Historic time between degrees

There's another thread here talking about how long a brother must wait between degrees. It got me thinking about the early(er) days of Freemasonry where one had to be an EA for 7 YEARS before being passed/raised (only 2 degrees then).

We have also had some discussions as of late regarding deeper meanings behind the rituals, "true secrets", and different groups of brothers who are after different things in the Craft.

In an operative setting, 7 years as an EA makes sense, but what about for speculative purposes? I haven't done an exhaustive search to see exactly when this requirement fell away, but I know that as of 1724 in the Briscoe document it is mentioned and in 1728 in Cole's Constitutions is says either 5 or 7 years. Clearly, we are well into the time of speculative Masonry here. So, what was it about speculative Masonry in those days that required an EA 7 years to advance? Was it purely to create an arbitrary hierarchy? Was it a blind following of tradition left over from the operative days? Was it a requirement to learn every single part of every single ritual word for word mouth to ear (which would take a considerable amount of time) ? And why do we not see a time requirement to go from FC to MM? The MM degree started showing up sometime between 1723 and 1730, so, depending on that timing, there very easily could've been an overlap of time where the 7 year rule for EA was in effect and when there were 3 degrees.

What are your thoughts?

hanzosbm said:

In an operative setting, 7 years as an EA makes sense, but what about for speculative purposes? I haven't done an exhaustive search to see exactly when this requirement fell away, but I know that as of 1724 in the Briscoe document it is mentioned and in 1728 in Cole's Constitutions is says either 5 or 7 years. Clearly, we are well into the time of speculative Masonry here. So, what was it about speculative Masonry in those days that required an EA 7 years to advance?

Click to expand...

Are you suggesting that there was a time requirement of 7 years between the EA and FC after the formation of the Grand Lodge of England in 1717?

LAMason said:

Are you suggesting that there was a time requirement of 7 years between the EA and FC after the formation of the Grand Lodge of England in 1717?

Click to expand...

That is correct.

hanzosbm said:

That is correct.

Click to expand...

I would be interested in seeing the evidence that it was a requirement in the post 1717 time period. The documents you refer to (Briscoe and Cole) were compilations of the "Old Charges", not the actual regulations in use in the post 1717 time period. I admit that I do not have any idea as to what the actual requirements were and agree that it would be interesting to know.

LAMason said:

I would be interested in seeing the evidence that it was a requirement in the post 1717 time period. The documents you refer to (Briscoe and Cole) were compilations of the "Old Charges", not the actual regulations in use in the post 1717 time period. I admit that I do not have any idea as to what the actual requirements were and agree that it would be interesting to know.

Click to expand...

Well, that is a valid point. I suppose we'd have to find out whether the Old Charges being published at these times constitutes their usage. I doubt we could get a concrete answer to that.

I won't enter the debate on the historical merit of the 7-year requirement. I'll agree with LAMason, in that I don't recall ever reading that was ever used post-1717 in the speculative era...but my readings on that subject are limited. I'm fairly certain that some foreign jurisdictions (Austrailia perhaps?) have a 1-year timeline between degrees, and the trend with many TO lodges seems to be 6+ months between degrees.

GL of Ohio allows business to be conducted in any degree. EA or FC can attend any meeting, so long as that meeting is opened in the appropriate degree. As I progressed, my lodge opened in both EA and FC just for me, as everyone else was a MM. In instances like this, I fully support a longer time between degrees. I think there should be required learnings/readings, and even written papers submitted. There should be an understanding of the degree, the ritual, lecture, and symbols before advancement. So long as there is learning and involvement, I see no reason why there should be a big rush to progress for the sake of progression.

Let's face it, humans love to chase the carrot. Maybe if we weren't in such a hurry to crank out Master Masons, and there were more structure and time between the degrees, retention would be higher. Instead of a lodge full of speedily-raised Master Masons, there would be more EA and FC who are eager to learn and hungry for progression.

I agree, Brother Browncoat.

As a metaphor, can you imagine walking into a martial arts dojo where everyone is a black belt and beginners typically get their black belts in 6 months or less?

hanzosbm said:

I suppose we'd have to find out whether the Old Charges being published at these times constitutes their usage.

Click to expand...

These collections of the "Old Charges" were presented for the purpose of tracing the history of Freemasonry. As far as I can tell Payne's 39 regulations which were adopted by the Grand Lodge of England in 1721 is the earliest known codification of actual regulations for the Grand Lodge of England. I could not find any mention of a time required between degrees. http://www.pagrandlodge.org/district37/D37_Pdfs/GeneralRegulations1721_by_GeorgePayne.PDF

Browncoat said:

Maybe if we weren't in such a hurry to crank out Master Masons, and there were more structure and time between the degrees, retention would be higher.

Click to expand...

So, are you talking about retention in terms of candidates eventually progressing through the FC and becoming a MM, or retention after they become a MM?

LAMason said:

So, are you talking about retention in terms of candidates eventually progressing through the FC and becoming a MM, or retention after they become a MM?

Click to expand...

Both. I think if it were more of a process, an actual progression versus going from EA to MM in under 90 days, then when that pinnacle of MM is finally obtained, there would be more value attached to it. That's the #1 goal of a lodge, right? To make Master Masons? The Prime Directive, so to speak. Here's what we're basically doing:


The general consensus - the degrees are incredible, moving experiences. Then there's the lecture, which is also considered to be pretty awesome. But the teaching and learning between degrees is often just memorizing the ritual and reviewing a cheesy flip chart.

Some lodges are different, yes. But there's a lot of complaining about the lack of education at lodge. Men don't just want to BE Master Masons, they want to know what it MEANS.

Browncoat said:

The general consensus

Click to expand...

You have a tendency to make broad generalizations, how many people make up your "general consensus"? You always imply that the reason men dropout is because they are dissatisfied with the "teaching and learning". Most of the men I have known that dropout, do so because they just are not interested in Freemasonry, not because it has not provided them with the Masonic education they want. If someone is really interested they can pursue the topics in Freemasonry on their own whether it takes them one day to receive all the degrees or 3 years.

Everyone can speculate about what different outcomes may come from different approaches, you speculate that longer periods between degrees would improve retention, it may also not have any effect on retention, or may decrease retention. To my knowledge there is no evidence to support a conclusion one way or the other on the subject. As the old saying goes "if a frog had wings he wouldn't bump his a$$".

I can generalize because I actually read what others are saying, and not overly concern myself with trying to prove the world wrong.

Of course everyone can speculate. It's called a discussion. That's what things like this forum are for. If you have some kind of data to support a particular position, then why don't you actually present it, instead of being condescending to everyone else? There's another saying: "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt."

It would be interesting if we were able to compare the dropout and attendance rates of Freemasonry to other organizations the require a belief in God, teach moral lessons, and purport to make people better. I have no idea how this data might be gathered. However, I did once belong to a church that had 1500 members and less than 10 percent of them showed up for services. And, just like Freemasonry, I am sure I am still on the membership roles at that church even though I live 1500 miles away and have not attended 30 years.

Browncoat said:

I can generalize because I actually read what others are saying, and not overly concern myself with trying to prove the world wrong.

Click to expand...

Of course you can make a generalization from the comments that you "actually read", but that does not mean that they are representative of the population for which you are making the generalization. For instance, if you are making a generalization based on the comments you read in online forums, it may be appropriate to say that the "general consensus" among the people who have commented on subject x in online forums is "xxxxxxxx", but that does not mean that even represents the "general consensus" of all the members of the forum, much less all Masons. This is an actual quote from a young Mason on another forum as an argument alcohol at Lodge meeting: "I think a lot of young guys desire those days of old when men were men and have visions of grandeur of sitting around in suits *ie Mad Men* (a show I've never seen) sipping a whiskey with some other gents." Now do I think that is representative of the thinking of a large group of young Masons? Absolutely not.

Browncoat said:

If you have some kind of data to support a particular position, then why don't you actually present it, instead of being condescending to everyone else?

Click to expand...

Unlike you, I have not stated a position without "some kind of data" to support it. I have simply pointed out that you have a tendency to make generalizations without actually having evidence to support them and offered other possible outcomes, but I also stated that, " To my knowledge there is no evidence to support a conclusion one way or the other on the subject." You can see that as condescending if you so wish. If anyone has been condescending it is your attitude that "your generation" is superior to previous generations in their quest for knowledge.

LAMason said:

Unlike you, I have not stated a position without "some kind of data" to support it.

Click to expand...

You seem to be missing the point of a discussion forum. We're not writing a thesis paper here that needs AMA format with direct quotes, annotations, footnotes, and citations from scholarly works.

"Many Masons would like to see pink suits and purple bowties adopted as the new formal attire." - That is a stretch.

"Many Masons are unhappy with their lodge experience." - That is not.

It is a sentiment that has been echoed hundreds of times across multiple formats, forums, blog posts, and comments made in person by Masons across the globe. I could link to several of those posts, articles, and even entire books that have addressed this very subject. Since it is common knowledge that many Masons (generalization) feel this way, that isn't really necessary. Most (generalization) people reading the above-italicized statement have either read or heard something similar themselves.

Per Stephenson, The First Freemasons, the two degrees were conferred in the same day in Scotland.

Browncoat said:

AMA format

Click to expand...

APA style is also acceptable. ;-)

Browncoat said:

"Many Masons are unhappy with their lodge experience." - That is not.

Click to expand...

I agree that is not a stretch.

Browncoat said:

The general consensus - the degrees are incredible, moving experiences. Then there's the lecture, which is also considered to be pretty awesome. But the teaching and learning between degrees is often just memorizing the ritual and reviewing a cheesy flip chart.

Click to expand...

That probably is a stretch. There is a big difference between saying "Many" and saying "general concensus", however "general concensus" could be correct if you properly identify the group that has reached the "general concensus".

LAMason said:

Most of the men I have known that dropout, do so because they just are not interested in Freemasonry, not because it has not provided them with the Masonic education they want.

Click to expand...

Let's think about this for a second. Why are they not interested in Freemasonry? They obviously were at one time, now they're not? What changed? I think it might be more accurate to say that they lost interest, but again, the question is 'why'?

If we evaluate this, we can say that if a man had interest enough to ask, that means that his interest lies in what he thought he was going to get out of Masonry. If he loses interest, it is because he isn't getting what he expected. So, in short, his experience in Freemasonry did not live up to his expectations.

If his expectations were long boring meetings about paying the bills, I'm guessing he hasn't lost interest. If it was fellowship and/or charity work, well, that depends on the lodge but my experience is that those things can be readily found, so he probably still hasn't lost interest. So then, what types of things does the general public (remember, his interest started before he was a Mason) think we do, that are positive (after all, it's causing him to join), that we aren't actually doing?

Here in New Zealand, the usual amount of time between EA and MM is one year. I have heard though, that in overseas jurisdictions, mainly America, that it isn't out of the ordinary to have one day conferral of all 3 degrees. Could any of you shed some light on that?

At my lodge it was (roughly) 28 days between degrees although personal reasons made some a little longer.