Whenever I open my newspaper or turn on my television I seem to find myself bombarded with selfrighteous discussions of truth, with words such as transparency and honesty bandied about as though they actually meant something to the user. Too often I feel asked to forgive, justify or ignore a host of squalid misdemeanours as ‘honest’ mistakes. In fact, looking at this spectacle, I feel more and more that I have been drawn into the company of low rent bottom-feeders for whom a pathetic excuse that all can see through is called ‘a robust defence’ and supposed to be taken seriously as a mark of probity. It is all rather gladiatorial, but played out in the dusty arena of some corrupt distant outpost rather than the Coliseum in Rome.
     What is very clear is that the participants in these sorry debates have little idea of truth, of what it means, or of its relevance to daily life.
     One of the problems is that truth has become just another arm of spin; it is the other side of deceit. It has no eternal quality as its meaning has long been degraded. I am reminded of the cynical New York publisher who always claimed that ‘One should always tell the truth because it’s easier to remember.’ For him, truth was just another kind of lie.
     But as every Freemason knows, truth is something far greater. Truth is connected with integrity; and it has an eternal quality. In the lectures demonstrated by the Emulation Lodge of Improvement, truth is defined as being ‘A Divine attribute and the foundation of every Masonic virtue’ and we are reminded that ‘to be good men and true is a lesson we are taught at our Initiation...Hence, hypocrisy and deceit are, or ought to be, unknown to us, sincerity and plain dealing are our distinguishing characteristics...’
     Our symbols reveal this simply and economically, it is the difference between the periphery of a circle and its centre. Truth and integrity are qualities of the centre; the current debates about truth, while employing the same words, are coming from the periphery. They reveal a superficial understanding of the meaning of the term and, as such, are empty of any moral quality.
     Freemasons are taught that our three great principles are Brotherly Love, Relief and Truth; the Charge in the First Degree speaks of ‘the sacred dictates of Truth, of Honour, and of Virtue;’ for us, truth is not a matter for debate or pragmatic dealing, it is one of the eternal principles which all men, seeking to honour and respect each other’s integrity, will hold fast to.

The merger between Freemasonry Today and MQ has generated a number of comments some of which are published in the Letters to the Editor on pages 53 and 54. The main problem seems to be a fear that the new Freemasonry Today may not be independent. Of course, in a strict sense, becoming the official magazine of the United Grand Lodge of England means that the financial independence is indeed lost. But independence emerges not from those paying for the magazine but by those producing it. It is up to the Editor and the editorial staff to determine the perspective taken by any magazine: so it is up to us whether Freemasonry Today remains independent.
     However, even with the original Freemasonry Today, (which ended with the Tenth Anniversary Issue, No. 42) we must remember that I and the rest of the editorial staff were members of the United Grand Lodge of England and would not wish to do anything to harm it. Where perhaps our independent stance was strongest was in our belief that disputes over regularity and jurisdiction were matters for Grand Lodge to deal with and not our concern. We always believed in supporting the world-wide organisation of men and women which was Freemasonry, and while we had many different styles of approach, at heart we were all Freemasons, we shared common values and Landmarks. All, therefore, came within the concerns of the magazine. Our guiding principle was that Freemasonry provides ‘the means of conciliating true friendship among persons that must have remained at a perpetual distance’ a principle stated in the first printed Book of Constitutions in 1723 and still repeated in the latest edition.
     Of course, we found aspects that we disagreed with - the one-day classes in certain of the United States Grand Lodges, for example, or the political involvement of some of the European Grand Lodges - but this was Freemasonry and we felt justified at looking at it, however critically. But with this stance we occasionally ruffled feathers.
     When I was asked if I would be interested in editing this new combined magazine my very first question was, ‘Will I be able to maintain an independent editorial policy?’ The answer given was that I could.
     It has always seemed to me that English Freemasonry is strong enough within itself to accommodate criticism and diversity without any fear of losing its integrity; to attempt to suppress either or both would be an admission of weakness.

Michael Baigent, MA