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 The elaborate temples that had been built were no longer maintained due to a lack of money in the coffers.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.