Is Freemasonry a Secret Society?

I am continuing my journey into Dan Brown's The Lost Symbol. Despite my earlier protestation it has one thing going for it - it is easier to read than "Business Information Systems" by Bocij, Greasley and Hickie. This is for a course I am teaching this semester.



Anyway, that aside, I am up to Chapter 6 and am pleasantly surprised. Okay, a few innaccuracies first:

p.26 the word "brotherhood" - only those outside Freemasonry refer to it as a brotherhood. This word is rarely heard within the craft as we think and refer it as a "fraternity"
p.26 Baphomet - this does not exist in Masonic ritual. It does not even get a mention in Waite's Encyclopaedia of Freemasonry. To be fair the context does not perpetuate this particular myth.

Now:

p.30 - Freemasonry is not a secret society but a society with secrets. Hurray! We've been saying that for thirty years. A distinction, though, that seems to go straight over the heads of those outside the Craft. I like the way he used the recipe for Coco-cola as a metaphor. Every organisation has aspects of its internal workings that it prefers to keep private.
p.30 - Freemasonry is not a religion. Hurray! There is no theology in Freemasonry and is open to men who believe in a deity. In his lecture Langdon refers to this as "refreshingly open minded."
p.30 Discussion of religion are not permitted in a Lodge. Hurray! [Missed out politics, but never mind].
p.31 The absence of politics would have been useful when talking about the non-inclusion of women. That is, of course the difference between the politics of gender (the assertion of women's rights) and the politics of sex (the competition for a partner). As is pointed out, there are exclusively female organisation and indeed mixed gender organisations (e.g. Le Droit Humane) that are masonic in character.
p.32 "We fear what we do not understand". I liked the way he used Christian ritual as a metaphor and would add that what is normative is culturally biased to appear logical (after Grint in Fuzzy Logic). Therefore what we have not experienced is illogical.

This might not be so bad after all... but let's wait and see. I only wish he could have referred to the "tripod" on p.28 as a Lewis. After all, we are talking about a professor of semiotics here. Or is that asking too much?

Dan Brown's The Lost Symbol

Yesterday I received my copy of The Lost Symbol.

I think the Times Online has perhaps got the right angle on this. Dan Brown is about to do to Freemasonry what he did for the Catholic Church. I read a couple of chapters last night, and as with all craftaphobic literature it dishes out the same level of misrepresentation.

For example:
p.3 How can you be dressed as a master if you're an initiate?
p.4 altar - we do not have an altar of any description. We have pedestals for the WM, SW & JWs.
p.4 The Supreme Worshipful Master - no such title. In fact it sounds like something out of Dr. Who.
p.5 drinking wine from a skull - I think the use of human remains is illegal in the UK. Certainly it is not part of the ceremony of initiation. At least I can't find it in my ritual book anyway. I should know, I'm taking the chair for Past Master's night in October.
p.11 thirty-third degree - although numerically superior this is a side degree called Rose Croix (a.k.a Scottish Rite in the States). All side degrees (Chapter, Mark, Marriners, Knights Templar) are subservient to Craft Masonry. Hierarchy is through via the WM, Provincial Officer and Grand Lodge Officer. In the UK the highest mason is the Grand Master, HRH Duke of Kent, not the head Rose Croix.

Thus far it seems to mix up two different degrees and a side degree. Not bad for p.12 but I think Martin Short did better for inaccuracies.

Spotting the errors in this book is going to be fun!