I was doing a little reading today when I came across two contradictory pieces of information regarding Freemasonry. It reminded me of how difficult it can be to discover truth when it can be surrounded by exaggerations, well-meaning inaccuracies or even straight out malicious disinformation. This has always been a problem when trying to ascertain the truth in Freemasonry and I would like to give a few pointers to those people who may be interested in studying our craft.
Firstly, there is the fact that, if people want something to be true then they will often believe it to be true whether it is or not. The potential psychological pain of being disappointed will often prevent them from looking too hard into a subject if it may result in a negative finding. This belief often provides them with great comfort and so, while you should respect their desire to believe it, you should be wary of the tendency within yourself.
Secondly, we should consider what qualifies the person to speak on the subject. This is especially the case if the information being imparted is expositional or runs contrary to the generally acknowledged facts. Certainly, everyone can have an opinion but when unusual information is presented as fact then we would do well to check the credentials of the professor.
Obviously, people who make it easy to verify their identity, by doing such things as listing the Lodge and country to which they belong(ed) are a more trustworthy source than those who are more evasive. This is especially the case when they claim to have grandiose titles such as Grand Master or 33rd Degree Mason because such titles imply depth of knowledge and make a product more saleable.
Most dubious of all are documents that are entirely unattributed. For example, I have a document called The Masonic Order of Chivalry known as the Knights Templar that exposes the signs and ceremonies of the Knights Templar. It is, however, unattributed and so (as far as I know) it could have been written by a guy who knew a guy that he met in a pub. The writer claims that the document was published by the “Order of the Grand Conclave of the Royal Exalted Religious and Military order of Masonic Knights Templar in England and Wales and dated the 6th Day of August 1812” and so, if I truly want to check its authenticity, I at least have a starting point.
I also have a document entitled Ancient and Modern Initiation that is, at least, attributed to a gentleman named Max Heindel. A quick Google search shows that such a person did exist and that they were a part of an organisation that actually would have a degree of knowledge about the subject (even if that knowledge was subjective).
Of course, it’s easy for anyone to simply write something and then attribute it to some well-respected (and thus believable) figure and so a more careful person would have to dig deeper if they wanted to be truly certain about the documents authenticity. As you can imagine, most people can’t be bothered (and it’s usually not necessary) to go to these extremes.
The best guide as to the trustworthiness of any information is, of course, how far away from the primary source are you. If your information comes from your own personal experience, then it would be almost 100% accurate. You are the primary source.
The next level of fidelity would be the personal experience of other people whom you believe to be trustworthy. You are then only one-step away from the primary source. Luckily, with Truth being so highly valued by Freemasons, the word of any Freemason should make him a trusted source when it comes to personal experience. There are some who may disagree with me on this point 🙂
Basically, the further you get from the primary source, the more untrustworthy the information becomes. This isn’t to say that it’s likely to be inaccurate, just that it could be and we should be aware of that before we use it as a foundation to build upon.