Freemasonry - secret, private, or something else?

In this thread scientist and I have been engaged in a discussion that is somewhat off topic from the OP regarding whether or not freemasonry is "secret." Since the conversation keeps continuing further off topic from the OP, I decided to start another thread.

I won't rehash what has already been said, but here are my additional thoughts about this:

Why does it matter?
One of the central charges against freemasonry used by its opponents revolves around it being a "secret society" - even though this is a label I have never seen a Freemason use. Secrecy implies that what masons do is completely unknown and therefore could be bad. In the above referenced thread, it has been argued that what is actually secret is the modes of recognition, handshakes, etc. - the things masons have obligated themselves not to speak of.

Of course, since all the information of the ritual including the handshakes, signs, etc. are available everywhere (internet, book store, library, etc.) I maintain that these items are not secret, but private. They are private because they are things masons discuss amongst themselves but not with non-masons, even if non-masons can easily find out about it. Masonry does not fit the dictionary definition of being secret. It much the same as personal information that you may not give out to anyone except those you trust, but is still something anyone in the public can find if they look hard enough (like your address).

Unanswered Questions
I have several times attempted to get those who claim that masonry is secret to explain exactly how it can be given that the rituals are available so easily and so many sources. I have yet to get an answer, and I don't expect to get one because in answering the question it would have to be acknowledged that it is indeed not secret.

Circular Reasoning
So far, it has been claimed that the reason why everything must be secret is because masons are not supposed to reveal what has already been published. As such, we can never know that what is published is true.

If we lived in a perfect world where everyone did what they said they would do, this reasoning would be valid. However, obviously with a membership organization as large and as diverse as masonry, it is ignorant to think that no one has ever revealed things they were not supposed to. Especially given the amazing consistency you find in "exposed" ritual texts across time, there are two possibilities:

(1) There is an elaborate, international, and timeless conspiracy by masons to publish fake rituals which they claim are real.
(2) Former masons publish the ritual out of spite, anger, or any other number of reasons.

Given the lack of evidence for (1), I think option (2) seems most probable. And as such - masonry is not secret. It has a few private matters - which you can find on google if you look hard enough.

Other opinions/thoughts?

I can see where Scientist is coming from, to be honest. I don't necassarily agree with him, but I see his point.
When it comes to Masonry, until I heard of it, I wasn't aware of it. And when it came to studying the Fraternity there is a more than fair bit of nonsense, near nonsense, semi-credible, and credible information available.
Basically, it's kind of hard to get a clear idea of what is real, and what isn't unless you actually join.
Now, personally, I don't regard that as secrecy. Secrecy is a intentionally kept secret. In this case, it's because of the sheer amount of AntiMasons, pseudo-Historians, and simple misunderstandings that have come up over time.
I don't really think privacy fits really either, though. I'm not sure of a exact term, though.

It's a old society, and one that has a lot of stories. Where you arrive to on your ideas of it, with the amount of murk around it, is pretty much up to you. Where you've done your research, and your own personal opinions and expieriences with it defines your view.

Also: In before Achillies.

Yeah, there's a fair amount of stuff that just isn't well documented. Secret? Private? Obscure? Dunno. I mean, even as a Mason, with my Grand Lodge's monitor and a cypher book for the other bits, there's still a lot of things that AREN'T written down. Sure, if I did searches on the internet, I might find a forum somewhere where someone is discussing them. But it wouldn't be easy or obvious.

I mean, just because there IS so much stuff out there, I think you'd agree that someone just reading Duncan's and trying to pass themselves off in a lodge meeting would fail miserably. Why? Because it's more than the diagrams of the gestures. It's more than the words.

reply to post by LowLevelMason


Maybe you missed the following from Duncan's preface:

It is due to the Order that its meetings should not be disturbed by the intrusion of persons who do not contribute to its support, or to the furtherance of its humane design, and whose motives in seeking admission to its halls would be impertinent and ungentlemanly. The clew to the Sanctum Sanctorum is, therefore, purposely withheld.

source (emphasis mine)

Would you mind enlightening us non-masons on what these clues are?

You can't. Because it's secret. That is, it's "kept from knowledge or view".

In the other thread you posted:

How good it is then that freemasonry does not pretend to be very secret. In fact, it holds no secrets - that is the fantasy of conspiracy theorists.

I have to wonder where you are going with this. Are you suggesting that conspiracy theorists are responsible for the claim that freemasonry has secrets?

Even the UGLE admits there are secrets"

Q What are the secrets of Freemasonry?

A The secrets in Freemasonry are the traditional modes of recognition which are not used indiscriminately, but solely as a test of membership, e.g. when visiting a Lodge where you are not known.

www.ugle.org.uk...

The fraternity is private, yes - but it does have secrets. That seem to be what you were debating with Scientist in the other thread. For some reason you are claiming that these secrets are not secrets, they are simply "private".

[edit on 18/9/08 by ConspiracyNut23]

Originally posted by ConspiracyNut23
Maybe you missed the following from Duncan's preface:

Maybe you missed that Duncan's ritual is not the only type of ritual available by the channels I mentioned? There have been sundry versions of exposed ritual, which I will not name for obvious reasons. However - I assumed if I could stumble upon them before I became a mason without trying, that others would as well. I'm not that much of a internet sleuth.

Originally posted by ConspiracyNut23
Would you mind enlightening us non-masons on what these clues are?
You can't. Because it's secret. That is, it's "kept from knowledge or view".

Incorrect. I can't because its private - that is, its available for you if you want to find it and I can't stop you from finding it - it has not been "kept from knowledge or view." I just promised I would not do such a thing.

Originally posted by ConspiracyNut23
Even the UGLE admits there are secrets"

The UGLE is not the gold standard of freemasonry, its fame comes from its historical significance and its recognition practices. Each grand lodge is independent. I could go through grand lodge websites and find a quote about it being private - but it doesn't add much to either side, as there is no universal grand lodge that speaks for all freemasonry.

Originally posted by ConspiracyNut23
For some reason you are claiming that these secrets are not secrets, they are simply "private".

That would be because these things are not secrets. Perhaps you'd care to answer my question about how these things are secret give that they are online, in book stores, and in the library? Can you give an example of anything else you consider secret which is so freely available from so many channels? Of course not - because its not secret. In fact, I just bought the entire Scottish Rite ritual from the Scottish Rite - they didn't check to make sure I was a member even though I am. I tell you what, that's some secret ritual!

Originally posted by JoshNorton
I mean, just because there IS so much stuff out there, I think you'd agree that someone just reading Duncan's and trying to pass themselves off in a lodge meeting would fail miserably. Why? Because it's more than the diagrams of the gestures. It's more than the words.

I would agree with you on that. As I stated in the other thread, about the only thing that can be construed as a secret is the experience of being initiated into regular freemasonry. The ritual itself, all the signs, grips, and passwords are not secret because they are all available everywhere - they are private because masons have obligated themselves not to talk about them even though they are easily available. But the experience itself is what gives you the knowledge - and probably more importantly in today's world, the membership card - to be able to demonstrate your a real member of the fraternity.

However, someone could still fake if they really wanted to. I have no idea why someone would, but I also don't know why people have bothered to "expose the ritual." If someone spent enough time and did enough sleuthing around to create their own membership card (they aren't that hard to copy), they could pass themselves off as a mason. But if someone wanted to do all that, they'd be better off just joining - they'd spend much less energy.

Having worked for a British province of Freemasons for some years, I can say without question that it merely an opportunity for a group of men to have a booze up and a meal. Of course having so many people of different professions then who's to say favours are not passed, but as for the darker side its pure codswallop (trash) for our US friends.

reply to post by LowLevelMason


Fair enough. Mason secrets are no longer secret.

The passphrases can be especially difficult to find. One version was on freemasonrywatch for a while, and a mason slipped up here a few years ago and gave them up. (much to the distress of other masons on the board at the time)

However, you should not claim that conspiracy theorists are responsible for the claim that masons have secrets when the UGLE also makes the claim.

As Scientist pointed out in the other thread, this is much a matter of semantics. The lines between private and secret can be blurry at times. How many people must know a secret before it becomes private?

Would you say the P2 Lodge was secretive or private?



[edit on 18/9/08 by ConspiracyNut23]

Originally posted by ConspiracyNut23
reply to post by LowLevelMason

 

Fair enough. Mason secrets are no longer secret.

At the risk of offending someone, this is somewhat disingenuous.

I'll give you an example -- the 10-15 minute Lectures following the Degrees.

These are never written, but memorized, mouth-to-ear (speaking to my own experience, of course). I suppose they might be included in some ciphers, but to the non-initiate it would be gobbledygook anyway. You have to have heard the work to be able to make sense of the cipher -- that's the beauty of it.

The lectures are the meat and potatoes of the ritual, because the lectures are what EXPLAINS what the hell just happened to you and what it represents.

I tire of this "You have secrets!" -- "No we don't!" crap. Sorry.

My question is -- SO WHAT IF WE DO?!?! I loathe the sense of entitlement people have with regard to this kind of stuff. I DON'T CARE IF YOU FEEL SLIGHTED BECAUSE YOU DON'T KNOW MY FRATERNITY'S "SECRETS!!!"

Get over yourselves.

Yes, Virginia, there ARE things that are meant to be known/heard ONLY by Masons. Secret, private... we're talking semantics.

Axe out.

Originally posted by The Axeman
I'll give you an example -- the 10-15 minute Lectures following the Degrees.

Actually, these are available too. People have gotten hold of it from the cipher and posted it online, or you can purchase the cipher off ebay and google how to decode it. I know because I found it before petitioning...then thought better of it and didn't look at it (so much better when you hear it, anyways). Its not as easily available as the other parts because it doesnt have the "secrets" that everyone wants.

Originally posted by The Axeman
You have to have heard the work to be able to make sense of the cipher -- that's the beauty of it.

So they read the ritual text first, then the lecture. Not as much fun though.

Originally posted by The Axeman
My question is -- SO WHAT IF WE DO?!?! I loathe the sense of entitlement people have with regard to this kind of stuff. I DON'T CARE IF YOU FEEL SLIGHTED BECAUSE YOU DON'T KNOW MY FRATERNITY'S "SECRETS!!!"

I agree that it should not matter. A fraternity should be able to have secrets. But when so much hay is made over non-existing secrets that anyone can find, I find its easier to point out that its not a secret at all.

There is a difference between secret and private. I wish it were a secret.

Secret - only masons know the ritual (or anything else) and have access to it.
Private - anyone can know the ritual and everything else, but masons do not discuss it with anyone outside the fraternity.

Originally posted by LowLevelMason
Actually, these are available too. People have gotten hold of it from the cipher and posted it online, or you can purchase the cipher off ebay and google how to decode it. I know because I found it before petitioning...then thought better of it and didn't look at it (so much better when you hear it, anyways). Its not as easily available as the other parts because it doesnt have the "secrets" that everyone wants.

My point is that it's meant to be secret, not private.

I agree that it's better if you don't try to spoil it by reading the ritual before initiation.

So they read the ritual text first, then the lecture. Not as much fun though.

What a pain in the arse that would be!

And besides that, there is plenty that is non-monitoral and isn't supposed to be written anywhere. Refer to the EA obligation... I'd love to post it here to make my point but I can't because (shhhh!) it's a secret.

I agree that it should not matter. A fraternity should be able to have secrets. But when so much hay is made over non-existing secrets that anyone can find, I find its easier to point out that its not a secret at all.

But it is meant to be, and historically (that is, before the advent of the internet), it mostly has been.

There is a difference between secret and private. I wish it were a secret.

Secret - only masons know the ritual (or anything else) and have access to it.
Private - anyone can know the ritual and everything else, but masons do not discuss it with anyone outside the fraternity.

The only difference between "secret" and "private" in this context is that the "secret" got out... now it's referred to as "private" by some Masons and Masonic apologists, and still referred to as "secret" by those who are not affiliated (by and large, anyway) -- regardless of whether or not it can be found online.

The ritual doesn't say the "private things of Freemasonry" are never to be revealed -- it says "The SECRETS of Freemasonry" are never to be revealed. (paraphrasing)

Look, I am a Mason, so I'm not trying to hammer you here... I just think it's silly, this whole "secret" vs. "private" argument. It's all about political correctness and the associations some people make to some words. "Secret" seems to have taken on a negative connotation, therefore some Masons defer to the term "private." I believe I've fallen into that same trap in the past. I'm so over political correctness, however, so I'll say it: It's meant to be a secret, therefore, it's a friggin' secret! Call a spade a spade! Just because some a-hole spilled the beans doesn't mean it's not meant to be secret, and doesn't release you from your obligation to keep it secret.

I'm tired of pandering to whiney individuals who feel like I owe them something because I am privy to things that they are not.

I put in my work to learn those "secrets" and while they are altogether unspectacular, they are secrets nonetheless. At least that's how I see it.

se•cre•cy

–noun, plural -cies for 2, 3.
1. the state or condition of being secret, hidden, or concealed: a meeting held in secrecy.
2. privacy; retirement; seclusion.
3. ability to keep a secret.
4. the habit or characteristic of being secretive; reticence.

pri•va•cy

–noun, plural -cies.
1. the state of being private; retirement or seclusion.
2. the state of being free from intrusion or disturbance in one's private life or affairs: the right to privacy.
3. secrecy.
4. Archaic. a private place.


No offense, Brother, but like I said: Semantics.

reply to post by The Axeman


I feel as though we are exploring two different questions.

The question I am talking about is - "Is freemasonry secret?" The answer, in my opinion, is resounding NO. There is absolutely nothing that you can't find online, in a book store, or in a library. The parts that we especially are supposed to keep secret - grips and signs, etc. - are perhaps the easiest of all to find.

The question you are talking about is - "Is freemasonry meant to be secret?" The answer, in your opinion, is yes. I agree. Freemasonry was intended to have secrets. However, intentions are not reality. Freemasonry may have meant to and intended to keep its secrets, but it did not. Freemasonry has no secrets currently. Is that bad? I think so. I'd prefer if the fraternity could keep its own secrets, no matter how plain they may be. But regardless of my preference, its not happening.

Semantics are important because, as you have pointed out, people have decided to assume secret = bad and used that assumption to reason with themselves that freemasonry is bad. It is not so, and its wrong to make such links, but ultimately such wrong presumptions are irrelevant because freemasonry as it turns out is not secret (regardless of intentions). We need not argue over incorrect presumptions about what secrecy means if we can simply point out that freemasonry is not secret.

Freemasonry is not private only because the secrets are out. It is private because the institution does not particularly care if they are out. The secrets have been out for some time and have not changed, because the emphasis is not on the "secrets" themselves but the fidelity that comes with Freemasons not sharing them. It is, again, much like someone's address. Your address is out in the public - anyone can find it and that doesn't bother that many people - but they still choose to only give their address out to those they trust or do business with (implicit trust). This is what makes it private.

[edit on 18-9-2008 by LowLevelMason]

Originally posted by LowLevelMason
Semantics are important because, as you have pointed out, people have decided to assume secret = bad and used that assumption to reason with themselves that freemasonry is bad.

IMO, what you are presently doing is much worse for masonic PR. You take objection to "Secret" because of its bad connotations but the definitions posted clearly show that the terms are synonymous.

You are starting to sound like the Bilderbergers and Trilats who seem to think it of great importance that their meetings are not "secret", that they are "private".

Not really a bunch you'd like to be associate it with.




[edit on 18/9/08 by ConspiracyNut23]

Originally posted by ConspiracyNut23
IMO, what you are presently doing is much worse for masonic PR. You take objection to "Secret" because of its bad connotations but the definitions posted clearly show that the terms are synonymous.

I'm not here to do masonic PR. I speak for no one but myself - no mason speaks for freemasonry. I am sorry that you do not like the facts (the facts being that secrecy and privacy are different), but they are what they are. I cannot help it that people have chosen to connect secrecy with "bad." But I do know when it comes to masonry the argument is moot, because masonry is not secret.

The concept of mootness is pretty common when it comes to talking about these sorts of things. Opponents of masonry can slam their heads against the wall decrying secrecy all they like, but the point remains that masonry is not secret by definition, and therefore they have no argument on that point. If masonry's opponents would like to argue the privacy is bad, I will wait until they all post their name, address, and credit card numbers (since those items - like the items in discussion here - are private).

Originally posted by ConspiracyNut23
You are starting to sound like the Bilderbergers and Trilats who seem to think it of great importance that their meetings are not "secret", that they are "private".

You are free to be paranoid, but using reason is not the sole provision of the bilderbergers. You let me know once the Bilderberger's minutes are posted like you will find the minutes of every masonic lodge in the archives of your library or university.


[edit on 18-9-2008 by LowLevelMason]

Originally posted by LowLevelMason
but the point remains that masonry is not secret by definition, and therefore they have no argument on that point.

You keep saying that, but look at the definitions posted by Axeman above. You choose one definition, and as everyone except you can see and read, the terms are synonymous.

Anyway, is there anything conspiratorial you wish to discuss? Or are you going to continue your semantic charade?

You ignore my question about conspiracy theorists above where you write that they are the ones claiming that masons have secrets. - that it's their fantasy. It's becoming quite apparent that you are a minority in this belief.

Originally posted by ConspiracyNut23
You keep saying that, but look at the definitions posted by Axeman above. You choose one definition, and as everyone except you can see and read, the terms are synonymous.

You are quite incorrect, yet again:

Secrecy: the condition of being hidden or concealed
Privacy: the quality or state of being apart from company or observation

Note that things which are private are not hidden or concealed - they are just kept apart from what you observe. That does not mean you cannot find them, because they are not truly hidden. Surprise, surprise, that would exactly fit the so called "secrets" of freemasonry.

If you wish to believe they are synonymous that is up to you, they are clearly not. There are lots of words that appear to be synonymous at first glance, and yet are not upon consideration. There are minute but extremely important differences between the two. There is a reason why we have two different words instead of one. That would be because they are different.

I am not answering your question because you have failed to answer mine. Once you tell me how is freemasonry secret when its rituals are available online, in book stores, or in libraries and give me an example of something you consider secret that is so available by every avenue, I will answer yours. Of course you will not, because in doing so you would have to admit it isn't secret.

Originally posted by ConspiracyNut23
Anyway, is there anything conspiratorial you wish to discuss? Or are you going to continue your semantic charade?

Since when did you get to decide what constituted a conspiracy? Lets see - people characterizing freemasonry as secret in order to decry it when in fact it no longer fits that definition? Or is that not conspiratorial enough for you? I am sorry you are not pleased. In the future, I will ensure I check with you on all my posts to make sure the type of conspiracy I am looking at fits a level that you approve of. Forgive me.

By the way, if I don't respond to you anymore its because your ignored, I am beginning to see its not worth trying to converse with you when you display such an attitude.

[edit on 18-9-2008 by LowLevelMason]

reply to post by LowLevelMason


I have to agree with Axeman's perspective. Perhaps you are right - that Masonry doesn't have secrets anymore (which I still disagree with), but not because they aren't supposed to be secrets, but because they have been exposed. If the intent was to be secret, and people still make the effort despite being compromised via youtube - then I still consider it a secret (albeit an exposed secret).

Try to think of it like this: You have a real secret. Let's say you were born a hermaphrodite and don't want anyone to know. You've kept it secret for 20 years, but one day you are exposed somehow. Now here are your options:

a) deal with it, and accept that your secret is no longer secret
b) move, so now everyone is a stranger, and your secret is secret again.
This is to illustrate the subjective nature of a secret.

Now a question for you:

If a single person knows something that nobody else knows, and he keeps it hidden - is that a secret?

Lets say he shares the information with one other person. is it still a secret? What is the exact threshold in which it goes from secret to private?

What if someone exposes a secret, but then tacks on false info on top of it. Is that still exposing a secret? I would say that it's just another form of keeping it a secret - by mixing fact with fiction.

I believe that if you want to argue the subjective nature of secrets, I will be able to firmly hold my ground on that debate. It's already quite obvious that the secrecy of Masonry is subjective, depending on who you talk to, what their motives are, and what they believe the motives of masonry (or secrecy) to be.

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
I can say without question that it merely an opportunity for a group of men to have a booze up and a meal.

I can say without question, that you are making a very broad and ignorant assumption. Are you now claiming that all masons drink? Also, perhaps you've never eaten a meal at a Masonic lodge before. I'll go ahead and make an assumption of my own, that the food is not the primary reason for people to join.

reply to post by LowLevelMason

Originally posted by LowLevelMason
I feel as though we are exploring two different questions.

I'm not sure that we are.

The question I am talking about is - "Is freemasonry secret?" The answer, in my opinion, is resounding NO. There is absolutely nothing that you can't find online, in a book store, or in a library. The parts that we especially are supposed to keep secret - grips and signs, etc. - are perhaps the easiest of all to find.

Of course the answer to your question is "no." Now - picture yourself as a card-carrying Freemason in Nazi Germany circa WWII and ask yourself again: Is Freemasonry secret?

The question you are talking about is - "Is freemasonry meant to be secret?" The answer, in your opinion, is yes. I agree. Freemasonry was intended to have secrets. However, intentions are not reality. Freemasonry may have meant to and intended to keep its secrets, but it did not. Freemasonry has no secrets currently. Is that bad? I think so. I'd prefer if the fraternity could keep its own secrets, no matter how plain they may be. But regardless of my preference, its not happening.

Let me put it to you this way. A lot of the people I know are aware that I am a Freemason. None of them has ever seen any expose or read anything about Masonry, and quite frankly, probably never will. Why would they?!

My point is, if my buddy asks me, "hey, show me your secret handshake," it doesn't matter if I say "that's secret" or "that's private." No difference. None. This is the context I'm talking about.

Which brings up another point: No one says "will you show me your private handshake?" -- might get more than you bargained for with some people.

On the other hand, a "secret handshake" -- despite its having been published in some obscure books or websites which probably less than 5% of the population has ever heard of, not to mention actually read -- is something that everyone can relate probably back to their childhood clubhouse.

"What's the secret password?" vs. "What's the private password?"

I could go on and on.

Semantics are important because, as you have pointed out, people have decided to assume secret = bad and used that assumption to reason with themselves that freemasonry is bad. It is not so, and its wrong to make such links, but ultimately such wrong presumptions are irrelevant because freemasonry as it turns out is not secret (regardless of intentions). We need not argue over incorrect presumptions about what secrecy means if we can simply point out that freemasonry is not secret.

Is Freemasonry itself secret? No, lots of people know about Freemasonry.

Does Freemasonry place a premium on secrecy? Yes, it is a requirement for admission, of course.

Does Freemasonry still have secrets? I reckon so. It is a veritable labyrinth of secrets that no one can put in a book or on a website.

Freemasonry is not private only because the secrets are out. It is private because the institution does not particularly care if they are out. The secrets have been out for some time and have not changed, because the emphasis is not on the "secrets" themselves but the fidelity that comes with Freemasons not sharing them.

Oh come on, you just contradicted yourself! Of course the institution cares that they are out, but what can you do? You can't magically erase all the exposes out there, no; but, if the institution itself didn't care, then they wouldn't be secrets! We wouldn't be obligated not to share them! The Fraternity would disseminate the grips and words themselves to everyone! Besides, I heartily disagree with the notion that Freemasonry is devoid of secrets.

I do agree that the point is as an excersise in fidelity but I think you're trying to kid yourself here.

It is, again, much like someone's address. Your address is out in the public - anyone can find it and that doesn't bother that many people - but they still choose to only give their address out to those they trust or do business with (implicit trust). This is what makes it private.

Yeah -- that's what makes your address private. Agreed.

Private is what you choose to reveal or not.

Secret is what you are obligated *not* to reveal.

There is a difference between the two, and in this context, the secrets of Freemasonry are indeed secret.

Is Freemasonry secret? No. Are many aspects of Freemasonry secret? Yes. That's what gets people so riled! I just have to laugh at them though... I think "if they only knew..."

When I went for my first degree, I was told that masonry was not a secret society, but a society with secrets. I have heard many people (masons) say the same thing. Our meetings and degrees have rich tradition in them that have been around for quite some time. We take obligations to keep the secrets of masonry. Think back to each obligation. The fact that someone couldn't keep the secret is of little consiquence to masonry as a whole. We still go on with the meetings and degrees, and we still require secrecy to be part of what we do, out of respect for the fraternity and our brothers before us. We will have the same degrees and meetings 200 years form now God willing. And require new members to keep the same "secrets".

In other threads I had heard anti masons say that we are brain washed. (this is off topic) I was thinking about that and to a point I aggree. Before I became a mason I didn't think about my actions as much as I do now. I didn't concern myself with getting upset and telling off a stupid person, but now I find myself at least taking a step back and trying to find another way to handle the situation. My thought process has been altered by masonry. I find myself trying to do better than I have in the past. It doesn't always work, but I try a little harder. Thats all I have to say about that.(forest gump)

Have a nice day.