My Freemasonry | Freemason Information and Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Have standards really been lowered?

LAMason

Premium Member
It is not uncommon to see comments similar to the following in Masonic forum discussions:

Over the years as membership dwindled, there was a movement to "dumb down" Freemasonry by lowering dues and lowering standards.

Instead of dumbing down let's up the requirements.

Quality over quantity

First I want to relate my personal observations about my Mother Lodge. They may not be representative of other Lodges. It was chartered in 1893. I was able to read the minutes going back to 1902. Other than the large amount of degree work that went on post WWII, the meetings were very similar to recent meetings.

So, I have a few questions:
  • How has Freemasonry been “dumbed down”?
  • When did this “dumbing down” begin?
  • How have we lowered standards?
    • How are candidates different now than in the past?
    • How do you define “quality” as it relates to a petitioner?
I will agree that in terms of inflation adjusted dollars our dues are lower now than in the past. I am not willing to say that it is the result of an intentional strategy to mitigate the decline in membership as opposed to the membership opting to use “fund raisers” to generate operating revenue.
 
Last edited:

Browncoat

Registered User
There is evidence all around you. How much discussion (both online and amongst Masons) does it take to realize that the problem is real? Individual lodges may vary of course, but the overriding sentiment is that:
  • Attendance, participation, retention, and recruitment are low
  • Dues are not adequate
  • Masons are not fulfilled by their experience
This sums up the vast majority of the discussion of the Craft. Are there lodges that are going above and beyond? Certainly. There has been a mad scrambling in recent years to recruit, recruit, recruit in order to boost numbers. This leaves many Masons who are actually active to wonder who is guarding the West Gate?
 
Last edited:

pointwithinacircle2

Rapscallion
Premium Member
I think this is an excellent topic that definitely deserves it's own thread.
I have a few questions:
  • How has Freemasonry been “dumbed down”?
  • When did this “dumbing down” begin?
  • How have we lowered standards?
    • How are candidates different now than in the past?
    • How do you define “quality” as it relates to a petitioner?
I will agree that in terms of inflation adjusted dollars our dues are lower now than in the past. I am not willing to say that it is the result of an intentional strategy to mitigate the decline in membership as opposed to the membership opting to use “fund raisers” to generate operating revenue.

First, let me say that I think the people who are using phrases like “dumbed down” are describing something real, something actually lost. I think that careful exploration of what is different today from years past can shed light on who we are, the situation we find ourselves in, and even on who we want to become.

Fifty years ago my parents used to take me to dinners at the Lodge. All the women wore formal gowns and the men all wore suits. (There may have been tuxes, at that age I wouldn't have known the difference) There was a formal sit down dinner, and someone was busing the tables. This was in the mid 60''s. Today there are never any family social events at any of the Lodges where I am a member or attend regularly. This is a loss.

Fifty years ago I can remember playing in the yard of someone I didn't know while my father was inside the house. Today I know that my father went there to learn the ritual. When I began asking Masons to help me learn the ritual I was told "it is all in the book, learn it on your own". In fact, I have been a Mason for fifteen years and I can still count on my fingers the number of times I have been invited inside another Masons home. This is a loss.

We have tried to replace the loss of quality social interactions and cementing good friendships by simplifying the ritual, lowering the memory requirements, keeping dues artificially low, and holding One Day Classes. I think we are addressing the wrong problem. The value of a thing is determined by comparing the costs in terms of time, dollars, and commitment to the quality of what you receive. We have allowed the quality of Masonry to become unacceptably low, so we had to lower the cost in order to appeal to the average person. Are we going to allow ourselves to become the Wal-mart of fraternities? Only time will tell.
 

Bob Reed

Registered User
It is not uncommon to see comments similar to the following in Masonic forum discussions:







First I want to relate my personal observations about my Mother Lodge. They may not be representative of other Lodges. It was chartered in 1893. I was able to read the minutes going back to 1902. Other than the large amount of degree work that went on post WWII, the meetings were very similar to recent meetings.

So, I have a few questions:
  • How has Freemasonry been “dumbed down”?
  • When did this “dumbing down” begin?
  • How have we lowered standards?
    • How are candidates different now than in the past?
    • How do you define “quality” as it relates to a petitioner?
I will agree that in terms of inflation adjusted dollars our dues are lower now than in the past. I am not willing to say that it is the result of an intentional strategy to mitigate the decline in membership as opposed to the membership opting to use “fund raisers” to generate operating revenue.
It is not uncommon to see comments similar to the following in Masonic forum discussions:







First I want to relate my personal observations about my Mother Lodge. They may not be representative of other Lodges. It was chartered in 1893. I was able to read the minutes going back to 1902. Other than the large amount of degree work that went on post WWII, the meetings were very similar to recent meetings.

So, I have a few questions:
  • How has Freemasonry been “dumbed down”?
  • When did this “dumbing down” begin?
  • How have we lowered standards?
    • How are candidates different now than in the past?
    • How do you define “quality” as it relates to a petitioner?
I will agree that in terms of inflation adjusted dollars our dues are lower now than in the past. I am not willing to say that it is the result of an intentional strategy to mitigate the decline in membership as opposed to the membership opting to use “fund raisers” to generate operating revenue.

You win Brother! Standards are different from state to state so you can, and no doubt will, counter anything I say. I don't have the time, energy or inclination to continue. I would much rather converse in a friendly and brotherly manner with others about their thoughts, opinions and experiences in masonry without constantly being challenged. So please have the last word on this matter and refrain from commenting on my posts in the future. I will extend the same courtesy. OUT
 

JJones

Moderator
Just hopping in to give my two cents on a few things:

Attendance, participation, retention, and recruitment are low

My old lodge isn't old by some standards but at over 150 years old, it's old relatively speaking. 150 years ago one of the big gripes the brethren had was lack of attendance and participation. Some things don't change (although attendance and participation at the time was likely much higher).

What's wrong with low recruitment? High recruitment would imply that lots of people are petitioning and being accepted, which means that somewhere along the line we've dropped the ball and began lowering our standards for membership. Quality and quantity are inverse of one another.

So long as I'm on this subject, I really don't think there's anything you could do that would really increase everything I've quoted above anyhow. I look at churches as an example of this: there are no standards for membership (anyone is welcome), no dues, no initiations, and they still have problems with attendance, recruitment, and so forth.

  • How has Freemasonry been “dumbed down”?
  • When did this “dumbing down” begin?
  • How have we lowered standards?
    • How are candidates different now than in the past?
    • How do you define “quality” as it relates to a petitioner?

Many of the answers you seek would depend on what jurisdiction you're under.

As far as your question about candidates goes, I don't think people have changed, as least not fundamentally. Their expectations of Freemasonry, however, have changed quite a bit. They expect something marvelous and we, instead, provide them with a very mundane experience.
 

Browncoat

Registered User
What's wrong with low recruitment? High recruitment would imply that lots of people are petitioning and being accepted, which means that somewhere along the line we've dropped the ball and began lowering our standards for membership. Quality and quantity are inverse of one another.

So long as I'm on this subject, I really don't think there's anything you could do that would really increase everything I've quoted above anyhow. I look at churches as an example of this: there are no standards for membership (anyone is welcome), no dues, no initiations, and they still have problems with attendance, recruitment, and so forth.
I don't think there's anything wrong with low recruitment as far as the numbers go, it should be low. However, the reasoning for low numbers seems to be the opposite of what it should be: it's not because lodges are being selective of candidates. It's because there aren't enough candidates interested in Freemasonry, and that's a problem. I know in my area, there has been a push to start DeMolay for many years, and never comes to be, because "reasons".

Church is a great comparison. There are people who attend church simply because they're "supposed to", or it's more of a habit than anything else. If churches focused more on the experience versus ceremony and simply going through the motions, attendance there might improve also.

As far as your question about candidates goes, I don't think people have changed, as least not fundamentally. Their expectations of Freemasonry, however, have changed quite a bit. They expect something marvelous and we, instead, provide them with a very mundane experience.
I agree. Masons often point to the bloated numbers of heyday of Freemasonry as a benchmark, rather than a bubble. There are a lot of things pulling for a man's attention these days, and it's not enough to simply belong to a boy's club just for the sake of belonging. Today's man is expected to help with the baby, making dinner, carting the kids around, and being an active and integral part of the household. This is a stark contrast to yesterday when Monday night was lodge, Tuesday night was bowling, Wednesday night was for the Elks, etc. Communities have evolved to the point where we don't measure the worth of a man by how many clubs he belongs to anymore like in the 50's and 60's.
 

hanzosbm

Premium Member
First I want to relate my personal observations about my Mother Lodge. They may not be representative of other Lodges. It was chartered in 1893. I was able to read the minutes going back to 1902. Other than the large amount of degree work that went on post WWII, the meetings were very similar to recent meetings.

Brother LAMason, not an argument, but a point of clarification; you mentioned reading about meeting minutes going back to 1902. What type of information was contained in those minutes that would speak to the dumbing down (or not) over the years?
I guess it might be better to first define what we are talking about when it comes to dumbing down. My experience has been that the proficiencies are quite short, most of the brothers don't have the full lectures memorized, and there isn't much in the way of reflection happening either in terms of young Masons learning their proficiencies or of the more senior brothers having Masonic discussions. With that being said, would meeting minutes discuss these aspects? I'm not asking this to be argumentative, but I agree with you that it is a worthwhile question to ask if things have truly been dumbed down over the years, but the only way to ascertain that is to understand what was being done in the past, and I'm not sure how we go about determining that.
 

hanzosbm

Premium Member
with no GL moving to recover the genuine secrets, there is no hope of bringing more knowledge into Masonry

Can we say for certain that the GLs have in fact lost genuine secrets? To my mind, all we can reasonably say is that the GL is not teaching genuine secrets to the masses.
 

Companion Joe

Premium Member
A couple of things:

I don't know what kind of "genuine secrets" anyone is looking for, but if you are digging for some sort of lost ancient secret knowledge in Freemasonry, you have watched too much TV.

As for the fraternity having lowered its standards, I think yes. I don't think it's unique to Freemasonry; I think society has lowered its standards.

For example, my lodge's first WM went on to become a senator, the Secretary of the Treasury, and the U.S. Ambassador to Russia. Our second WM was a senator. Our third WM was a Congressman. We have had four members go on to be Congressmen; none in the last 75 years. A U.S. President was a member of our lodge, and another U.S. President was a regular visitor. Governors have sat in my lodge. Again, none in recent memory. To my knowledge, none of our elected officials even on the local level belong to our lodge. If they are, in 21 years I've never sat in lodge with them. The last two local elected officials who were lodge members were forced to demit or face a trial for un-Masonic conduct.

We don't have any judges, presidents of big companies, community movers and shakers.

Our members aren't bad people or slouches. We just have more factory workers than factory owners. (For full discloser, I am a high school teacher/coach).

At our stated meeting last night, we had 30 members present; we ranged in dress from suits to the Tiler wearing jeans and a Duck Dynasty t-shirt. While dress is not the defining character of a man, if you think as an officer wearing a Duck Dynasty t-shirt is OK, then yes, our standards have dipped.
 

Companion Joe

Premium Member
There seem to me to be some secrets concealed in the ritual - although somewhat disfigured by the edits of those without the genuine secrets.

For example what is the function of the different rhythms of the various knocks?
Why do the deacons cross their wands?
Why do the brethren enter at the NW?

If you are seeking concealed secrets, you are probably in for a long search.
There aren't various knocks; there a prescribed number. If you want rhythm, consult a music teacher.
The deacons and stewards cross their staffs to represent the formation of the tabernacle.
I have to admit I am not up to speed on why candidates enter exactly where they do.
 

Browncoat

Registered User
For example, my lodge's first WM went on to become a senator, the Secretary of the Treasury, and the U.S. Ambassador to Russia. Our second WM was a senator. Our third WM was a Congressman. We have had four members go on to be Congressmen; none in the last 75 years. A U.S. President was a member of our lodge, and another U.S. President was a regular visitor. Governors have sat in my lodge. Again, none in recent memory. To my knowledge, none of our elected officials even on the local level belong to our lodge. If they are, in 21 years I've never sat in lodge with them. The last two local elected officials who were lodge members were forced to demit or face a trial for un-Masonic conduct.
I've often wondered about this. I wonder if elected officials join lodges outside of their home district. Are there lodges near Washington, DC that are full of Congressmen? It would sort of make sense because politicians rarely spend time in their home district anymore. It's not common to see them rubbing elbows with their constituents like in years past.
 

Companion Joe

Premium Member
I don't know, but I have a feeling they do not. Harry Truman was the Grand Master of his home state of Missouri, but he was known to visit D.C. lodges even when he was President.
We have had 14 U.S. Presidents who were Masons, but the last one was 40 years ago.
 

Browncoat

Registered User
...the last one was 40 years ago.
Sign o' the times. A lot of people just don't value the qualities that make a man a good Mason anymore.

I vaguely remember some kind of stink being raised during the last Presidential election, with claims that Mitt Romney was a Freemason. I don't think that he is, but people were talking about it negatively.
 

Companion Joe

Premium Member
And that brings us around full circle to what we are talking about.
In days gone by, Masons were the respected members of the community. Now, if someone has much more than heard of Freemasonry, they start spouting off some conspiracy nonsense they saw on TV.
 

LAMason

Premium Member
Brother LAMason, not an argument, but a point of clarification; you mentioned reading about meeting minutes going back to 1902. What type of information was contained in those minutes that would speak to the dumbing down (or not) over the years?
I guess it might be better to first define what we are talking about when it comes to dumbing down. My experience has been that the proficiencies are quite short, most of the brothers don't have the full lectures memorized, and there isn't much in the way of reflection happening either in terms of young Masons learning their proficiencies or of the more senior brothers having Masonic discussions. With that being said, would meeting minutes discuss these aspects? I'm not asking this to be argumentative, but I agree with you that it is a worthwhile question to ask if things have truly been dumbed down over the years, but the only way to ascertain that is to understand what was being done in the past, and I'm not sure how we go about determining that.

I will begin by explaining why I asked the questions that I did. I have been a Mason since 1973 and can speak directly to changes since then. In addition to that I had the privilege and benefit of knowing and spending a lot of time with Masons who had been active in Lodge and conferring degrees for 30, 40 and even 50 years as well as having read the minutes going back to 1902. So, that is the reason I asked when this “dumbing down” began. Again, my perspective is based on Louisiana and specifically rural northeast Louisiana.

I also asked how Freemasonry has been “dumbed down”, because I based my evaluation on the general format of the meetings, how petitions were processed, degrees conferred, proficiency requirements for advancement. My original post gave the impression that I was relying solely on the old minutes, but I should have said it also included my personal experience over 42 years and information passed on to me from men who had been active in Freemasonry for many years. From reading the old minutes I know that the way they conducted business as far as the routine matters like reading the minutes, reading correspondence, paying the bills, receiving petitions, voting on proficiency, conferring degrees, and the typical length of the meetings were similar to how it is done now. Of course they do not contain details about the ritual itself or details of the discussion during or after the meetings, but this is where I rely on my personal knowledge and what I was told by men who had been Masons since as far back as the 1920s and 1930s. Now, I will say there have been some changes such as cipher books for the ritual and catechisms, but a candidate still has to receive some mouth to ear instruction to be able to use them and pass an examination on the entire catechism. In terms of dress, I realize that attire is more casual now than it was in times past, but I do not place a value judgment on that.

When it comes to “quality” as far as members, I asked how do you define “quality” and how are candidates different now from in the past. I should have probably just said Masons. I can say from my personal experience that even when I joined the Lodge there were more professionals (Doctors, Lawyers, Accountants, Educators) and for lack of a better description “high profile” members. That is not to say that they are nonexistent today. But there were also many without formal education including blue collar, farmers, oil field workers, and even, again for lack of a better description “common laborers”. My Father joined the lodge in 1922, only had a 3rd grade education and held only menial jobs.

I know this post was long but hope it answered your question to some degree.
 

hanzosbm

Premium Member
I will begin by explaining why I asked the questions that I did. I have been a Mason since 1973 and can speak directly to changes since then. In addition to that I had the privilege and benefit of knowing and spending a lot of time with Masons who had been active in Lodge and conferring degrees for 30, 40 and even 50 years as well as having read the minutes going back to 1902. So, that is the reason I asked when this “dumbing down” began. Again, my perspective is based on Louisiana and specifically rural northeast Louisiana.

I also asked how Freemasonry has been “dumbed down”, because I based my evaluation on the general format of the meetings, how petitions were processed, degrees conferred, proficiency requirements for advancement. My original post gave the impression that I was relying solely on the old minutes, but I should have said it also included my personal experience over 42 years and information passed on to me from men who had been active in Freemasonry for many years. From reading the old minutes I know that the way they conducted business as far as the routine matters like reading the minutes, reading correspondence, paying the bills, receiving petitions, voting on proficiency, conferring degrees, and the typical length of the meetings were similar to how it is done now. Of course they do not contain details about the ritual itself or details of the discussion during or after the meetings, but this is where I rely on my personal knowledge and what I was told by men who had been Masons since as far back as the 1920s and 1930s. Now, I will say there have been some changes such as cipher books for the ritual and catechisms, but a candidate still has to receive some mouth to ear instruction to be able to use them and pass an examination on the entire catechism. In terms of dress, I realize that attire is more casual now than it was in times past, but I do not place a value judgment on that.

When it comes to “quality” as far as members, I asked how do you define “quality” and how are candidates different now from in the past. I should have probably just said Masons. I can say from my personal experience that even when I joined the Lodge there were more professionals (Doctors, Lawyers, Accountants, Educators) and for lack of a better description “high profile” members. That is not to say that they are nonexistent today. But there were also many without formal education including blue collar, farmers, oil field workers, and even, again for lack of a better description “common laborers”. My Father joined the lodge in 1922, only had a 3rd grade education and held only menial jobs.

I know this post was long but hope it answered your question to some degree.
It did answer my question, absolutely, and I appreciate you taking the time to do so.

You bring up some interesting points about the backgrounds of the brothers today as opposed to previous generations. Those points happened to coincide with some thoughts I had this morning about the levels of introspection involved in Masonry today versus in the past. I'm a relatively young Mason and do not have the person experience going back as far as other brothers and maybe this sense of dumbing down is based on some romanticism of the past. That being said, we can all agree that at some point in Freemasonry's past there was some shift from purely operative Masonry to speculative. We went from a group of blue collar stone cutters (although it could be argued that the modern equivalent would be well educated engineers and architects) to a group of open minded, highly educated, free thinkers from the upper echelons of educated society. It seems to me that we are starting to revert a bit. I'm not necessarily saying this is a bad thing as men of all backgrounds have things to offer, but when some of complain that there is no longer any discussion over the deeper meaning of our symbols and the philosophical side while we simultaneously lose the demographic most likely to be considered the modern free thinkers, it starts to make sense.

At least in this regard, while I think that the term 'dumbing down' is unnecessarily negative, I think there could be some validity to it.
 

Browncoat

Registered User
So, I have a few questions:
  • How has Freemasonry been “dumbed down”?
  • When did this “dumbing down” begin?
  • How have we lowered standards?
    • How are candidates different now than in the past?
    • How do you define “quality” as it relates to a petitioner?
I will agree that in terms of inflation adjusted dollars our dues are lower now than in the past. I am not willing to say that it is the result of an intentional strategy to mitigate the decline in membership as opposed to the membership opting to use “fund raisers” to generate operating revenue.

I'll address each of your questions directly, since I'm the one who used the term "dumbed down" in another thread (in a discussion about T.O. lodges)

How has Freemasonry been "dumbed down"?
First, some context: Dumbing down is a deliberate diminution of the intellectual level of education, literature, cinema, news, and culture. The term "dumbing down" originated in 1933 as movie-business slang, used by motion picture screenplay writers, meaning: "[to] revise so as to appeal to those of little education or intelligence".

For most of its history, speculative Freemasonry has been a gentleman's club. The fraternity has included men of power, including U.S. Presidents, astronauts, pro athletes, industrialists, etc. We're all familiar with the long list of famous Freemasons. As time has gone on, fewer and fewer names have been added to that list. Instead of lawyers, doctors, and entrepreneurs, many lodges consist of laborers, farmers, and working class men. Not that there's anything wrong with that, or that these men are of lower intelligence.

When did this "dumbing down" begin?
While I can't point to a specific date and time, this dumbing down occurred sometime during the social and civil unrest of the late 60's and early 70's. This is exactly where the generation gap occurs in Freemasonry as well because rebellious young men of this time did not want to join their father's fraternity. A lot of things changed during this period (outside of the Craft), including a dramatic shift in our social values.

How have we lowered standards?
Lodges all over the country were closed during the era of decline. The elaborate temples that had been built were no longer maintained due to a lack of money in the coffers. Dues were dramatically lowered in an effort to retain members and hopefully attract new ones. Thus, the quantity over quality mantra was adopted by most Grand Lodges.

Enter the one-day classes. While many quality Masons (including Chris Hodapp of Freemasons for Dummies fame) were raised from these classes, they were largely deemed a failure. I recently saw a statistic (can't remember where) that Ohio holds the current record at around 7,000 Master Masons raised in a single day. Of those, only 6-8% ever held officer positions.

Dues continue to be ridiculously low. I was shocked to discover that dues at my lodge was only $45 per year, which means I have a vested interest of 12 cents per day ($3.75/month) on my Masonic experience. I pay almost triple that for Netflix. Nevermind the cable or cell phone bills...or even the trash bill. As a matter of perspective, my 13 yr old son pays $10/month for Xbox Live so he can play video games online with his friends. In short, most men today get more out of watching television or texting than spending time at the lodge and investing in themselves.

In the T.O. book, lodge dues were set at $365 per year on the sole basis that Freemasonry was worth $1 per day. How many Brothers who just read that figure nearly fainted? How many Brothers believe that they could get their lodge to dramatically increase dues in an effort to:
  • Hire speakers for education?
  • Buy new regalia?
  • Improve the lodge?
  • Include a nice meal?
Standards are low because it seems that most members want them to remain low by keeping dues at a level that simply keeps the lights on.

How are candidates different now than in the past?
Today's candidate wants something more. They're not interested in secret handshakes and goofy hats, they want to learn. They don't just want to pay dues for the sake of saying they're a Freemason...they want to know what it means to be a Freemason.

How do you define “quality” as it relates to a petitioner?
Maybe I'm special. Maybe I'm clairvoyant. But to me, it doesn't seem that difficult to know who would make an ideal candidate. I have several friends and acquaintances outside of the Craft, and it would be very simple to sort them into a 2-column list of yay or nay. I don't imagine this would be difficult for anyone else.

I think the problem is not with finding quality petitioners. Rather, it's that current members are either A) not attending lodge and could care less about finding new members, or B) an active member, but unhappy/bored with their lodge experience and don't want to drag anyone else into it.

The overall "dumbing down" I'm referring to is that Freemasonry is supposed to be about "making good men better." I won't repeat all of the references we've all heard about teachings being veiled in symbolism and all that other jazz. For many, it's not about that anymore. It's not about learning, much less applying what you've learned to your life. It's about paying dues to simply belong. We've "dumbed down" to being something like Rotary, Lions, Elks...whatever.
 
Last edited:

dfreybur

Premium Member
If you are seeking concealed secrets, you are probably in for a long search.

Many of which you will find in your own heart. "Enlightenment available. Inquire Within."

There aren't various knocks; there a prescribed number. If you want rhythm, consult a music teacher.

That varies by jurisdiction. I arrived in a new state and when I heard how many knocks were used I looked around expecting to see a crotchety old PM correcting the error. Nope, different jurisdiction different count.

Brother James also seems to mix in content from appendent bodies. I learned several knock rhythms there.
 
Top