interests with which he was identified.  That Smith was fully alive to the danger from this quarter, and that it was not imaginary, appears from the fact that at his suggestion a special conference assembled at Nauvoo in August, 1842, “for the purpose of calling a number of elders to go out in different directions and by their preaching deluge the states with a flood of truth, to allay the excitement which had been raised by the falsehoods put in circulation by John C. Bennett and others.” (40) Nearly four hundred men volunteered to undertake this work. (41) The prophet himself had been in hiding for three weeks immediately preceding this conference - his whereabouts being unknown to his people (42) - on account of Bennett's activities.  From Smith's journal we learn that he had been in Nauvoo during the entire period. (43)

 

The foregoing statement of facts will aid to an understanding of some of the conditions which existed in Nauvoo at the time of the planting of Masonry in that place, and suggests at least, that perhaps the soil there was not the very best for the development of the principles of our art.  And further, this recital leaves little room for doubt that the irregularities permitted in the lodge room and the “contumacious” treatment of the edicts and messengers of the Grand Master were not the only considerations - although they were quite sufficient in themselves - that had weight in determining the status of Freemasonry among the Latter Day Saints.  We may now proceed with the story of the Nauvoo lodges.

 

As noted above, Grand Master Abraham Jonas instituted Nauvoo Lodge, U.D., and set it to work, March 15, 1842.  The circumstances attending this function, so far as they are matters of record, are most interesting.

 

Upon his return home the Grand Master wrote quite an extended account of the occasion under the caption, “Nauvoo and the Mormons,” which was published in his paper, the Columbus Advocate.  Among other things he said:

 

“While at Nauvoo I had a fine opportunity of seeing the people in a body.  There was a Masonic celebration, and the Grand Master of the State was present for the purpose of publicly installing the officers of a new lodge.  An immense number of persons assembled on the occasion, variously estimated from five to ten thousand persons, and never in my life did I witness a better-dressed or a more orderly and well behaved assemblage; not a drunken or disorderly person to be seen, and the display of taste and beauty among the females could not well be surpassed anywhere.

 

“During my stay of three days, I became well acquainted with their principal men, and more particularly with their prophet, the celebrated 'Old Joe Smith.' I found them hospitable, polite, well-informed and liberal.  With Joseph Smith, the hospitality of whose house I kindly received, I was well pleased.” (44)

 

From the journal of Joseph Smith himself, we get a little more intimate view of what actually took place.   Unlike the Grand Master, he was not writing for the purpose of confounding his critics.  Under date of “Tuesday, March 15,” he wrote:

 

“I officiated as Grand Chaplain at the installation of the Nauvoo lodge of Freemasons, at the Grove near the Temple.  Grand Master Jonas, of Columbus, being present, a large number of people assembled on the occasion.  The day was exceedingly fine; all things were done in order.  In the evening I received the First degree in Freemasonry in Nauvoo Lodge, assembled in my general business office.” (45)

 

On the day following, March 16, he wrote: “I was with the Masonic lodge and rose to the sublime degree.” (46)

 

From one other source comes a little indirect light upon the events connected with the institution of Nauvoo Lodge.

 

Not long after this lodge had been set to work, rumours became current of unusual proceedings therein which seemed to set at defiance well known and established Masonic law and usage.  These tales finally crystallized into assertions, and on the 16th of July, following, Bodley Lodge, at Quincy, held a special meeting, called for the purpose of considering the matter and taking such action as the facts might seem to warrant.  After discussion, the sentiment of the meeting took the form of resolutions.  One of these called upon Grand Master Jonas to suspend the dispensation of Nauvoo Lodge until the annual communication of Grand Lodge.  Another throws a little light back upon the events connected with the institution of that lodge.  This resolution reads:

 

“Resolved, That Bodley Lodge No. 1, of Quincy, request of the Grand Lodge of the State of Illinois, that a committee be appointed at the next annual meeting of said lodge, to make inquiry into the manner the officers of the Nauvoo Lodge, U.D., were installed, and by what authority the Grand Master initiated, passed and raised Messrs. Smith and Sidney Rigdon to the degrees of Entered Apprentice, Fellow Craft and Master Mason, at one and the same time, and that the proceedings of the committee be reported for the benefit of this lodge.” (47) This resolution seems to show that Bodley Lodge was not pleased with the public “installation” of the officers of Nauvoo Lodge - “at the Grove near the Temple,” in the presence of a vast throng and during which the Mormon prophet served as Grand Chaplain, though he was not at the time even a member of the Blue Lodge - and further, that Sidney Rigdon, as well as Joseph Smith, was made a Mason “at sight.”

 

The fact might be noted in passing that presumably it was this unusual action of the Grand Master in behalf of the two church leaders, that was in the mind of one of the present-day apostles of the Mormon church when he wrote that, “Great Masonic honours were conferred upon Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon.” (48)   Be this as it may, the action taken by Bodley Lodge had the desired effect, and on August 11th, less than six months after its institution, the Grand Master issued his order, suspending the dispensation of Nauvoo Lodge until the annual communication of Grand Lodge.  In this short period, the lodge had initiated candidates, of which number 256 had been raised.  When the matter came before Grand Lodge, October 3, 1842, the Grand Master explained his action in connection with Nauvoo Lodge and submitted the correspondence in relation thereto. (49) To the keen regret of the student of those events, no word appears of record which throws any light on the character of the explanation made.  The matter was placed in the hands of the Committee on Returns and Work of the lodges consideration and recommendation.

 

On the evening of the second day's session of and Lodge this committee presented a divided report. The majority regretted that the lodge had disregarded the instructions of the Grand Master - to send up the records of the lodge - but expressed the belief that probably the work done conformed to the requirements of Grand Lodge.  However, evidence submitted seemed to show that the “intention and ancient landmarks of our institution have been departed from, an inexcusable extent,” but that the actual situation could be ascertained only by an investigation of the proceedings and an inspection of the original records the lodge. The committee therefore recommended at the dispensation be suspended till the next annual communication of Grand Lodge, and that a committee be appointed to visit Nauvoo, make a thorough examination and report its findings to Grand Lodge at its next annual communication.

 

The minority report partook somewhat of the character of a “Scotch verdict.” The evidence submitted had failed to establish any irregularities, but fearing that such irregularities could be shown, the third member of the committee joined his colleagues in the recommendation made. (50)

 

A substitute motion prevailed which provided for the  appointment of a special committee whose duty it should be to proceed at once to Nauvoo, make the investigation contemplated and report results to the Grand Master.  He in turn was authorized to remove the injunction suspending labour, or to continue it, as the facts presented by the committee might warrant. (51) This committee entered at once upon the task assigned and in due time reported its findings to the Grand Master.  Investigation showed that grave irregularities had obtained in the work of the lodge, and that these were of such character as to “strike at once at the vital principles of our Order.” Among others, the committee specified the practice of balloting for several candidates at one and the same time, and a tendency to make a reformatory of the lodge.  In review of the whole situation, while the committee found much to regret and much to deplore, it was of the opinion that the case did not demand that the injunction suspending labour be made perpetual, and therefore recommended that the lodge be permitted to resume its work, till the next annual communication of Grand Lodge, and that some member of the Craft should be appointed to visit Nauvoo for the purpose of reminding the brethren of the irregularities complained of and admonish them to avoid the same in the future.  In accordance with this recommendation, Grand Master Helm, on November 2, 1842, issued his order which permitted the lodge to resume labour. (52)   From such evidence as is at hand it appears that the Nauvoo brethren lost no time in getting to work, and the results of their efforts were certainly remarkable.  During the eleven months immediately following the restoration of their dispensation, they were so successful in the work of increasing their numbers, that dispensations for two additional lodges in Nauvoo were granted, and the Grand Master in his address to Grand Lodge recommended that before the charter requested should issue to Nauvoo Lodge, its membership should be divided into four or more distinct lodges. (53)

 

1. “The Historical Record,” Volume VIII, 1889, p. 751.

2. “The Historical Record,” Volume VIII, 1889, p. 757. Cf. McMaster's Hist. of the People of the U.S., Volume V, p. 210.

3. “Life of Heber C. Kimball,” Whitney, 1888, p. 26.

4. “Reynolds' History of Freemasonry in Illinois,”  1869, p. 152.

5. “Mormonism and Its Connection with Freemasonry, 1842-34, Nauvoo, Ill,”  Smith. “The American Tyler,” Feb. 1, 1905.

6. “Proceedings of the Grand Lodge of Illinois,” 1842, pp. 52-8.

7. “Times and Seasons,” Volume III, 1841, p. 651. 

8. “Masonic Voice-Review,” (new series), Volume X, 1908, p.261.

9. Ibid.

10. “Historical Record,” Volume VIII, 1889, p. 754; “Masonic Voice-Review,” Volume X (new series), pp. 261-2.  See also “Times and Seasons,” Volume II, pp. 284-86.

11. “Masonic Voice-Review,” Volume X (new series), 1908, p. 262.  This letter, addressed to the editor, reads: “You will please discontinue my paper; its contents are calculated to pollute me.  And to patronize that filthy sheet, that tissue of lies, that sink of iniquity, is disgraceful to any moral man.  Yours with contempt, Joseph Smith.  P. S. Please publish the above in your contemptible paper.” For Smith's account of this visit of Douglass and Walker - leaders of the Democratic and Whig parties, respectively - see “Times and Seasons,” May 15, 1841.  In the issue of the same publication, for June 1, 1841, is an editorial which deals with the strictures of the Warsaw Signal.

12. “Historical Record,” Volume VII, 1888, p. 764.

13. “Times and Seasons,” Volume III, 1841, p. 651.

14. “Historical Record,” Volume VII, 1888, p. 530.

15. “Times and Seasons,” Volume V, p. 549; “Millennial Star,” Volume XII, 1850, p. 106-7.

16. “History of the Church, Period 1, Joseph Smith,” B. H. Roberts, Volume IV, 1908, Introduction, p. 21.

17. “Masonic Voice-Review,” Volume X (new series), 1908, p. 294.

18. “Reynolds History of Freemasonry in Illinois,” 1869, pp. 174-75; “Proceedings Grand Lodge of Illinois,” 1842, pp. 52-3.

19. “Historical Record,” Volume VI, 1887, pp. 232-33.

20. “Deseret News,” May 20, 1886.  Article by Apostle Joseph F. Smith, afterwards, and until his death, recently, President of the Mormon church; “Historical Record,” Volume VI, 1887, p. 219.

21. “Rise and Fall of Nauvoo,” B. H. Roberts, 1900, p. 115; “Historical Record,” Volume VI, 1887, p. 230; Cf.  “History of the Church, Period 1, Joseph Smith,” B. H. Roberts, Volume V, 1909, Introduction, pp. 29-46.

22. Ibid.

23. “Deseret News Extra,” September 14  1852; “Historical Record,” Volume VI, 1887, p. 227; “Life of Heber C. Kimball,” O.F.Whitney, 1888, p. 335.

24. “Western Galaxy,” Volume I, 1888, p. 247. This is a quotation from the Journal of Schuyler Colfax, 1865.

25. “Historical Record,” Volume VI, 1887, p. 221; “Life of Heber C. Kimball,” Whitney, 1888, pp. 331-32; “History of the Church, Period I, Joseph Smith,” B.H. Roberts, Volume V, 1, 1909, Introduction, p. 34.

26. “Life of Heber C. Kimball,” O.F. Whitney, 1888, pp. 333, 335; “One Hundred Years of Mormonism,” Evans, p. 474; “Succession in the Presidency of the Church,” B.H. Roberts, 1900, p. 120; Cf. “Biography of Lorenzo Snow,” by his sister, E.R. Snow, 1884, p.68.

27. “Life of Heber C. Kimball,” O.F. Whitney, 1888, p.338. The words quoted in the text are those of Helen Mar Kimball, a daughter of H.C. Kimball, who was afterwards (May, 1843) married to Joseph Smith.

28. “Millennial Star,” Volume 45, 1885, p.436; “Historical Record,” Volume VI, 1887, pp. 220, 227.

29. “Rise and Fall of Nauvoo,” B. H. Roberts, 1900, p. 118.

30. “Times and Seasons,” Volume V. Feb. 1, 1844, p.423; Cf. “Historical Record,” Volume VI, 1887, p. 220.

31. “Historical Record,” Volume VI, 1887, pp. 233-34.

32. “Times and Seasons,” Volume V, 1844, p. 522.

33. “Millennial Star,” Volume 12,  1850,  pp.  29-30;  same,  Volume 45, 1885, p. 435.

34. “Millennial Star,” Volume 45, 1885, p. 435. It is only fair to state that later, a different explanation of these denials was given, and that the latter appears to be the position held by church leaders today. Thus, B.H. Roberts tells us that the leaders were obliged to make these denials because  “... over-zealous advocates  and illinformed denunciators never truly represented the doctrine of the revelation on marriage,” and so, “the denials of these misstatements of the doctrine and its practice was not regarded by the leading elders of the church as a denial of the doctrine of the revelation; and while this may be considered a refinement in presentation that the world will not allow, it nevertheless represents a distinction that was real to those who were struggling with a difficult proposition, and accounts for the seeming denials made by John Taylor, in public discussion with three ministers at Boulogne-sur-mer, France, 1850.” “History of the Mormon Church,” B.H. Roberts, Americana, Volume VI, 1911, P. 297. To those who do not have access to any early and conclusive evidence in support of this position, this later explanation may seem, as it does to the writer of these lines, as an afterthought made use of to meet it rather difficult and disagreeable situation. Other instances of these “denials” are to be found in Hyrum Smith's letter in “Times and Seasons,” Volume V, p. 474, and in Joseph Smith's journal, under date of Oct. 5, 1843, where he writes: “Gave instructions to try those persons who were preaching, teaching, or practising the doctrine of plurality of wives.” “History of the Church, Period 1,  Joseph Smith,” Volume VI, 1912, p. 46. 35.”Historical Record,” Volume VII, 1888, p. 495; Bennett's book, “History of the Saints,” 1842, pp. 10-35; “History of the Church, Period 1, Joseph Smith,” Volume V, 1909, pp. 67-83.

36. “The History of the Saints,” John C. Bennett, 1842, pp. 287; “Historical Record,” Volume VII, 1888, p. 495; with this ef. “Historical Record,” Volume VI, 1887, pp. 219-234.

37. “History of the Saints,” John C. Bennett, 1842, p.256; “Historical Record,” Volume VI, 1887, pp. 221 and 233.

38. “Masonic Voice-Review,” (new  series), Volume X, 1908, p.334.

39. “Times and Seasons,” Volume III, 1842,  pp.  870,  874; “History of the Church, Period 1, Joseph  Smith,” B.H.Roberts, Volume V, 1909, pp. 71-82.

40. “Historical Record,” Volume VII, 1888, p.500; “History of the Church, Period 1, Joseph Smith,” B.H. Roberts, Volume V, 1909, p. 136.

41. “History of the Church, Period 1, Joseph Smith,” B.H.Roberts, Volume V, 1909, p. 139.

42 Ibid, p. 137;  Cf. “Succession in the Presidency,” B.H. Roberts, 1900, p.118

43. “History of the Church, Period 1, Joseph Smith,” B.H. Roberts, Volume V, 1909, p.138

44. “Times and Seasons,” Volume III, 1842, pp. 749-750; “History of the Church, Period 1, Joseph Smith,” B.H. Roberts, Volume IV, 1908, pp. 565-566.

45. “History of the Church, Period 1, Joseph Smith,” B.H.Roberts, Volume IV, 1908, pp. 550-551.

46. Ibid, p. 552.

47. “Reynolds' History of Freemasonry in Illinois,” 1869, pp.174-175.

48. “Deseret News,” Editorial, July 16, 1906.

49. “Proceedings, Grand Lodge of Illinois,” 1842, p. 52.

50. Ibid, pp. 58-59.

51. Ibid, pp. 59-60.

52. Ibid, pp. 71-72.

53. “Proceedings, Grand Lodge of Illinois,” 1843, p. 85.

 

----o----

 

KEEPING HOUSE WITH GO1)

 

BY BRO. L B. MITCHELL, MICHIGAN

 

As the consciousness of nature,

As the very heart of life,

As the wonder creature venture

In whom centers care and strife;

As those who in coming, going,

Pass oft 'neath the chast'ning rod

Of their own, and read their sowing,

We've been keeping house with God.

 

Through the ages we've been striving

For what we have deemed the right,

But on failure of arriving

Found ourselves in direst plight;

For autocracy's intention

Was to wipe from off the sod

Those who dared to make pretention

Of their keeping house with God.

 

But through sacrifice of millions

Of the flower of the race,

And of treasure into billions

We have earned sweet freedom's place;

Yet we seem e'en more than ever

In a strange, abnormal plod,

There's unrest the wide world over

In its keeping house with God.

 

While we're trusted with the keeping

Of the house by nature given,

We abnormally are seeking

In a super-way, our heaven,-

We are tarning to the visions

Of the race of early plod,

Worked to creeds that cause divisions

In our keeping house with God.

 

But we now should learn as mortals,-

Children on the strands of time,

That while striving in its portals

That our part is the sublime,-

That true manhood, character,

What'er be the joy or plod

Is the requisite forever

Of our keeping house with God.

 

We must rise to clearer vision

Of the brotherhood of man,

We must come to the decision

That the heart leads in the plan,

And that love gives all the value

To all else above the sod,

And that to it we must square to

In our keeping house with God.

 

----o----

 

No really great man ever thought himselt so. - Hazlitt.

 

FOR THE MONTHLY LODGE MEETING

 

CORRESPONDENCE CIRCLE BULLETIN NO. 45

 

Edited by Bro. H. L. Haywood

 

THE BULLETIN COURSE OF MASONIC STUDY FOR MONTHLY LODGE MEETINGS AND STUDY CLUBS

 

FOUNDATION OF THE COURSE

 

THE Course of Study has for its foundation two sources of Masonic information: THE BUILDER and Mackey's Encyclopedia. In another paragraph is explained how the references to former issues of THE BUILDER and to Mackey's Encyclopedia may be worked up as supplemental papers to exactly fit into each installment of the Course with the papers by Brother Haywood.

 

MAIN OUTLINE:

 

The Course is divided into five principal divisions which are in turn subdivided, as is shown below:

 

Division I. Ceremonial Masonry.

 

A. The Work of the Lodge. 

B. The Lodge and the Candidate. 

C. First Steps. 

D. Second Steps. 

E. Third Steps.

 

Division II. Symbolical Masonry.

A. Clothing. 

B. Working Tools. 

C. Furniture. 

D. Architecture. 

E. Geometry.

F. Signs. 

G. Words. 

H. Grips.

 

Division III. Philosophical Masonry.

A. Foundations. 

B. Virtues. 

C. Ethics. 

D. Religious Aspect. 

E. The Quest. 

F. Mysticism. 

G. The Secret Doctrine.

 

Division IV. Legislative Masonry.

 

A. The Grand Lodge. 

1. Ancient Constitutions. 

2. Codes of Law. 

3. Grand Lodge Practices. 

4. Relationship to Constituent Lodges. 

5. Official Duties and Prerogatives.

 

B. The Constituent Lodge.

1. Organization. 

2. Qualifications of Candidates. 

3. Initiation, Passing and Raising. 

4. Visitation. 

5. Change of Membership.

 

Division V. Historical Masonry.

 

A. The Mysteries--Earliest Masonic Light.

B. Studies of Rites--Masonry in the Making. 

C. Contributions to Lodge Characteristics.

D. National Masonry.

E. Parallel Peculiarities in Lodge Study. 

F. Feminine Masonry. 

G. Masonic Alphabets. 

H. Historical Manuscripts of the Craft. 

I. Biographical Masonry.

J. Philological Masonry--Study of Significant Words.

 

THE MONTHLY INSTALLMENTS

 

Each month we are presenting a paper written by Brother Haywood, who is following the foregoing outline. We are now in “First Steps” of Ceremonial Masonry. There will be twelve monthly papers under this particular subdivision. On page two, preceding each installment, will be given a list of questions to be used by the chairman of the Committee during the study period which will bring out every point touched upon in the paper.

 

Whenever possible we shall reprint in the Correspondence Circle Bulletin articles from other sources which have a direct bearing upon the particular subject covered by Brother Haywood in his monthly paper. These articles should be used as supplemental papers in addition to those prepared by the members from the monthly list of references. Much valuable material that would otherwise possibly never come to the attention of many of our members will thus be presented.

 

The monthly installments of the Course appearing in the Correspondence Circle Bulletin should be used one month later than their appearance. If this is done the Committee will have opportunity to arrange their programs several weeks in advance of the meetings and the brethren who are members of the National Masonic Research Society will be better enabled to enter into the discussions after they have read over and studied the installment in THE BUILDER.

 

REFERENCES FOR SUPPLEMENTAL PAPERS

 

Immediately preceding each of Brother Haywood's monthly papers in the Correspondence Circle Bulletin will be found a list of references to THE BUILDER and Mackey's Encyclopedia. These references are pertinent to the paper and will either enlarge upon many of the points touched upon or bring out new points for reading and discussion. They should be assigned by the Committee to different brethren who may compile papers of their own from the material thus to be found, or in many instances the articles themselves or extracts therefrom may be read directly from the originals. The latter method may be followed when the members may not feel able to compile original papers, or when the original may be deemed appropriate without any alterations or additions.

 

HOW TO ORGANIZE FOR AND CONDUCT THE STUDY MEETINGS

 

The lodge should select a “Research Committee” preferably of three “live” members. The study meetings should be held once a month, either at a special meeting of the lodge called for the purpose, or at a regular meeting at which no business (except the lodge routine) should be transacted--all possible time to be given to the study period.

 

After the lodge has been opened and all routine business disposed of, the Master should turn the lodge over to the Chairman of the Research Committee. This Committee should be fully prepared in advance on the subject for the evening. All members to whom references for supplemental papers have been assigned should be prepared with their papers and should also have a comprehensive grasp of Brother Haywood's paper.

 

PROGRAM FOR STUDY MEETINGS

 

1. Reading of the first section of Brother Haywood's paper and the supplemental papers thereto.

 

(Suggestion: While these papers are being read the members of the lodge should make notes of any points they may wish to discuss or inquire into when the discussion is opened. Tabs or slips of paper similar to those used in elections should be distributed among the members for this purpose at the opening of the study period.)

 

2. Discussion of the above.

 

3. The subsequent sections of Brother Haywood's paper and the supplemental papers should then be taken up, one at a time, and disposed of in the same manner. 4. Question Box.

 

MAKE THE “QUESTION BOX” THE FEATURE OF YOUR MEETINGS

 

Invite questions from any and all brethren present. Let them understand that these meetings are for their particular benefit and get them into the habit of asking all the questions they may think of. Every one of the papers read will suggest questions as to facts and meanings which may not perhaps be actually covered at all in the paper. If at the time these questions are propounded no one can answer them, SEND THEM IN TO US. All the reference material we have will be gone through in an endeavor to supply a satisfactory answer. In fact we are prepared to make special research when called upon, and will usually be able to give answers within a day or two. Please remember, too, that the great Library of the Grand Lodge of Iowa is only a few miles away, and, by order of the Trustees of the Grand Lodge, the Grand Secretary places it at our disposal on any query raised by any member of the Society.

 

FURTHER INFORMATION

 

The foregoing information should enable local Committees to conduct their lodge study meetings with success. However, we shall welcome all inquiries and communications from interested brethren concerning any phase of the plan that is not entirely clear to them, and the Services of our Study Club Department are at the command of our members, lodge and study club committees at all times.

 

QUESTIONS ON “THE EMBLEMS”

 

 

THE BOOK OF CONSTITUTIONS

 

Recite the monitorial lecture on “The Book of Constitutions guarded by the Tyler's Sword.”

 

Were written constitutions known to Operative Freemasons in the eleventh to fifteenth centuries? How were the traditions and charges communicated to the candidate in those times? What is supposed to have been the gradual evolution of these traditions and charges?

 

What is the oldest manuscript of the Old Charges? In what form was it written? What is the next oldest copy? To whom are we indebted for our present collection of these old documents? How many copies of these have been collected and preserved ?

 

What happened to a number of the Old Charges that were in the hands of Masons at the beginning of the eighteenth century? When was one of the first attempts made to collate them?

 

Who made the first digest of these old manuscript constitutions shortly after the formation of the Grand Lodge of England? In what light is Dr. Anderson's work looked upon at the present day?

 

What symbolical interpretation may be placed upon the Book of Constitutions?

 

What is the symbolical significance of “the Book of Constitutions guarded by the Tyler's Sword?” What is the origination of the word “tyler”, and when was that office first created? What is one theory of the derivation of the word? What is another theory? Of what should the Tiler be a reminder?

 

Whence was the word “cowan” derived? What is supposed to have been the original meaning of the word? In what other sense was the word used?

 

When was the term introduced into English Masonry? By whom was it supposed to have been introduced? What is its present-day literal meaning? Is it the Tiler's duty alone to “keep off cowans”?

 

THE SWORD POINTING TO A NAKED HEART

 

Recite the monitorial lecture on “The Sword Pointing to a Naked Heart.”

 

What is Mackey's theory of the origin of the symbol of the “Sword Pointing to a Naked Heart” ? How is it presumed to have come into our ritual?

 

Of what is the heart a symbol in this instance? the sword?

 

What was one of the early beliefs concerning God? What did the term “morality” mean in those days?

 

How is the “moral law” interpreted by Masons of the present day?