Short Talk Bulletin Vol 11 No 05

eZine lover (@eZine)

Published in 

Short Talk Bulletin

 · 26 Apr 2019

  

SHORT TALK BULLETIN - Vol.XI   May, 1933   No.5 

THY NEIGHBOR’S LANDMARK 

by: Unknown 

“Thou shalt not remove thy neighbor’s landmark, which they of old  
have set in thine inheritance, which thou shalt inherit in the land  
the Lord thy God hath given thee (Deuteronomy XIX:14). 
The Masons “of old time set thine inheritance” (Masonry) certain  
fundamental principles which are named as “Landmarks” as early as the  
Constitutions of 1723. 
Men have quarreled about the stone markers set up as boundaries for  
land ever since sections of the earth were claimed as property; in  
like manner have Masons differed about what are and what are not  
Landmarks of the Order.  In this country particularly, with forty- 
nine Jurisdictions, each sovereign within its own territory,  
arguments about Landmarks are never ending. 
This Bulletin attempts not to settle any of these numerous  
controversies, but only to bring before the average Lodge Member some  
of the reasons why his neighbor’s Masonic Landmarks may differ from  
those  his own Grand Lodge may have set up for him to follow. 
In 1858 Albert Gallatin Mackey, the great Masonic jurist and  
authority, listed twenty-five fundamental principles as the true  
Landmarks of Freemasonry.  Although critical scholarship has since  
riddled the list as to accuracy, Mackey’s ideas of what constitute  
the essential qualities of a Landmark - antiquity, universality and  
irrevocability - are still respected.  This definition excludes from  
the classification of Landmarks any principle which is any two of  
these but no the third,  It is by his own standards that many critics  
have measured Mackey’s Landmarks and found them wanting. 
As an example of what is meant; it is “ancient,” in the sense that it  
was recognized in the “Constitutions” of the Grand Lodge in 1723,  
that a Grand Master appoints own Deputy Grand Master.  But the  
practice is by no means universal.  Lodges are now universally  
governed by Grand Lodges, but the practice has antiquity of only two  
hundred and sixteen years.  According to Mackey’s dicta, neither the  
manner of creating a Deputy Grand Master not the fundamental  
governing body of the Craft can be considered as Landmarks. 
A few principles are so universally recognized that they are freely  
admitted to be essentials, even in Jurisdictions which have no  
pronouncements as to the Landmarks.  Belief in a Supreme Being, the  
Volume of sacred Law as a necessary part of the furniture of the  
Lodge, that a Masons must be a man are essentials all over the world,  
though not necessarily listed in all Jurisdictions. 
On the validity of certain principles all authorities agree, but  
differ as to their antiquity, universality and irrevocability.  A  
substantial minority of American Grand Jurisdictions have Officially  
adopted Mackey’s twenty-five Ancient Landmarks, but a majority either  
follow other compilations, use other Old Charges, or decline to  
specify what are and what are not the Landmarks of the Craft. 
The right and power of any Grand Lodge to determine for itself just  
what is and what is not “law” in its Jurisdiction is unquestioned.   
Therefore, when a Jurisdiction sets forth any list of Landmarks in  
its Code, they have all the force of Ancient Landmarks in that  
Jurisdiction, whether they are actually so or not. 
“Actually so” refers to inherent nature; that which cannot be altered  
by law, no matter what the lawmaking authority.  The National  
Legislature has the undoubted “right” to enact a law that unsupported  
objects must fall.  “Per contra,” it then has the right to repeal the  
law of gravity, and forbid things to fall when no longer supported.   
But it has not the “power” to enforce, change or suspend the law of  
gravity!  A Grand Lodge which says “Thus and such is an Ancient  
Landmark “in that Jurisdiction,” give that pronouncement the full  
force and effect of an Ancient Landmark “in that Jurisdiction, but  
its edict does not “actually” make it such. 
One Jurisdiction follows Lockwood’s list of nineteen landmarks, of  
which number 8 reads:  “That every Lodge has an inherent right to be  
represented in Grand Lodge by its first three officers, or their  
proxies.” 
This is good Masonic law in most Jurisdictions, but not all; the  
Mason from this Jurisdiction (Washington, D.C.) who moves to New York  
or Texas and there affiliates finds that this is not a Landmark in  
either of these Jurisdictions, since neither New York not Texas admit  
Wardens to Grand Lodge. 
In the General Assemblies of Ancient times each Mason, Craftsman or  
Entered Apprentice, represented himself.  In Grand Lodges Masons are  
represented by their officers.  Evidently a change has been made in  
the manner of governing the Craft.  As a Landmark is not subject to  
change, this particular principle of law does not conform to Mackey’s  
definition of a Landmark. 
No wonder his neighbor’s landmark is a matter of confusion to  
brethren from neighboring but differing Jurisdictions! 
Mackey’s fourteenth Landmark asserts that every Mary Mason has the  
right of visitation.  Just what is a “right?”  Until that word is  
defined this so-called Landmark cannot be discussed intelligently.   
If it here means “power superior to all other powers,” then it is  
merely nonsense.  If it here means “privileged until a higher  
privilege overcomes it,” how may it be considered to conform to the  
requirements of a Landmark? 
Even so, how can the word “right” be translated “privilege?”  A  
privilege may be withdrawn; an inherent right cannot!  as many  
Jurisdictions rule on the “right of visit” in different ways - even  
those which have adopted Mackey’s list - it can hardly be considered  
a true Landmark, “if” we judge by Mackey’s own pronouncement on what  
constitutes a Landmark and “if” the word “right” means what it says.   
In some jurisdictions a Mason cannot visit without a good standing  
card; in others any member may object to any visitor and the Master  
must exclude; in still others, some Masters close the doors of their  
lodges to all visitors on election nights, and so on. 
Occasionally there is a conflict between ritual and Landmarks as  
adopted.  A certain Jurisdiction lists fifty-four Landmarks, of which  
Number 18 reads:  “Every Lodge, Grand or Subordinate, when lawfully  
congregated, must be regularly clothed, tyled and opened before it  
can proceed to work.”  Many other Jurisdictions agree that it is a  
Landmark that a Lodge must be “duly tiled.” 
Our ancient brethren met on high hills and low vales to observe the  
approach of cowans and eavesdroppers.  Did they “truly tile?” 
California Lodge No. 1 of the District of Columbia was chartered to  
go to California during the gold rush of 1849.  Had that Lodge (now  
California No.1 on the register of the Grand Lodge of California)  
been wrecked going around the horn; had only the members of the  
Lodge, with their charter, been saved upon an otherwise uninhabited  
island; if they then held meetings with no tiler - since there were  
no cowans or eavesdroppers against whom to tile - would they have  
violated the so-called Landmark? 
Many rituals give “three” as the irreducible minimum for a Master  
Mason’s Lodge; a Lodge must have a Master and two Wardens.  If under  
some strange circumstances, three and only three met as a Lodge, what  
becomes of the so-called Landmark which requires a Tiler? 
Secrecy undoubtedly conforms to the classification of the three  
essentials of a Landmark; but about “the means” of securing secrecy  
is at least room for argument. 
Other Masonic laws, good where in force but not necessarily  
Landmarks, are Mackey’s 8th:  “The prerogative of the Grand Master to  
make Masons at sight” and the 11th Landmark of a Western Grand Lodge  
which reads:  “Every person, to be made a Mason must be a man of  
lawful age, free born and; hale and sound, as a man ought to be.” 
Several Grand Jurisdictions have enacted legislation preventing a  
Grand Master from convening an Emergent Lodge for the purpose of  
Making a Mason “at sight.”  Others consider that it is an inherent  
right of Grand Masters to convene Emergent Lodges (that is, give a  
certain number of brethren a dispensation to hold a Lodge) and that  
no law can take this right from him. 
If a Landmark cannot be changed, and this “has been” changed, is it  
truly a Landmark, or merely a matter of common law? 
All will agree that no woman can be made a Mason.  But what becomes  
of the “lawful age” provision in the face of the fact that Washington  
- and many another man - was made a Mason before he was twenty-one?   
He would be a daring debater who argued that the Father of His  
Country was not regularly and legitimately initiated.  The “hale and  
sound” provision is by no means universal; many Jurisdictions stick  
to the strict letter of the “doctrine of the perfect youth” while  
others admit the lame and the halt under a Grand Master’s  
dispensation, Worshipful Master’s judgment or even Grand Lodge law  
relaxing restrictions in favor of men of the Army or Navy who had  
arms or legs shot off in the war! 
A number of Grand Jurisdictions have never adopted any list or  
classification of Landmarks.  The thought back of such absence of  
legislation may be understood from the following, from R.W. Charles  
C. Hunt, Grand Secretary and Grand Librarian of the Grand Lodge of  
Iowa. 
“We hold that the power of the Grand Lodge of Iowa in the  
Jurisdiction of Iowa is limited only by the Ancient Landmarks.  We do  
not attempt to make a list of the Landmarks. 
“We believe it as unnecessary to adopt an official list of scientific  
laws, such as the law of gravitation.  The Landmarks. like scientific  
laws, are valid only in so far as they are true and their adoption by  
any so-called body has no effect whatever on their validity.   
Individual scientists may list what they conceive to be the laws of  
nature, but no scientific society would undertake officially to adopt  
these laws as the official laws of the science in which they are  
interested. 
“The very definition of a Landmark is a fundamental law or principle  
of Masonry which no body of men or Masons can change or modify.   
Anything that can be adopted can be repealed.  If a Grand Lodge has  
the power to adopt, it has the power to modify or repeal.  It is the  
very fact that they unalterable that makes them similar to scientific  
laws which cannot be changed or altered by any man or body of men.” 
Some authorities have attempted to formulate lists of Ancient  
Landmarks which no Mason would question.  For instance, one very old  
Jurisdiction states that the Landmarks are: 
a.	Monotheism, the sole dogma of Freemasonry. 
b.	Belief in immortality. 
c.	The Volume of Sacred Law, an indispensable part of the furniture  
of a Lodge. 
d.	The legend of the Third Degree. 
e.	Secrecy. 
f.	The symbolism of the operative art. 
g.	A Mason must be a freeborn male adult.” 

But then adds “The above list of Landmarks is not declared to be  
exclusive.” 
Dr. Joseph Fort Newton suggests five fundamentals on which all Masons  
can agree:  “The Fatherhood of God, the brotherhood of man, the moral  
law, the Golden Rule and the hope of a life everlasting.”  Those who  
question these as Landmarks usually qualify by agreeing that they are  
teachings of the Order, but are in doubt as to just how old all of  
them may be, as such. 
Dean Roscoe Pound, whose “Masonic Jurisprudence” is generally  
considered to be among the most profound analyses of Landmarks,  
thinks seven are unquestionable:  (1) Belief in God; (2) Belief in  
the persistence of personality; (3) a Book of the Law as an  
indispensable part of the furniture of every Lodge; (4) The legend of  
the Third Degree; (5) Secrecy; (6) The symbolism of the operative  
art; and, (7) That a Mason must be a man free born and of age.” 
Of thirty-nine Jurisdictions of our forty-nine, eighteen either have  
adopted, recognized or follow Mackey’s list of twenty-five Landmarks;  
two use the Old charges, or Old Charges and General Regulations as  
Landmarks; eight have adopted, recognized or follow lists of  
Landmarks of their own, and eleven either have not adopted, do not  
recognize, or do not follow any special compilation of Landmarks,  
preferring to leave the question untouched. 
Reduced to a percentage basis, Mackey is followed in 46.1% plus of  
these thirty-nine Jurisdictions; Old charges and Regulations in 5.1%;  
own Landmarks in 20.5% plus and no special list in 28.2% plus. 
Obviously there is no universality of opinion as to what is and what  
is not a Landmark, and yet all Jurisdictions agree there “are”  
Landmarks. 
Many “Laws of Nature” recognized in former times are believed in no  
longer; knowledge of science and of nature is in a state of flux.   
What appears to be the truth today may be the error of tomorrow.   
Possibly this is true also of our conception of the ancient  
Landmarks, and that no list of all those fundamentals of the Craft  
which are “actually” Landmarks is possible. 
Both that statement and this bulletin are without prejudice to the  
undoubted fact that in those Jurisdictions which have adopted any  
list of Landmarks, whether all inclusive or not, the principles there  
denominated as Landmarks have the force of Landmarks within the  
borders of those Jurisdictions.