I assume you have a problem with my use of the term 'clandestine' in that sentence. It tends to get Mormons in a tizz as well, even though both (the Masons and Mormons) are and have been technically pretty open. The example I'd give is a simple one: the Masons have historically been very much a 'boys club' in terms of activity, not unlike many organizations dating back a few centuries, and to that end they've faced a lot of criticism from early women's movements (yeah, I know about the Order of the Eastern Star) as well as abolitionists (yes, I know about Prince Hall Masonry), usually for unreasonable (at least for the time or compared to other groups) and overblown accusations, when usually they were mostly as closed-door as similar groups as other public and non-religious member-based organizations through the centuries.
The tenor of your statement was that the masons have done something that is worthy of the criticism. While the organization is not perfect by any means, there is nothing that stands out as being behavior that makes it worthy of the CT stuff I read so much about. It is a fraternity, so while womens groups are free to criticize it that isn't really much of a justification for any of the CT. I mean, fraternities are all-male organizations and Freemasonry is not the only one, and I don't see CT about the Elks, Rotary, or all the countless college fraternities (except Skull & Bones).
But your statement shows you know otherwise, so I'm a bit confused.
Again, that's a similar statement I hear from LDS members ("fastest growing church" is the usual LDS statement).
The difference is I have no reason to lie and the data is freely available to confirm my statement, whereas in the LDS the data is hidden by the church and there is a significant incentive to lie and make members believe otherwise. Also, this is a fraternity and the LDS is a religion. If freemasonry were to have 100% declines per year in membership I would be saddened but it would not majorly change anything in my life, if that happens in the LDS you will have lots of people questioning their very spiritual existence.
Regardless, while in the last year or so lodges may have seen booms in membership, not too long ago I also recall several grand lodges in New York and California were engaging in outreach programs because of dwindling and aging membership
There is a difference between outreach programs to dispel myths and outreach programs to lure members. It is true that in some jurisdictions membership has been on the decline, which is a function of the declining nature of Americans to partake in social capital institutions (as Robert Putnam proved in his research). However, every jurisdiction that I know of that has had continual declines has over the past two or three years for the first time seen that decline rate shrink, and many are now slightly positive.
You guys should be very pleased with the National Treasure movies, huh? I'm sure CT-ers slather with confirmation bias watching them, but if reports were accurate a few years ago the movies renewed interest in the local lodges. That must burn the bums of the paranoid.
Actually most masons think that sort of media exposure is really bad. What it creates is legions of people seeking to find non-existent masonic secrets whom we must try to identify and weed out in the interview process, and some of those still get through and we end up with ring masons who get raised and never do anything else in masonry for the rest of their lives.
I'm sorry, I wasn't aware that non-masons were allowed into meetings now. When did that change? (p.s.-- my tongue is firmly in cheek. I understand the nonsense of the notion, I'm pointing out the things that the clinically paranoid grab onto reasons for affirming their hate-on for Masons.)
Indeed, you are quite good at this. Perhaps a anti-mason in another life?
No need to be defensive regarding me, LightinDarkness. I don't typically care about the Masons (in terms of negative associations or allegations made by the CT crowd). I considered joining a few times, but I lack a key criteria for membership (faith in some divine something) and I thought it disingenuous to be vague or noncommittal about it just to get in.
Depending on how you perceive "faith in something," its probably more accurate to say "belief in something," which may not require faith. We have had candidates who believed in a Supreme Being but did not have any particular faith that the Supreme Being interfered in human affairs or was otherwise involved in any part of life. So it may still fit you, although you probably won't find any value in the philosophy unless you at least agree that the Supreme Being does watch what you are doing and will judge accordingly.
By the way, I wasn't defensive. However, I just found your statement kind of general and was seeking explinations for them..which you provided. Thanks
Also, I would note a student of religion myself that the correlates you may see between LDS or any other religion are merely correlations that lack any real causation mechanism. Freemasonry is I think rather unique in its aims and methods, but I think the most closely related organizations that you could find meaningful correlations with would be things like Elks or Odd Fellows.
rather than a (v) next time- context counting for something and all...
