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?

pointwithinacircle2

Rapscallion
Premium Member
Please forgive the rather long quote. The following was written 146 years ago (1869) by the Russian author Leo Tolstoy in "War and Peace". Remind me again, when did we lower the standards? http://freemasonry.bcy.ca/fiction/warandpeace.html

t.gif
"He divided the Brothers he knew into four categories. In the first he put those who did not take an active part in the affairs of the lodges or in human affairs, but were exclusively occupied with the mystical science of the order: with questions of the threefold designation of God, the three primordial elements—sulphur, mercury, and salt—or the meaning of the square and all the various figures of the temple of Solomon. Pierre respected this class of Brothers to which the elder ones chiefly belonged, including, Pierre thought, Joseph Alexeevich himself, but he did not share their interests. His heart was not in the mystical aspect of Freemasonry.

t.gif
In the second category Pierre reckoned himself and others like him, seeking and vacillating, who had not yet found in Freemasonry a straight and comprehensible path, but hoped to do so.

t.gif
In the third category he included those Brothers (the majority) who saw nothing in Freemasonry but the external forms and ceremonies, and prized the strict performance of these forms without troubling about their purport or significance. Such were Willarski and even the Grand Master of the principal lodge.

t.gif
Finally, to the fourth category also a great many Brothers belonged, particularly those who had lately joined. These according to Pierre's observations were men who had no belief in anything, nor desire for anything, but joined the Freemasons merely to associate with the wealthy young Brothers who were influential through their connections or rank, and of whom there were very many in the lodge."
 
Last edited:

hanzosbm

Premium Member
Please forgive the rather long quote. The following was written 146 years ago (1869) by the Russian author Leo Tolstoy in "War and Peace". Remind me again, when did we lower the standards? http://freemasonry.bcy.ca/fiction/warandpeace.html

t.gif
"He divided the Brothers he knew into four categories. In the first he put those who did not take an active part in the affairs of the lodges or in human affairs, but were exclusively occupied with the mystical science of the order: with questions of the threefold designation of God, the three primordial elements—sulphur, mercury, and salt—or the meaning of the square and all the various figures of the temple of Solomon. Pierre respected this class of Brothers to which the elder ones chiefly belonged, including, Pierre thought, Joseph Alexeevich himself, but he did not share their interests. His heart was not in the mystical aspect of Freemasonry.

t.gif
In the second category Pierre reckoned himself and others like him, seeking and vacillating, who had not yet found in Freemasonry a straight and comprehensible path, but hoped to do so.

t.gif
In the third category he included those Brothers (the majority) who saw nothing in Freemasonry but the external forms and ceremonies, and prized the strict performance of these forms without troubling about their purport or significance. Such were Willarski and even the Grand Master of the principal lodge.

t.gif
Finally, to the fourth category also a great many Brothers belonged, particularly those who had lately joined. These according to Pierre's observations were men who had no belief in anything, nor desire for anything, but joined the Freemasons merely to associate with the wealthy young Brothers who were influential through their connections or rank, and of whom there were very many in the lodge."
Wow, I feel so ignorant for having no idea that War and Peace had such a Masonic context. Kinda makes me want to read it, except that I read so seldom that I'd be lucky to finish it before I die.

While I see what you are saying in regards to things being the same 146 years ago, I might argue against that. I would say I probably belong to the first class of Mason that Tolstoy speaks of. Despite the bit of a sting regarding his description of not caring about anything else (that's gonna require some introspection) it made me realize something. Besides of a few of the brothers on this site, I don't know that I've ever met another Mason who I would put into that class. There might be one or two I've come across and I simply didn't know because they weren't open about it, but nonetheless, they are very rare. Based on Tolstoy's description, 146 years ago, while certainly not the majority, they were a large enough population that even he, a Mason not of that group, recognizes them and seems to say that others did as well. I would venture that 95% of the Masons I've met fall into the third category at best and aren't even aware that the first category exists.
Based on that estimate then, the argument could be made that, while the majority didn't have interest in the deeper meanings 146 years ago, some did, and enough of them that it was at least known to be an available path. Comparing that to today and I would say that there has indeed been a decline.
 

Bob Reed

Registered User
Agreed. I definitely need to put W & P on my reading list. I guess the biggest thing I have taken from this thread is that like anything else in life, you get out of it what you put into it. Whether you were initiated, passed and raised in a day or over several years, it's all there for the taking. You have to put in the effort, but it helps to have someone to guide and inspire you to know it's even there in the first place. It reminds me of what my lodge brother, past Grand Master and one of the best Masons I could ever hope to know often says: "I am not interested in being better than others, but rather becoming better than myself." Ultimately isn't that what we are all trying to do?
 

Ripcord22A

Site Benefactor
I am not sure the length of time you consider a generation to be, but based on the generally accepted time frame of about 25 years .

Quwstion.....im 30 so does that mean that I am in the same generation as a 5 year old and a 55year old but that 55 year old is in the same generation as me but not the 5 year old?
 

LAMason

Premium Member
Quwstion.....im 30 so does that mean that I am in the same generation as a 5 year old and a 55year old but that 55 year old is in the same generation as me but not the 5 year old?

That would certainly be possible if we were talking about Biological Generations:

A Biological Generation

…is simply the unscaled transition from one parent to one offspring. In humans, the Biological generation does not have a standard length but there are limits. So you are in one generation, your mother the previous, your child the next one after you, etc. regardless of when any of you were born. As long as your Uncle Willard does not marry your Sister Betty Jean, this is not complicated; This is what people often mean when they use the term “generation” but not what they mean when they ask the question “how long is a generation.”

However in this discussion Generation is used in the context of Cultural or Societal Generations, the 25 years of course is not written in stone as there certainly is some fluidity:

A Cultural or Societal Generation

…is a cohort (a bunch of people born during a specified range of time) with a name that has some sort of meaning to those who use it. The following are widely recognized, given here with the midpoint of the generally accepted range of birth dates:
  • Lost 1914
  • Greatest 1923
  • Silent 1935
  • Baby Boom (Boomers) 1955
  • Generation X 1968
  • Generation Y 1975
  • Generation Z or I 1992
http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2011/03/01/how-long-is-a-generation/
 

hanzosbm

Premium Member
I think that one of the main reasons for this is that month in and month out all that happens in the majority of lodges are business meetings.
I agree.

I ask everyone to ask themselves this: why are you here at this forum? What are you able to find here that you cannot find within your own lodge? Once you have answered that, then ask yourself 'so why isn't it in my own lodge?'
 

Warrior1256

Site Benefactor
I agree.

I ask everyone to ask themselves this: why are you here at this forum? What are you able to find here that you cannot find within your own lodge? Once you have answered that, then ask yourself 'so why isn't it in my own lodge?'
I hadn't thought of it this way before but you're absolutely right!!!I'm here on this forum so often because it is more interesting than my lodge meetings and I learn more here than I do in my lodge! We install new officers in my mother lodge Dec. 7th and I am going to speak to the incoming Master about lectures and guest speakers and the like.
 

Carl_in_NH

Site Benefactor
I am going to speak to the incoming Master about lectures and guest speakers and the like.

Better still, offer to do a presentation yourself. Do some research on a topic you find interesting and start a discussion with members of the lodge. Draw them out from the sidelines and officer chairs with input to the discussion. We have had very good luck recently in our lodge with such participatory discussions - you may even find you need to place a time limit on that segment of your meeting so that you'll still have enough time to discuss the ham and bean supper before closing.
 

hanzosbm

Premium Member
I hadn't thought of it this way before but you're absolutely right!!!I'm here on this forum so often because it is more interesting than my lodge meetings and I learn more here than I do in my lodge! We install new officers in my mother lodge Dec. 7th and I am going to speak to the incoming Master about lectures and guest speakers and the like.
Brother, as a KY MM, I am most familiar with those particular rituals and have done a fair bit of writing and research on them. I'll inbox you one area I found particularly interesting and one that I'm sure will generate not only a lot of immediate discussion, but which will open an untold number of doors for further discussion.
 
R

Ressam

Guest
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?

Hi, sir.
Can you, please, give your -- "definition" of the word/concept "Standard"(in Freemasonry)?
 

pointwithinacircle2

Rapscallion
Premium Member
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.
Perhaps the reason that some truths are called "lost" is that they must re-experienced by each individual in order to be understood. If a person lacks these experiences it is not "knowledge" that is lost, it is "understanding". Understanding is the golden key that unlocks the doors.
 

JJones

Moderator
This is exactly what I did in my Lodge. Only I didn't offer, I prepared in secret. When the presentation was ready I simply stood up in Lodge and gave it. Stealth Masonry, I recommend it to everyone! P.S. If you want to exchange presentations send me a PM.

Sometimes it's easier to ask for forgiveness than for permission. Good job. :)
 

Glen Cook

G A Cook
Site Benefactor
My question... Can a non mason file masonic violation charges? If so...why? If not...why not?
I am unaware of a jurisdiction which would allow this. The codes of which I am aware only allow a member to do so. Our Masonic codes are similar to the UCMJ in many respects; it allows only a person subject to the UCMJ to prefer charges.
 
Top