EDUCATIONAL LODGE NO. 1002
A.F. I A.M. of MINNESOTA
NfJvember, 1976
Paper No. 94
MASONIC MISINFORMATION
By W.B. Alphonse Cerza, 33'
Riverside, Illinois
When each of us joined the Craft it was a new and
unusual experience. We travelled to the lodge hall
with a certain amount of curiosity and anticipation in
engaging in a new experience. It was natural that
during the ceremonies, and afterwards, many
questions came to mind. For most Masons this quest
for knowledge continues over the years. This need is
fully recognized by most old timers and by Masonic
editors.
•
•
Unfortunately, we have too many over-enthusiastic
members who persist in disseminating information
that "sounds good" and they use no judgment in
weighing the matter. Some Masonic writers too often
use little discretion in the material they include in
their publications. During the Bicentennial period we
have had a super-abundance of misinformation
relating to the War of Independence and the Craft
presented by Masonic speakers. One thing you may
be assured of: If you read a bit of Masonic misinformation, it will be repeated for years to come as it is
copied. I will present some common bits of misinformation that have been makihg the rounds for
years, and then I will make some observations on how
to detect these items.
Mistakes will be made by speakers and by editors,
as well as printers, but these are to be expected. For
example, the September, 1959 issue of Masonic
Temple Topics had an article entitled "A Pilgrim to
the Birthplace of Robert Burns." It was written by the
late Brother Watson Boyes, and he recited in detail
his trip to England and Scotland while visiting places
of Masonic interest. Throughout the article he stated
that "Mrs. Boyes and I ... ". But somehow my name
appeared at the head of the article as the author
together with my picture! For a long time he and I
were the subject of a good deal of friendly joking over
the rna tter. I am also reminded of an article I wrote
many years ago in the Philalethes Magazine on the
subject of Masonic Misinformation. I mentioned the
unfounded thesis advanced by Leader Scott in her
book "The Cathedral Builders." I stated that Leader
Scott was the pen name of Lucy E. Baxter; but the
editor looked at Volume 3 of Mackey's Masonic Encyclopedia, found that the name stated there was
"Mrs. Webster", and not knowing that this was a
typographical error changed my manuscript.
Imagine my embarrassment when this was
discovered by many of the readers. A misstatement
in an article on "misinformation," is not something to
brag about!
Since we are going through our Bicentennial period
let me cover some of the bits of misinformation being
passed out during this period. There is making the
rounds an item with the title "Did You Know ... "with
the following statements."
"More than fifty of the fifty-six signers of the
Declaration of Independence were members of
the Masonic Fraternity.
"All but one of the five members of the Constitutional Convention were Masons."
A close examination of the matter discloses that
there were fifty-six signers of the Declaration of
Independence. Nine are known to have been Masons;
the evidence is inadequate as to twenty-three; and we
have no evidence as to the balance of twenty-four. The
statement that there were only five members in the
Constitutional Convention is clearly in error. Thirtynine persons signed the Constitution of the United
States; thirteen are known to have been Masons;
evidence is inadequate as to seven; and we have no
evidence as to the balance of nineteen. This subject is
explored in depth in Ronald E. Heaton's "The
Founding Fathers" published by the Masonic Service
Association.
A brochure has been circulating the past several
years in which the following misinformation is set
out:
"The Revolutionary War was a distinctly Masonic
enterprise." This is a gross exaggeration and a
misstatement. The Masonic population two hundred
years ago was very small and could not have had this
kind of weight. The statement also insults those nonMasonic Patriots who made great sacrifices and are
ignored by the statement.
"The Boston Tea Party was organized in St. Andrew's Lodge (Scottish constituted) at an adjourned
meeting, and every member that threw the tea into
·the harbor was a member of the lodge." This is a
highly imaginative statement. The lodge met that
night and adjourned because there was no quorum
present. It is also stated in the brochure that at the
end of the minutes of the meeting is a large letter T;
this is an untruth as the minute book is still in
existence and it does not have such an item at the
end; there is a scroll at the end of the minutes of each
meeting during the period and it has no resemblance
to a letter T.
''The Governors of every one of the original thirteen
states at the time Washington was inaugurated were
Masons." This is not true. The only Governors who
were Masons in 1789, were: George Walton, of
Georgia; John Hancock, of Massachusetts; John
Sullivan, of New Hampshire; and Alexander Marton
of North Carolina.
"Washington demanded that Lafayette coming
from France, and Von Steuben coming from Germany, be made Masons." This is manifestly not true
and cannot be substantiated in any way. And it is
against the rule prohibiting soliciation.
"All of Washington's Brigadier Generals, except
one, were Masons." This is untrue. Extensive
research by Ronald E. Heaton discloses the
following: Thirty-Three General officers of the Army
were Masons; on about fifteen we have insufficient
evidence; on about twenty-six we have no evidence
whatsoever. As to Washington's Military Aides, we
have evidence that six were members of the
Fraternity; on one we have inadequate evidence; as
to the balance of twenty-two we have no evidence
whatsoever. It is worthy of note at this point that the
major traitor of the War of Independence was
Benedict Arnold and he was a Freemason.
These are the major misstatements in the
brochure, but I will pass up the others as not being
worthy of mention.
Another area of misinformation is the listing of
Madison and Jefferson as members of the Craft.
There is no evidence of any kind connecting these two
outstanding patriots as Freemasons. The evidence
that is usually advanced on this subject is the
presence of these men at cornerstone-laying
ceremonies, parades and banquets. Sometimes there
are quotations from anti-Masonic speakers made
many years later accusing one or both of being
Masons. These are hardly the kind of things that
convince a reasonable mind that they were Masons.
We will have to wait until some creditable evidence is
discovered before claiming them as members.
Many years ago a Dr. O.J. Kinnamon, who has
since departed this life, conceived of an idea to make
some money and he travelled around the country
delivering a lecture on his experiences in the finding
of King Tut's tomb. In the course of his talk he stated
that he was present on June 3, 1924 when King Tut's
tomb was opened and that on examination of the body
in the casket it was found that he wore a Masonic
apron. He then went on to enlarge on this find as
evidence that Freemasonry originated in ancient
Egypt. The talks were widely publicized in Masonic
periodicals. The "doctor" was a fraud. Those who
were present at the opening of the tomb state that no •
one by that name was present. Published accounts of
the event are silent as to his presence. Unfortunately,
the usually reliable "Freemasons Guide and Compendium," written by the Ia te Bernard E. Jones, and
published in 1950, mentions that Kinnamon was one of
the two last survivors who were present at the
opening of the tomb. It then states, correctly, that the
apron could not have been a Masonic apron. But this
lending of indirect credence to Kinnamon's presence
at the time was unfortunate. There was no apron on
the body. It is better described as cloth wrapped
around the body. This matter has appeared in so
many Masonic periodicals that it became necessary
for the Masonic Service Association, in the early
1960's, to warn Masonic editors that the late Dr.
Kinnamon was a fraud. Nevertheless, the story ap·
pears from time to time in Masonic periodicals. It is
too good a story to die a natural death!
Masonic misinformation can be classified under
four general subjects: (1) The origin of the Craft; (2)
Great men who have been Masons; (3) Making
historical events into Masonic projects; and (4)
Improper descriptions of the Craft and trying to
connect it with other groups or movements. Let us
consider each of these areas briefly.
•
Origin of the Craft.
There have been advanced about two dozen theories
of when and where the Craft originated. For example,
George Oliver, a prolific writer of the Craft and a
minister, at one time stated that Freemasonry
originated before the creation of the world. I am sure
that he was not talking of the Craft as we know it
today, but was trying to say that order and harmony,
which exists in large measure in the Craft, originated
before the creation of the present planet.
Churchward and others have written several books
which tie the legend of the Island of Atlantis to the
Craft. It is stated that 100,000 years ago there existed
the Island of Lemuria or Mu, which has since
disappeared, and that Freemasonry originated there.
Linked to the story, on occasion,is the statement of an
American Indian who claims that his grandfather told
him that his tribe used signs and symbols similar to
Masons. This is a bit far-fetched. The American Indians did use signs to communicate-as they had
many languages-but before the white man came
here the American Indian did not have anything
resembling our present-day Freemasonry. William
R. Denslow in his book about the American Indian
explores this subject at length and arrives at this •
conclusion.
Some years ago there was promoted a book entitled
"The Great Message", by John Richardson. It ex·
pounded the view that from time immemorial there
existed a group known as the Great School of the
Masters which had as members most of the religious
•
leaders and scholars of all ages. It stated that
Freemasonry was started by the great "School". This
is pure fiction and was an attempt to tie the Craft into
the promotion of the author some fifty years ago. The
promotion has ended for the time being but may be
resumed in the future.
There are a number of books that have been written
on the theme that the Craft originated with the Ancient Mysteries with emphasis on the sects functioning in Egypt. There is no evidence connecting
these groups to the present day Craft.
One author of Greek extraction, J.N. Casavis, living
in New York, some years ago wrote a book entitled
"The Greek Origin of Freemasonry". He did a great
job in reading ancient books and extracting quotes
from them; and he had a number of pictures of ancient statues; from these he presented the thesis that
the Craft originated in Greece.
There have been several persons who have sought
to trace the origin of the Craft to Shakespeare and Sir
Francis Bacon by linking the Craft with the debate on
whether the plays attributed to Shakespeare were
written by Bacon. George C. Tudhope, in 1954, wrote a
book on the subject entitled "Bacon Masonry".
•
•
One of the weaknesses in all these theories is that
there are too many missing links bringing these
ancient organizations to the present day Craft.
Ravenscroft and Leader Scott sought to supply the
missing link with the story that when Rome fell the
Masons retired to the island of Como and preserved
their Craft until the middle ages when the cathedral
builders appeared throughout England, Scotland, and
Europe. It is a fine story but is lacking in substance
and lacks adequate evidence.
All these theories call attention to similarities that
exist with the present day Craft. Here are some
examples: The names of the officers; the existence of
private or secret ceremonies; the use of symbols; a
legend of death and the resurrection; and similar
items. That there exist such similarities is interesting, of course but if one takes this approach one
ought to also consider the dissimilarities; and these
are substantial. The most glaring dissimilarity, in
most cases, is that these ancient groups were either
religions or churches and preached that going
through their ceremonies and belonging to the group
assured the member of salvation in life beyond the
grave. They all had ceremonies of purification that
made the member eligible for a reward in the
hereafter.
Making All Great Men Members of the Craft.
The second area of misinformation is making all
great men members of the Craft. We have already
noted some of these items, and there are many more .
At various times it has been stated that Jesus Christ
was a Mason; the evidence advanced is that he was a
member of the Essenes during his "lost years".
Martin Luther has been stated as being a Mason; I
have never seen what evidence is offered to support
this claim.
Sometimes such claims are made in good faith, but
in error because of similarity of names. Examples
are many, but here are a few illustrations: John
Wesley, founder of the Methodist Church, is often
stated as having been a Mason; this stems from a
John Wesley who was a member of an English Lodge,
but he is not the John Wesley we are talking about;
this was disclosed a hundred years ago but the
statement still appears in Masonic periodicals.
Alexander Hamilton, of War of Independence
fame, is claimed as a Mason; this is because of
confusion over an Alexander Hamilton who was a
member of a New York Lodge, but he is not the
Hamilton we are talking about. Nathan Hale, the
famous martyr, is sometimes claimed as a Mason;
the Nathan Hale who was a member is not the Nathan
Hale we are talking about. At the time of his execution
the famous Nathan Hale was only twenty years of
age.
Historical Events Made into
Masonic Projects.
It is surprising how often enthusiastic speakers and
writers make general historical events into Masonic
projects. We have already noted the Boston Tea
Party. But there are many others that can be cited.
Some years ago, in 1935, a writer, Bernard Fay, wrote
a book entitled "Revolution and Freemasonry, 16801800" in which he expounded the view that the Craft is
a revolutionary organization and engineered the
American and French Revolutions. One must observe
that Bernard Fay was an ardent anti-Mason and
wrote the book to discredit the Craft. When Hitler took
over France Bernard Fay was made the head of the
bureau authorized to exterminate the Masons.
Thousands of our members were imprisoned and
some were executed. He was charged with this crime
after the war and was sentenced to a long prison
term, but he escaped after a few years.
When World War One started with the shooting of
the Grand Duke at Sarajevo a book was written expounding the theme that those who fired the shot were
Masons and it was a Masonic project. But careful
investigation disclosed that the men who did the
shooting were under twenty-one years of age, were
not Masons, and that the book was written by a cleric
under an assumed name.
Both these books were written by anti-Masons. And
yet the theme is sometimes perpetuated by our own
members as they brag about the part that Masons and
the Craft have played in history. I well remember
hearing a speaker years ago delivering a long talk on
this subject and at the end stating that he had used
Bernard Fay, also alluding to the fact that Fay was an
Anti-Mason and was guilty of various Anti-Masonic
activities. He stated that, in spite of this, the thesis
was valid. I then reminded him that Masons are
bound by an obligation to be loyal to the establishedgovernment and to avoid conspiracies.
Connecting the Craft with Other Groups
The last classification is the attempt by many wellmeaning and enthusiastic members to link the Craft
with other groups. Many years ago this was at-
tempted with the Illuminati, a movement that had
high ideals but was crushed by the political parties in
power. There have been attempts over the years to
link the Craft with the Rosicrucians by books and side
orders of Freemasons. I have explained how the socalled imaginary Great School of the Masters was
sought to be linked with the Craft. The Theosophists
have issued a number of books claiming kinship with
the Craft and a number of their members have
written books claiming them to be "Masonic."
Conclusion.
On one occasion when I strongly urged that we be
careful about what we say and write about the Craft, I
was criticized by several persons present on the
ground that if we eliminate the legends and theories
about the Craft that we will be losing something really
worth while. My answer was, and still is, that it is not
necessary to eliminate any of these items. But I do
insist that when a legend is stated, it be described as
such and not as gospel truth. If there is partial
evidence that might support the statement that a
certain person was a Mason, I believe it should be
stated along the line that on the inadequate evidence
available at this time it appears that he might have
been a Mason. In reference to the Boston Tea Party, I
believe we can state that the lodge met that night, the
meeting was adjourned because there was not a
quorum present, and then state that possibly some of
the members were taking part in the Tea Party or
lending their support as spectators.
Tests to Use to Detect Masonic Misinformation.
The first thing to remember is that if you are
reading anything within these four areas, the item be
put to a critical test by asking for the supporting
evidence. This is especially true in cases that sound
"too good to be true". In doing this, one must bear in
mind that there are various grades of evidence. A
petition for membership, such as that of Stephen A.
Douglas that is reproduced in Mackey's Encyclopedia, or a minute book of a lodge, or showing
When we exaggerate we hurt ourselves in a number
attendance at a tiled meeting is primary evidence. A
newspaper account of attendance at a Masonic of ways. Our members are misled, and they repeat
the item and they perpetuate the misinformation. The
function is secondary evidence.
outsider laughs at us and considers our statements
Here are some additional tests that can be used:
"bragging" to secure unwarranted prestige. With
Washington,
Franklin and Paul Revere as true
Who said this? The source of the information raises
members
of
the
Craft, do we need more?
a question of reliability of the author or speaker. The
statement of an Anti-Mason can be disregarded. An
obscure source can be disregarded. It is proper to ask
for the evidence used.
Where did he get the information? This raises the
question of the weight to be given the evidence
examined by the speaker or writer. The mere fact
that it appeared in print is not enough. I have heard
many times a bit of Masonic misinformation, and
when the validity of the item is raised the answer is "I
read it in a book or magazine". This is not enough.
Is the author in a position to know what he is
stating? If he states he was present when the event
occurred, it is one thing. If he states he read it in a
book we must consider the book and the reputation of
the author.
RESOLUTION:-That all papers prepared and presented
before the membership of Educational Lodge No. 1002 shall be
reviewed by the Editorial Committee appointed by the Master
at lhe beginning of his year in Office, before their publication
and distribution. Such committee is hereby given authority to
delete any subject matter which in its judgment it donsiders to
be of esoteric or controversial nature. Be it further resolved that
each paper published for distribution shall have printed therein
the above resolution
Published four times a year by Educational LOO.ge No. 1002 A. F.
& A. M. of Minnesota
OFFICERS 1976·1977
•
1\laster
W.B. Albert Meyer, Jr.
-1713 Valley View Rd., Edina 55424
Sr. Warden
Jr. Warden
Is the claimed "authority" really an authority? One
who writes a book or makes a speech is not
necessarily an "authority". Just consider the case of
Kinnamon covered earlier.
W.B. Memo 0. Hoen
B. William W. Lundell
Sec.-Treas.
W.H. Herbert P. Bergstrom
3632 Roosevelt St. N.E. Minneapolis, 55418
Sr. Deacon
Jr. Deacon
Chaplain
Sr. Steward
Jr. Steward
Are the records used authentic? This question
becomes very important when secondary evidence is
used or there is a claim that records were examined
which are no longer in existence.
Has all the evidence been considered? Very often
when someone has an axe to grind,or is expounding a
favorite theory, he will present only the evidence that
supports his point of view and will remain silent on
items that may be used to support some other thesis.
•
W.B. Norman A. Hervin
W.B. W.G. Doty
W.B. Donald A. Dahl
W.B. Peter Ekholm
W.8. Jack Benson
Use of papers published by Educational Lodge No. 1002 is
permitted provided due credit is given to this Lodge and the
auUwrs.
•