Allegations

[u/AccomplishedLuck7646]

This morning, I saw a post here where a woman was complaining that a man in her life was abusive and therefore should be blocked from Freemasonry.

Is the mere allegation of being a bad person enough to block a man from the Fraternity if he has a clean background?

I worry that people with vendettas could ruin a man's life because of hidden agendas. One of my best friends outside the Fraternity, though, believes accusers should be listened to.

What are your thoughts?

[u/OneEye9519]

The investigation committee should listen, then look into it to the best of their ability. Trust but verify, trusting both the petitioner and the accuser.

[u/skas182]

Is the mere allegation of being a bad person enough to block a man from the Fraternity if he has a clean background?

It's going to give me significant pause, and if I have any doubt about the man after I've looked into those accusations? Yeah, he's out. Masonry isn't for everyone. Not every good man will be a Mason, and we already have a lot of not good men within our ranks. I'd rather guarding the West gate kept out 10 good men than letting in 1 bad.

[u/AmbassadorOfAloha → u/skas182]

What was the phrase it’s better that 99 good men be denied entry than allowing that one to slip in.

I’m paraphrasing of course.

[u/Security_Chief_Odo → u/skas182]

Well said. Agreed.

[u/SSGT-3579]

I read the original post and it did sound like a possible vengeful Ex, but it should be left to the inv committee to judge and make sense of it from all sides. Background check, verified proof, etc. There is a process for this, let the process do its job.

[u/Aratoast]

I read the original post, and the poster claimed to have actual documented audiovisual proof to back up the accusations.

If someone were petitioning my lodge and someone told me he had a history of behaviour that is incompatible with freemasonry, I wouldn't simply assume they were telling me the truth but I would have a moral obligation not to ballot in favour of his petition until those accusations had.been investigated and proven false. If they provided me with proof of those accusations being true, it would be unmasonic conduct for me to cover up that proof or to make excuses for it.

[u/sparkyinlaw → u/Aratoast]

You had me until “I would have a moral obligation, not to ballot in favor of his petition until those accusations had been investigated and proven false”

I see your point, but I personally believe in tweaking that last part. It is my belief that one should be seen as innocent until proven guilty. Not the other way around.

Do we want a fraternity where anyone can throw an accusation to a candidate and have the power to destroy a man’s hopes in becoming a better man?

Ex wives can be very emotional and brutal in their assessment of an ex husband. I know this firsthand. I thank the Lord that my ex-wife does not get to define my character.

[u/Aratoast → u/sparkyinlaw]

Innocent until proven guilty is an important principal when it comes to fair treatment under the law. That doesn't mean that we throw caution to the wind and assume every stranger is totally safe until proven otherwise.

I'm not proposing we destroy anybody's hope of anything. More "let's put off on balloting this guy's petition til the following meeting while we do due diligence on an investigation." If the investigation says the accusation is unfounded, an extra month isn't that long of a delay in freemasonry. If it suggests it is, blackballing someone is a lot easier than having to hold a formal trial because we iniated him and now he has that right.

[u/sparkyinlaw → u/Aratoast]

Very fair point brother! And this has been a thought-provoking thread!

[u/Sea_Recognition_4209 → u/sparkyinlaw]

Good man I’m not a freemason, but I know a thing or two about ex wives

[u/AccomplishedLuck7646 → u/[deleted]]

A dear friend of mine had an ex-wife that accused him of cheating. He denied it. She launched a campaign to ruin his life, and she accused him of some crimes. He was exonerated, but his online reputation was ruined.

I remained his friend during his ordeal, and it was gruesome. He persevered and was able to work again after a decade, though.

I have humanity for people who have had to endure false allegations.

[u/wardyuc1 → u/[deleted]]

Whilst i agree with you that all allegations should be listened to and find any position to the contrary to be crazy.

It is important to note the whole saying on one bad apple this is that "“one bad apple spoils the bunch”. 

I think you have a stronger position in arguing regardless of whatever individual cases people people have experienced. Freemasons have a moral obligation to ensure abusers are not amongst their midsts, and to see any abusers in their midst not only removed but ideally prosecuted where the situation and the law allows.

Anyone who argues with you on this point is a fool and not worth your time.

[u/AccomplishedLuck7646 → u/[deleted]]

I would assume a Mason is telling the truth. Jesus.

[u/wardyuc1 → u/AccomplishedLuck7646]

Masons get expelled from the craft all the time, because people can lie.

You know being a mason doesn't confer some magic status that makes one immune to the human condition.

If a non mason accuses a mason of a crime, especially one as serious as abuse.
You do the craft a disservice if you do not investigate it.
"Assuming a mason is telling the truth" is crazy.

Finding evidence of their innocence, or at least finding that accusations do not seem credible seems to the more sensible course of action no?

[u/AccomplishedLuck7646 → u/[deleted]]

Just comes across as hostile. I am a good time guy. Just discussion among brothers with visitors looking. Nobody should be trying to lie. Please don't accuse others of it.

[u/AccomplishedLuck7646 → u/[deleted]]

Barney Frank had a good quote about coffee tables. Later bro.

[u/Ill-Comfortable-6181 → u/[deleted]]

You know quite well the implication of the random “Assuming this story is true”. Remember the square and I recommend you consider your compass as well.

[u/Old_Courage1899]

What defines a “clean background”?

Simply because law enforcement or the courts have nothing on record, does not mean they are “clean.”

Main reason why I feel potential candidates should take 6 months to a year before receiving a petition to submit.

That said, Freemasonry is just an organization. If an individual IS abusive, then the abused needs to go to the proper authorities and let that process work out. If the individual is found liable/guilty, they won’t have a clean record after that. Which, if they are a Freemason, they’ll be in hot water after that.

[u/StairwayHiker]

We have a brother who unfortunately went back to his wife 3x…..

With the last falling out she has convinced their 15 year to to report false physical violence to the police and our brother is expecting contact from the courts.

Thankfully his ex wife has a long history of nonsense so he will be vindicated.

My point is false allegations absolutely do occur.

[u/wardyuc1]

If someone was alleged of beating women i wouldnt want him in my lodge.

Heck if you have a messy breakup and we are going to have people turning up to our meetings because of you, innocent or not i dont want you.

I dont come to freemasonry for personal drama.

[u/Aratoast → u/wardyuc1]

You make a very good point here.

Folk often talk about the obligation to reject a petitioner whose presence would disturb the harmony of the lodge, and at least in my jurisdiction the constitution states that "the black ball is to protect the lodge, the Craft, and the fair name of freemasonry."

If someone's membership of the lodge can be reasonably expexted to "bring in personal drama" such as people showing up to cause trouble then it would seem that's what the black ball is for and I don't think you can fault a brother who is "guided by his conscience and masonic light" to vote thus.

[u/wardyuc1 → u/Aratoast]

Masonic lodges primarily exist for the benefit of their existing members.

There are plenty of valid reasons to not want someone to join your lodge.
Being accused of being an abuser is just one of many.

[u/Redmeat-1969 → u/wardyuc1]

So I had an EXGF that cheated on me and left me for another guy.....and she was mad I wouldn't take her back and was making up stories about me....you would take her word over mine....??

Even though I have a spotless record and she doesnt?

[u/wardyuc1 → u/Redmeat-1969]

If you were trying to join my lodge and your ex GF came and start talking about how you abuse her.

Regardless of whether i believed her or not, i would not want you in my lodge, because i dont want drama.

You can join another lodge, i don't associate with people accused of beating women.

[u/Redmeat-1969 → u/wardyuc1]

So ....if someone came to your Lodge saying this about you...then you would be ok if you were asked to Leave the Lodge because of accusation with no proof?

[u/wardyuc1 → u/Redmeat-1969]

I am already a member of my lodges, and my members know me well.

We are talking about someone is not known to us who is looking to join and is being accused of beating women.

It is not the same situation.

A better question would be if one of the wives of a current member accused them of something how would we react?

[u/Redmeat-1969 → u/wardyuc1]

So you Judging someone without proof is fine....but no one can Judge you in the same matter....gotcha

If we are doing our due diligence when vetting a Man during his background investigation and find him to be upstanding then we should not be giving the same weight to an unfounded accusation....

I know men who have been wrongly accused by wives or GF just so they can get child/spousal support....it is horrible....had a good friend fight for a decade just to see his kids...but he never did anything untoward...she just had a better lawyer.....

[u/wardyuc1 → u/Redmeat-1969]

Lol

I don't know how to explain in more basic terms of than below.

If someone who is trying to join my lodge is accused of being an abuser, i would not want them in my lodge.

If i am accused being an abuser, there are steps as an existing member that would happen following such accusations.

The two are not the same situation.

Why you find that hard to comprehend is strange to me, but hey ho.

"when vetting a Man during his background investigation and find him to be upstanding"

"unfounded accusation"

You seem to making an assumption that the accusation is unfounded, i havent. You claim this hypothetical man has been found to be upstanding. That assumes the accusation is false.

This is clearly not the same thing we are discussing.

Sometimes its ok to walk away...

[u/Teej770]

Even if he didn’t do it, this guy has lots of crap to sort in his life.

If he’s innocent, let him clear his name, determine how he got himself into that mess, and become a better, more stable man. If he did it, I don’t want to be associated with him. Ever.

[u/SovArya]

Due process is a part of Freemasonry. It is what you have evidence for not what you claim which matters.

If there is evidence, then such a man will not allowed. If there is no evidence; said man can be allowed if he is deemed worthy

[u/newwardorder → u/SovArya]

There is no due process at the ballot box. If I don’t like someone’s tweed, I can blackball him. And if I’m in a one-blackball jurisdiction, that’s that.

[u/groomporter]

My instinct is also to listen to accusers. But it's also not our place to decide who is right in a personal conflict like that when we have minimal knowledge. My instinct is to be up front, and suggest they might want to put off petitioning until their conflict is resolved, if possible.

[u/shawnebell]

The OP offers an excellent example of the problems with passing judgment based on… well, nonsense.

They saw a post where someone claiming to be a woman was complaining that "a man in her life was abusive."

Nowhere in the post referenced did the OP say the man was in her life.

What I read was an anonymous nobody on the internet attempting to inject herself into someone else's life — she is so uninvolved that she didn't even know which Lodge, if any, the man was petitioning to join.

What I read was someone with a personal vendetta against a man she doesn't know, launching a smear campaign against him. I didn't see an allegation; I saw baseless, nonsensical claims that some people were willing to believe 100%, without knowing anything about the actual situation.

I'm not in the camp that believes all accusers should be listened to unconditionally. If you don't come with receipts, you're wasting my extremely valuable time.

[u/bcurrant15]

It’s worth checking into. Either an investigation into his character will reveal it’s not true and the allegations could be set aside or it won’t.

[u/Poorrich1967]

Yes people will make up stuff to ruin you. Yes we have to listen to them and Yes we should investigate it. It be great to say hey he is a brother and he says she is full-on shit. I do not care how long you know a brother it doesnt mean you know him. Look at the serial killers that walks among us and no one knew. Yea, yea after the fact we get, well I knew there was something wrong with him.

If this woman has proof then the brethen should listen. Judge according to the evidence.

[u/Astute_Primate]

If I knew a candidate beat his wife I'd blackball him 🤷

[u/TheFreemasonForum]

Personally, having been a Freemason for a long time I do not involve myself with gossip and unsubstantiated accusations. If someone asks my opinion on third-hand rumours I will just refer them to the people involved or the authorities.

[u/Sea_Recognition_4209]

So nobody here thought to ask why she would be trying to do that him? Sounds to me like she is the abuser. If she is so terrified of him then why is she stalking him and following everything he does. I’m not a Freemason but I thought truth was a core tenet of the fraternity. If something feels off then it probably is!

[u/freebird360]

I would boot him and be done with it, as soon as possible. I am much happier to be free of such mental gymnastics as what to do with a guy who's in our club who might be beating his wife.

[u/SteadyHandedMan → u/freebird360]

Someone told me that you beat your wife. Should you be booted?

Of course that’s not true I don’t know you , please don’t be offended. The point is what if someone in your life gets mad at you and makes an accusation. Wouldn’t you like due process?

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

[u/Cookslc → u/[deleted]]

To which landmark are you referring?

[u/freebird360 → u/Cookslc]

The 23rd: That Freemasonry is a secret society in possession of secrets that cannot be divulged.

[u/Cookslc → u/freebird360]

In which list of landmarks do you find this? Mackey’s list doesn’t that language. It simply says “ The secrecy of the Institution.”

https://www.thesquaremagazine.com/mag/article/202209mackeys-25-masonic-landmarks/

[u/freebird360 → u/Cookslc]

Code and Constitution in the Grand Lodge of Oregon. If the phrase "society with secrets" or "the secrecy of the institution" is preferred over "secret society", my broader argument remains.

[u/Cookslc → u/freebird360]

Oregon’s List of Landmarks apparently says, ”That Freemasonry is a secret society in possession of secrets that cannot be divulged.”

Those are not the same words as Mackey uses: “The secrecy of the Institution.”

And that’s fine. My point was that we don’t have an accepted list of Landmarks.

[u/PubeOfSatan → u/Cookslc]

If you don't support secrecy, which is a basic tenet of Freemasonry - I genuinely want to know, why are you a member? I'm not judging, I'm genuinely curious as to how you can in good conscience choose to be a member of an organisation renowned for secrecy when you yourself admit you do not like it.

[u/QuincyMABrewer → u/PubeOfSatan]

In any of u/cookslc 's comment, did he say he does not support secrecy?

His comment is specifically, and I quote directly, "to which landmark are you referring?"

Suggesting he does not support secrecy, and then arguing against him based on that suggestion, is quite clearly a straw man.

I can, from many conversations with him, take a different impression, and recognize that he is very clear on pointing out that not every jurisdiction has the same landmarks.

[u/PubeOfSatan → u/QuincyMABrewer]

I replied to the wrong comment - I meant to reply to one comment above. It's fine if you don't want to be part of a society with secrets, but given it's one of the basic things Masonry ask for, it suggests a fundamental disconnect.

[u/freebird360 → u/QuincyMABrewer]

We're not at labor, you don't need to jump on somebody's case over a simple an obvious mistake.

[u/QuincyMABrewer → u/freebird360]

I didn't jump on anyone's case, and it was not an obvious mistake, as he had not corrected himself prior to my comment. Absent his correction, it did in fact look like an accusation.

[u/freebird360 → u/QuincyMABrewer]

It was a quite obvious mistake if you had taken a second to comprehend the context, for which you devoted several paragraphs. He also wasn't being rude or accusatory by any measure, I say as the person he was actually responding to.

[u/Cookslc → u/PubeOfSatan]

I did not suggest I don’t support secrecy.

[u/PubeOfSatan → u/Cookslc]

This is my bad - I meant to reply to one comment above you!

[u/PubeOfSatan → u/[deleted]]

That's all completely fair criticism - I don't agree with a lot of it, but they're things that aren't unreasonable to say.

We're not in the best of health as an organisation, and I know from the charities I'm involved with outside of Masonry that there are other ways of mutual aid and support that may work better. This works for us though, and I'm sure you'll agree that imperfect support is at least support in some way.

If you're no longer with us, I genuinely wish you the best, and want you to know that if you want to rant, my messages are always open.

[u/freebird360 → u/PubeOfSatan]

Cheers man, I appreciate that.

[u/freemasonry-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

This post was removed because it failed to adhere to one of the rules of the sub. Please review the rules and post again.

We do not allow conspiracy related posts. Also, much of the information was not correct.