Text Fidelity

In these inquiries on governance, much emphasis is placed on text fidelity (or text corruption).

Most of our interactions, as Masonic thinkers, are in the form of discourse.  We read or listen, we speak or write.  Some of what we read or write may be small talk or some inconsequential opinion.  Some may be foundational texts, containing sacrosanct doctrine.  It may be text that is purported to be rules, and it may be words that are used to justify decisions or to prevent access to information, or to preclude understanding, or to coerce conformity or agreement.

The lowest standard in human discourse is text fidelity.  Many people want to interpret, to opine, to relativize, to argue about meaning, or otherwise to add their own "value" to texts that they are presumably paying attention to.  We can have high or low expectations of them.  But the very least that we can expect is that they do not falsify the text.  For if they do falsify the text, how can anything that they may do or say, that is based on falsified text, have any value?

We must distinguish between questionable interpretations of text and text alteration -- corruption, substitution, or falsification.

R. F. Gould (TCHoF.208) wrote:

"The first of these Innovations, the drawing a sponge over the ancient "Charge" "to be true to God and the Holy Church," was doubtless looked upon by many Masons of those days in very much the same manner as we now regard the absence of any religious formulary whatever in the so-called Masonry of the Grand Orient of France."

Gould offers no evidence for this opinion.

Others have conjectured that Anderson could not have meant what he actually wrote, since he was a cleric (thus vicariously impugning their own character). [citation! needed]

Bernard Jones (FGaC) wrote:

"The Constitutions of 1723 obliged the mason, who prior to that time apparently was expected to be a Christian, to believe in the glorious architect of heaven and earth and to practise the sacred duties of morality, whatever his religion or mode of worship might be."

Gould gave Anderson's actual text, but advances an unsubstantiated opinion.

Others acknowledged the actual text, but conjectured that the author did not "mean" what he wrote.

Jones gave a false rendition of Anderson's text, (inadvertently) substituting Williams' 1815 text.

Many thousands of the best Masonic Researchers have read Bernard Jones' work over a period of more than 50 years, during which many editions were published, yet this error (still found in the 2006 edition, 56 years after the first edition), was apparently never noticed and corrected!  Would it have been noticed had the error not confirmed the prevailing bias?

If Freemasonry values truth and honesty, then the very least we can expect when texts are employed in order to influence us, is that those texts have not been surreptitiously altered.

The reader will appreciate, it is hoped, that three separate errors are involved here:

1. That of Williams, Sussex, et al, in inserting into the 1815 edition a text that has been dressed up to appear identical to the 1723 text.

2. Jones' error, 135 years later, in being fooled by this dressing up, so much so that he didn't even check the original.

3. The error of all the famous Masonic Researchers who worked with Jones' book in not catching Jones' error.

The reader will have to decide which of these three errors was the most egregious.

In no case is the error merely one of "editing".  In every single case a message was implanted or reinforced in the hearts, minds, and spirits of the readers, and those over whom they exerted an influence.

It is one matter to revise a text for good reason, to do so openly, transparently, stating those reasons, or at least acknowledging the change.   But to substitute something else while making it appear that nothing has changed, that is forgery, is it not?

Whether someone lies intentionally, or deceives someone else with falsified text that he trusts and assumes is true has no impact on whether the text is falsified.  (Nor on the consequences.)

Our concern as masonic researchers is with the fidelity of the text, not the integrity of the writer or speaker.  Or those who may have kept the falsification a "secret" to preserve the "good name" of the falsifier.

Many freemasons will trust the word of another mason uncritically, and assume it to be true.  But when they pass on this word, it is they who are responsible, when it is false.  Even if the false word came from the highest human authority!

Blind trust is no substitute for truth.

Fact is a lower standard than truth.

Text is the lowest standard of fact.

For further instances, please read the following:

https://sites.google.com/site/tsmr99/innovation

https://sites.google.com/site/tsmr99/charges-and-oversight

https://sites.google.com/site/tsmr99/2010-glcpo-report

Further study is suggested on the vicious cycle of dogma, belief, denial, confirmation bias, cognitive dissonance, and falsification.