THE BUILDER MAGAZINE
February 1921
volume 7 - 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.&nbs |
