# Historic time between degrees



## hanzosbm (Jun 19, 2015)

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?


----------



## LAMason (Jun 19, 2015)

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?



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?


----------



## hanzosbm (Jun 19, 2015)

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?



That is correct.


----------



## LAMason (Jun 19, 2015)

hanzosbm said:


> That is correct.



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.


----------



## hanzosbm (Jun 19, 2015)

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.


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.


----------



## Browncoat (Jun 19, 2015)

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.


----------



## hanzosbm (Jun 19, 2015)

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?


----------



## LAMason (Jun 19, 2015)

hanzosbm said:


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



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


----------



## LAMason (Jun 20, 2015)

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.



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?


----------



## Browncoat (Jun 20, 2015)

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?


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:

Here is a cool EA ceremony, full of symbols and allegory that you don't understand. Here, just memorize this so you can move on.
Here is a cool FC ceremony, full of even more symbols and allegory that you don't understand. Here, just memorize this so you can move on.
Here is a really intense MM ceremony. Congrats! Here's an apron so you can vote on paying the bills now.​
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.


----------



## LAMason (Jun 20, 2015)

Browncoat said:


> The general consensus



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$$".


----------



## Browncoat (Jun 20, 2015)

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."


----------



## pointwithinacircle2 (Jun 20, 2015)

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.


----------



## LAMason (Jun 20, 2015)

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.



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?



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.


----------



## Browncoat (Jun 20, 2015)

LAMason said:


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


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.


----------



## Glen Cook (Jun 20, 2015)

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


----------



## LAMason (Jun 20, 2015)

Browncoat said:


> AMA format


 
APA style is also acceptable. ;-)



Browncoat said:


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



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.



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".


----------



## hanzosbm (Jun 21, 2015)

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.



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?


----------



## NZ-Freemason (Jul 5, 2015)

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?


----------



## Andymac40330 (Jul 5, 2015)

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


----------



## hanzosbm (Jul 6, 2015)

NZ-Freemason said:


> 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?


I would say that it IS 'out of the ordinary' to do a one day conferral of all 3 degrees.  Does it happen?  Yes.  But I do not think it is an ordinary occurrence.


----------



## dfreybur (Jul 6, 2015)

In the US all the way in one day classes happen in some states not in others.  I think it is unusual enough to be remarked upon but not so unusual as to be considered a freak event.

Even when it is allowed sometimes it has not been done - In Illinois it is allowed for the GM to call such a class but it has been over a decade.  The last single candidate "make a Mason at sight" was conducted by the combined grand lines of two states on a grandson of MWPM Harry Truman.  In Illinois multiple times per year there are events that do the 2nd and 3rd together in the same day.  That oddness might be unique to Illinois.

For a while many incoming brothers wanted less work because they wanted to get to appendent bodies sooner.  In the new generation this trend has reversed.  They mostly want more value and thus more work.


----------



## NZ-Freemason (Jul 10, 2015)

Apologies if this is slightly off topic, but this past week I was present at the Raising of a brother and to my amazement, he was allowed to read the answers to the test questions. When I was passed and raised, showing your proficiency was a key part of the process, if you could not, then you weren't passed or raised. Have any other brethren seen anything like this before? 

I was visiting the lodge so I didn't object, but had it been my lodge I most certainly would have objected.


----------



## Ripcord22A (Jul 10, 2015)

Ive never seen it, but i have heard about it.  In Oregon we use a single letter cypher.  So if u can read it, but have trouble with memorization(maybe he has a learning disability) then there shouldnt really be an issue if it was discussed prior to his initiation.  During my investigation committee meeting i was asked if i have problems with memorization.


----------



## coachn (Dec 11, 2015)

hanzosbm said:


> 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.


Freemasonic Secrets are an allusion.  Masonic Secrets are Evasive.


hanzosbm said:


> In an operative setting, 7 years as an EA makes sense, but what about for speculative purposes?



They make even more sense.  How much time do you think it takes to do all that is required to bring a youth to manhood?  A month?  A day? 

I have this to say about it: _Ya can't sprout hair overnight!  And you can't cultivate Maturity going through a play or memorizing its script._



hanzosbm said:


> I haven't done an exhaustive search to see exactly when this requirement fell away,



It never existed!  Freemasonry's highest degree when it first was created was the 2nd Degree, and that was only given when someone wanted to run a lodge. It was called "The Master's part"; it could only be put on by the GL initially. 

The Master's part was put aside at that time and the original apprentice degree was split in two, thus forming two degrees, the current base for the EA and FC.  This allowed lodges, rather than the GL, to put on FC degrees so that members could sit in the East as a Master of the Lodge.

The Masters part was put aside only to be added later after the drama was added and available for deliver about 1725-ish; it was not required until years later.  Until the split occurred, you were a full member as an Apprentice.  No Apprenticeship term was required.



hanzosbm said:


> ...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.



Sure, they are mentioned, but keep in mind what I just shared.  Not required initially!



hanzosbm said:


> Clearly, we are well into the time of speculative Masonry here.



Yes, we are now post change(s) and we are told to call what we do, "speculative", but speculation is not what we do at all.  There is nothing we do as an organization that supports speculation. 



hanzosbm said:


> So, what was it about speculative Masonry in those days that required an EA 7 years to advance?



Which days?  Time frame please!



hanzosbm said:


> Was it purely to create an arbitrary hierarchy?



Based upon all evidence, it sounded good and it added to the realism of what was being acted out for the benefit of the paying patrons. 



hanzosbm said:


> Was it a blind following of tradition left over from the operative days?



Perhaps, but more likely, it was for effect more than anything else.



hanzosbm said:


> 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) ?



Not originally.  Remember, initially you were considered a full member if you were an Apprentice. 

Food for thought though: Learning a script and related choreography only perfects your skill as an actor and role-player.  It neither lays a suitable foundation for Building nor perfects your skill as a Speculative Builder.



hanzosbm said:


> And why do we not see a time requirement to go from FC to MM?



Well, if you go along with the premise laid out by Ritual, it takes a long time to both study and learn the seven liberal arts and sciences.  Have you done this?  How long did it take you?



hanzosbm said:


> 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?



Your last comments say it best.  And if you know what Freemasonry actually is, it all fits together quite nicely.  If you don't know, you're likely to get very frustrated making sense of what you are led to believe.


----------



## pointwithinacircle2 (Dec 11, 2015)

coachn said:


> How much time do you think it takes to do all that is required to bring a youth to manhood?  A month?  A day?


To the best of my knowledge Carl Gustav Jung was not a Freemason, but he is a rather well known as an authority on the human psyche.  He once stated that from a psychological point of view the period of a man's youth starts at puberty and continues until about 35 or 40.  I found this perspective to be illuminating.


----------



## coachn (Dec 11, 2015)

pointwithinacircle2 said:


> To the best of my knowledge Carl Gustav Jung was not a Freemason, but he is a rather well known as an authority on the human psyche.  He once stated that from a psychological point of view the period of a man's youth starts at puberty and continues until about 35 or 40.  *I found this perspective to be illuminating*.


And I see it as a validation of what I have seen in others, read about elsewhere and have experienced myself.


----------



## Glen Cook (Dec 11, 2015)

OTOH, Stephenson, _The First Freemasons, _indicates the two degrees in Scotland were conferred together.


----------



## Warrior1256 (Dec 11, 2015)

Andymac40330 said:


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


Same here in Kentucky...a minimum of 28 days between degrees.


----------



## coachn (Dec 11, 2015)

Glen Cook said:


> OTOH, Stephenson, _The First Freemasons, _indicates the two degrees in Scotland were conferred together.


Which required no waiting time whatsoever!


----------



## Warrior1256 (Dec 11, 2015)

NZ-Freemason said:


> When I was passed and raised, showing your proficiency was a key part of the process, if you could not, then you weren't passed or raised.


Same here in Kentucky although we do our proficiency prior to the night of going through the ritual.


----------



## hanzosbm (Dec 11, 2015)

coachn said:


> They make even more sense.  How much time do you think it takes to do all that is required to bring a youth to manhood?  A month?  A day?



If I remember correctly, and much to that young lady's dismay, it took me about a minute and a half.



coachn said:


> It never existed!  Freemasonry's highest degree when it first was created was the 2nd Degree, and that was only given when someone wanted to run a lodge. It was called "The Master's part"; it could only be put on by the GL initially.
> 
> The Master's part was put aside at that time and the original apprentice degree was split in two, thus forming two degrees, the current base for the EA and FC.  This allowed lodges, rather than the GL, to put on FC degrees so that members could sit in the East as a Master of the Lodge.
> 
> The Masters part was put aside only to be added later after the drama was added and available for deliver about 1725-ish; it was not required until years later.  Until the split occurred, you were a full member as an Apprentice.  No Apprenticeship term was required.



If I'm hearing you right, you're saying that there was only one degree initially plus the master of the lodge who received a different degree.  That is not what my research has found.  Rather, everything I've found indicated that there were apprentices and fellows (two different groups) and then there was the master.  Later, the MM degree was added.  Speculation is that the original EA degree was split into two and that the original FC degree became the MM degree.  The question of course is then what happened to the Master's Part?  Has that become the PM ritual?  Was it absorbed into the MM ritual?  We'll likely never know.



coachn said:


> Sure, they are mentioned, but keep in mind what I just shared.  Not required initially!


  The 7 year requirement goes back to the Regius Poem.  I'm unaware of any documentation going back earlier with which we could say that it was not 'initially' required.




coachn said:


> Which days?  Time frame please!


  Well, at least as late as 1728, maybe later. 





coachn said:


> Based upon all evidence, it sounded good and it added to the realism of what was being acted out for the benefit of the paying patrons.


  That's a pretty bold statement, do you have any evidence to substantiate that?



coachn said:


> Not originally.  Remember, initially you were considered a full member if you were an Apprentice.


Well, just as now, that's debatable.  "You're a full member, but you can't come to this portion of our meetings".  But, even that aside, okay, so was every single word of the apprentice degree learned mouth to ear?  I can't recall where, but I remember reading that even after the formation of the Grand Lodge that the substance of the degree was more important and that each lodge was permitted to do the degree however they saw fit provided it taught the lessons.



coachn said:


> Food for thought though: Learning a script and related choreography only perfects your skill as an actor and role-player.  It neither lays a suitable foundation for Building nor perfects your skill as a Speculative Builder.


I disagree.  Especially in times where secrecy was necessary.  Today, we have books, this forum, and countless other websites from which to study and ponder the various lessons.  When you only had your memory from which to pull, it would've been essential to memorize it.  How many times on this forum have we discussed intricate factors of the Craft coming down to a few words?  Not to mention, if one doesn't have it memorized, how are they supposed to pass it down?



coachn said:


> Well, if you go along with the premise laid out by Ritual, it takes a long time to both study and learn the seven liberal arts and sciences.  Have you done this?  How long did it take you?


Well, I was fortunate enough to have a background that covered most of them, but still, I am not done.  But, as you said, it takes a long time, so why is there no time requirement?


----------



## coachn (Dec 11, 2015)

hanzosbm said:


> > ↑They make even more sense. How much time do you think it takes to do all that is required to bring a youth to manhood? A month? A day?
> 
> 
> 
> If I remember correctly, and much to that young lady's dismay, it took me about a minute and a half.


LOL!



hanzosbm said:


> > ↑ It never existed! Freemasonry's highest degree when it first was created was the 2nd Degree, and that was only given when someone wanted to run a lodge. It was called "The Master's part"; it could only be put on by the GL initially.
> >
> > The Master's part was put aside at that time and the original apprentice degree was split in two, thus forming two degrees, the current base for the EA and FC. This allowed lodges, rather than the GL, to put on FC degrees so that members could sit in the East as a Master of the Lodge.
> >
> ...


Initially...

Apprentices = general member (received the original EA degree -- as in, not split at that time)
Fellows = The guys who run the lodge, as in the master's of the lodges (received the then FC degree - known as the Master's Part)

That Master's part was initially put aside and then reintegrated into the mix with the addition of the Drama.  It was not required though for many years but was eventually a required passage for all.



hanzosbm said:


> > ↑ Sure, they are mentioned, but keep in mind what I just shared. Not required initially!
> 
> 
> 
> The 7 year requirement goes back to the Regius Poem. I'm unaware of any documentation going back earlier with which we could say that it was not 'initially' required.


But you are assuming that the Stonecraft document requirements that were used to create the morality plays Freemasonry calls "Ritual" are the same as the requirements for Freemasons.  They are not.



hanzosbm said:


> > > hanzosbm said: ↑
> > > So, what was it about speculative Masonry in those days that required an EA 7 years to advance?
> >
> >
> ...


In the beginning days, ~1717, you were a full member when you Entered.  



hanzosbm said:


> > > hanzosbm said: ↑
> > > Was it purely to create an arbitrary hierarchy?
> >
> >
> ...


The answer is "yes". It's evident in our Work.  It's evident in our history. 



hanzosbm said:


> > ↑ Not originally. Remember, initially you were considered a full member if you were an Apprentice.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, just as now, that's debatable.



Debate away my Brother.  I'm going off of the word of a historian on these matters as they pertain to 1717 participation.  Things changed very rapidly soon there after.  They, the PGL guys, hadn't thought things out too well at first, nor did they expect to have as much interest as they did.


> "You're a full member, but you can't come to this portion of our meetings". But, even that aside, okay, so was every single word of the apprentice degree learned mouth to ear?


Mote point.  Full membership was full membership.


hanzosbm said:


> > ↑ Food for thought though: Learning a script and related choreography only perfects your skill as an actor and role-player. It neither lays a suitable foundation for Building nor perfects your skill as a Speculative Builder.
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree. Especially in times where secrecy was necessary. Today, we have books, this forum, and countless other websites from which to study and ponder the various lessons. When you only had your memory from which to pull, it would've been essential to memorize it. How many times on this forum have we discussed intricate factors of the Craft coming down to a few words? Not to mention, if one doesn't have it memorized, how are they supposed to pass it down?


You assume the people coming into those halls in 1717 were coming to learn to speculate.  They were not.  They came to eat, drink, sing, and talk.  Entertainment was part of that.  


hanzosbm said:


> > > And why do we not see a time requirement to go from FC to MM?
> >
> >
> > ↑ Well, if you go along with the premise laid out by Ritual, it takes a long time to both study and learn the seven liberal arts and sciences. Have you done this? How long did it take you?
> ...


Because these are Morality plays and what they spell out as educational requirements to progress are not supported by the organization that puts them on.


----------



## hanzosbm (Dec 11, 2015)

You're making a lot of statements as fact and then saying 'it's evident'.  No, it's not.  You're always one to ask people for their references.  I know you have this theory about it all being theatre, and that's great.  Theories are a wonderful starting point, but eventually you've gotta back them up.



coachn said:


> But you are assuming that the Stonecraft document requirements that were used to create the morality plays Freemasonry calls "Ritual" are the same as the requirements for Freemasons.  They are not.


Yes, they most certainly were.  I have already laid this out that it was a requirement at least as late as 1728.




coachn said:


> Debate away my Brother.  I'm going off of the word of a historian on these matters as they pertain to 1717 participation.  Things changed very rapidly soon there after.  They, the PGL guys, hadn't thought things out too well at first, nor did they expect to have as much interest as they did...
> 
> Mote point.  Full membership was full membership.



My debate has less to do with historical standing and more to do with ongoing semantics.  Can you really be considered a 'full member' if you are excluded from certain aspects?  "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others".



coachn said:


> You assume the people coming into those halls in 1717 were coming to learn to speculate.  They were not.  They came to eat, drink, sing, and talk.  Entertainment was part of that.


Reference?


----------



## coachn (Dec 11, 2015)

hanzosbm said:


> You're making a lot of statements as fact and then saying 'it's evident'.  No, it's not.


Perhaps to you.  To me and quite a few others it remains evident.  You do not have to see it for it to be evident to others.  That is a fact.


hanzosbm said:


> You're always one to ask people for their references.  I know you have this theory about it all being theatre, and that's great.  Theories are a wonderful starting point, but eventually you've gotta back them up.


The references and arguments have been clearly document and published and are available.


hanzosbm said:


> Yes, they most certainly were.  I have already laid this out that it was a requirement at least as late as 1728.


Good.  Then you already know that Stonecraft and Freemasonic requirements were not the same.



hanzosbm said:


> My debate has less to do with historical standing and more to do with ongoing semantics.


Thanks for that clarification.


hanzosbm said:


> Can you really be considered a 'full member' if you are excluded from certain aspects?


At that time, full members were not excluded from certain aspects.  However, if you wanted to run the show, as in be the head of the theater , you needed to be a Fellow.  Obviously, this changed very quickly soon thereafter.



hanzosbm said:


> Reference?


Just read Anderson's Constitutions my Brother.  It was entertainment which included how that entertainment was to be acted out.  That's but one of many.


----------



## hanzosbm (Dec 11, 2015)

coachn said:


> Perhaps to you.  To me and quite a few others it remains evident.  You do not have to see it for it to be evident to others.  That is a fact.


So, because you and "quite a few others" believe it, you don't need any references.  Got it.



coachn said:


> The references and arguments have been clearly document and published and are available.


Great!  Where?



coachn said:


> Good.  Then you already know that Stonecraft and Freemasonic requirements were not the same.


In terms of years needing to serve as an apprentice, they absolutely were the same, as I have referenced.  



coachn said:


> Just read Anderson's Constitutions my Brother.  It was entertainment which included how that entertainment was to be acted out.  That's but one of many.


I have read Anderson's Constitutions.  Have you?  There is absolutely nothing in it about entertainment.  In fact, there's nothing in it about any rituals whatsoever. 

I'm open to new ideas and I'm happy to consider any possible viewpoints, provided that there is some basis for them.  However, when I repeatedly ask you for references and the only one you give has nothing to do with the topic, it gets difficult to take it seriously.


----------



## coachn (Dec 11, 2015)

hanzosbm said:


> So, because you and "quite a few others" believe it, you don't need any references.  Got it.


Actually, I didn't say we "believe it".  I said we see the evidence; and you don't.  I hope you got this distinction.



hanzosbm said:


> Great!  Where?



The links to what you desire are hidden in plan sight.  There's not much more I can do for you beyond this.  It's your rabbit hunt.  I got mine.



hanzosbm said:


> In terms of years needing to serve as an apprentice, they absolutely were the same, as I have referenced.



If you honestly believe that the seven years needed to mature a youth to manhood, requiring him to learn Stonecraft and grow into manhood are the same as the seven years to take a chronological adult and make him wait around memorizing and performing scripts and choreography, then there's not much to discuss.  

You look at the number 7 and see 7.  I see the number 7 and see what is behind the 7 year requirement.  As for me, I see a huge difference in what those seven years require of the two and what each span of time represents.  If you see no differences, then what I point out to you won't help you. 



hanzosbm said:


> I have read Anderson's Constitutions.  Have you?



Why, yes.  A few times in fact.  It's quite entertaining for sure, and humorous at points, if you look for it.  Not to mention how it tells how the organization needs to be set up to operate, what to say and do when and such.



hanzosbm said:


> There is absolutely nothing in it about entertainment.



I see that you absolutely do not see that it _was_ in itself entertainment and how that entertainment was to be acted out.  Okay.  I understand you don't see it that way.  I see it differently.



hanzosbm said:


> In fact, there's nothing in it about any rituals whatsoever.



I don't know why you bring up Ritual (perhaps you thought that this might be the entertainment to which I have been referring).  But since you have, when it instructs the members on page 47 to read the charge "during the making of new brethren", that has nothing to do with our ritual?  Yours is an interesting way of looking at it...

The fact is, the booklet was a how to manual to set up a role-playing society based upon lore borrowed from Stonecraft guilds and "corrected" and adjusted to suit the needs of the role-playing society.  I find that it's quite masterful in its playfulness and it accomplished in grand fashion what it set out to do: _Capture the hearts and minds of moral men who wanted more, gave them an outlet to do just that and has done so for near 300 years._



hanzosbm said:


> I'm open to new ideas and I'm happy to consider any possible viewpoints, provided that there is some basis for them.



Good.  I hope that continues.



hanzosbm said:


> However, when I repeatedly ask you for references and the only one you give has nothing to do with the topic, it gets difficult to take it seriously.



If you cannot see it, no matter what I offer you , it shall be dismissed.

Time to move on.


----------



## cemab4y (Dec 11, 2015)

I am enjoying reading the points here. As far as "one-day classes" or ODC's as they are called here; it is true that some states permit the conferral of the Craft degrees in one day. Also, some states permit lodge to confer the degrees on an accelerated schedule for extraordinary circumstances (like a soldier deploying overseas).

In my home state of Kentucky, degree work was done "around the clock" during WW2.


----------



## Warrior1256 (Dec 11, 2015)

cemab4y said:


> I am enjoying reading the points here. As far as "one-day classes" or ODC's as they are called here; it is true that some states permit the conferral of the Craft degrees in one day. Also, some states permit lodge to confer the degrees on an accelerated schedule for extraordinary circumstances (like a soldier deploying overseas).
> 
> In my home state of Kentucky, degree work was done "around the clock" during WW2.


Are one day classes still allowed here in Kentucky?


----------



## Glen Cook (Dec 11, 2015)

coachn said:


> Which required no waiting time whatsoever!


More of a second act than a separate play


----------



## The Traveling Man (Mar 14, 2016)

Although in my Jurisdiction only requires 1 month between degrees, my former Jurisdiction required 3 months from petition to Initiation, 5 months from EA to FC and 7 months from FC to MM. In my opinion there should be a longer period between the degrees. An EA should be silent, his only duty being to listen and learn. While you may be able to learn a few exam questions in a month, you can't learn the entirety of that degree 1 month. Now you're pushed into the 2nd, having not fully mastered the previous degree. We're filling chairs, but, especially if the Lodge does not do LoI or have an Education Officer, it creates a Lodge of poorly educated Brothers. In my former Jurisdiction I stayed in the NE for a few years (by choice). In old times a boy in his youth would be an Apprentice for 7 years. I don't feel that 7 years is necessary in Speculative Masonry, but I think one should not be advanced to the next degree until he has 
1.) Mastered that degree.
2.) Witnessed the degree being conferred upon someone.
3.) Assisted in conferring the degree on someone.

Not sure if a specific amount of time should be required, but I'd say somewhere between 3 to 6 months per degree would be most beneficial.


----------

