Prospective Members

The history of Freemasonry is well documented, and its major players include a vast number of contributors to society: men such as Washington, Truman, and Churchill in politics, Goethe, Schiller, and Conan Doyle in literature, Burl Ives, Ernest Borgnine, Gene Autry in the performing arts, Mozart, Haydn, and Irving Berlin in music, and on and on.

Freemasons played essential roles in the civilization of the New World, taming the west (Kit Carson was a Freemason), freeing Latin America (Bolivar was a Mason, as was Bernardo O’Higgins), and so on. Freemasons have established a vast array of charitable activities, primarily focusing on the health field.

Among the anti-Masons, one can count a single president of the US, John Quincy Adams (thirteen presidents were Masons), two literary figures (Edgar Allan Poe and Charles Dickens - and it is not clear whether Dickens was really an anti-Mason, or one who simply felt that the Masons of his time were not living up to their standards and were therefore hypocrites), and almost no one else of any consequence in history or who has made a significant contribution to the humanities. The anti-Masons operate no charitable groups but engage in fund-raising only to support themselves: They sell books for profit, seek donations to keep their “ministries” operating on television, and contribute nothing to society at large.

All of this is a matter of public record; these facts do not depend on one’s ability to determine who is telling the truth. Further, we have the experience of history to teach us what to believe of a group of “anti-” somethings, whether they are anti-Semites, anti-Catholics, or anti-Masons. That historical experience has shown that those who single out a group, especially one different from the majority in society, for opprobrium and hatred are generally not telling the truth about that group, but are seeking to benefit themselves from stirring up the passions of the mob.

In other words, if we knew nothing of the Masons nor of the anti-Masons, it would be difficult to know whom to believe. But we are not so ignorant as that. There are plenty of epistemological reasons to choose to believe that Masons are telling the truth in the present context, as opposed to accepting the word of the anti-Masons. (E.g., one epistemological principle is known as Occam’s Razor–it tells us to accept the simplest hypothesis that explains the known facts.

The anti-Masons, when confronted with their own contradictions, pile on ever more assumptions. Prove that “Lucifer” is not mentioned in the Symbolic Rite of the first three degrees and they will assert that it is the Scottish Rite that teaches “devil worship.” Prove that there is no such thing in the 32 degrees, and they will claim it is taught in the 33rd degree. A denial by a 33rd degree Mason will lead to the attribution of Satanism to the Knights Templar. And so on. The simpler hypothesis is that there is no such Satanic nonsense in Freemasonry – given the conflict of assertions, Occam’s Razor directs us to this choice.)

The anti-Masons also engage in circular reasoning: They claim that there is a great “Masonic conspiracy” to control the world. Absent any evidence of that, they claim that the very lack of evidence is “proof” of the power of the conspiracy. (Too many Oliver Stone movies? Of course, even Congressmen have engaged in such reasoning, as in the case of the “October surprise” investigation, when Tom Foley suggested that the very lack of evidence was what justified a Congressional hearing. An inability to reason against one’s own prejudices is not unique to the anti-Masons.)

Anti-Masons, in discussing some of the more inflammatory allegations about Masonry, such as the worship of satanic or pagan gods, also assert that the vast majority of Masons are totally ignorant of the “real” nature of Masonry, which is revealed only to a few “high” Masons. Yet these anti-Masons insist that they themselves know these hidden secrets better than most of the millions of active members of the Masonic fraternity. Is this a credible state of affairs?

In other words, there are very good reasons to believe that Masons, rather than anti-Masons are telling the truth about the Fraternity, based on the history of Freemasonry, the known character of those who have been Freemasons, and the principles of epistemology. Of course, if one is ignorant of the history and background of a witness, as well as ignorant of the theory of knowledge, one is at the mercy of every smooth-talking mountebank and charlatan to come along. (Why do you think that criminal defense lawyers seek the most uninformed jurors possible?)

No, the matter of whom to believe is not one which requires hard thought to resolve.